jcburke: Does the SL1 use the non-STM line of Canon APS-C lenses? I shoot with a 7D and have several very expensive Canon "L" USM lenses, and I'm not going to buy a Canon camera that requires I buy another set of glass.
The SL1 is compatible with an EF (which includes "L" lenses) and EF-S lenses.
Thus, unless you have some very old lenses (30+ years or more), the SL1 can use it.
Kelton Sweet: The 610 seems to add some striations (vertical stripes) on the wall and also on the back of that painting (sitting on the easel).
I'm looking at the original cropped area of the image... with the family admiring a painting.
I noticed that as well. Add the D800 and you see the same striations. There also seems to be a lot of color artifacts (moiré?) in the walls, so I suspect that the Nikons are resolving greater detail.
So are they artifacts, or is the D610 picking up additional detail.?
Michael Ma: Wow, Sony a 7R leapfrogs any Canon or Nikon. Canon really needs to step up. Their days of purposely making cameras with lesser technology than their flagship is over. They need to not hold back now to stay in the business.
I agree, 5DII samples are needed.
Based on other comparisons, I think that you might be pleasantly surprised at how well the 5DII compared to the current generation.
With the latest generation of cameras, we are really talking about marginal gains in low-light performance!
Koemans: Just compared the Raws of the camera's..
The 6D looks way too crystal clear compared to the DF and 610. Infact, the DF actually appears slightly out of focus or more 'fuzzy' if you take a closer look. It's a shame DPreview.. i mean, if you want us to look at lab results with our own eyes and judge for ourselves, atleast be sure the focus is correct, especially with camera's in this price range.
Are you looking at RAW or JPG? Canon's JPG engine is excellent. However, it shifts the balance more towards smoothness rather than detail retention.
If you look at the low-light, high-ISO samples, there isn't a whole lot of difference between the samples. The 6D has less chroma noise than the D610 (both trail the Df, but not by much). However, the D610 retains more detail.
I wouldn't buy any of these cameras based on their superior noise handling relative to the others. I'd be equally happy shooting high-ISO with any of them.
Peter62: Try this:
Go to "Studio Comparison (low light)" and select the SONY NEX-3N to compare with the Df, D610 and Alpha 7.
Select ISO 12800.
So, why buy a camera for 3000 bucks, when a € 300 camera comes THIS close!??
Done! But I kept the 6D instead of the Alpha 7. Oh! I also switched to RAW and low light.
The best was the Df followed closely by the 6D followed closely by the D610. Trailing--embarrassingly, but not really since it is only a € 300 camera--was the NEX-3N. Looking at the drawing of the 19th-Century group looking at a painting on an easel, the 3N lost much more detail to noise. The Df was the cleanest but it was hard to say whether it retained more detail than either of the other 2 ff cameras. The 6D was next, the D610, whist having marginally more noise than the 6D, might actually maintain marginally more detail. I might find output from any of the 3 ff cameras salvageable at these settings. But not from the NEX above ISO3200 (which is pretty good performance).
Truth in advertising: I own D610, 6D, and NEX-5N. I find all 3 cameras very useful for their capabilities and designated purposes. However, they are not all interchangeable.
munro harrap: F4? In our country from about now until next March it is often a60th at f2 @400 ISO outside, sometimes all day. To get the equivalent on an f4 lens requires 1600 and at 1600 the D800 has lost half its resolution and three-quarters of its acuity. The problem is that if you go to ,say, MPB Photographic you can see for yourselves just how many Canon 24-104 f4 are traded in and then, sadder, just how many 24-70mm Nikon f2.8 lenses are traded in because they are only sharp in the middle on full-frame due to massive field curvature-like the old Canon.The new 24-120mm Nikkor is f4 and not sharpand the new 24-85mm IS Nikkor- is frankly junk I bought two brand-new 24-70mm F2.8 nikkors and have also owned, but had to return after testing another FIVE 24-85mm Nikkors. Sigma know this and want to replace these poor optics but it is dreadfully difficult to design a 24mm zoom for full-frame- the mirror box !Once designed any lens costs peanuts to manufacture to current poor standards.Next?
I hear what you are saying and generally agree. It's for these reasons that I went ahead and purchased the Canon 24-70mm 2.8 II even though I had promised myself to invest in my D800E only. I'm still testing the Canon, but so far it looks promising.
I have the 24-85mm. I wouldn't call it junk, but I would acknowledge that it has issues. It is very sharp in the center resolving more detail than my Canon (not surprising since it does have a 14MP advantage!). However, it is just poor once one deviates significantly from the center.
The biggest advantage the Canon has--in addition to very consistent sharpness--is it has world-leading micro-contrast and color. Images really do "pop." My Sigma 35mm has these same characteristics. If the new 24-105 has these same characteristics, albeit with slower speed, then it will be a phenomenal buy, and Canon and Nikon will truly start quivering in fear.
Marty4650: I think a lot of folks are missing the point.
This review was NOT done at the expense of reviewing any other camera. It's not like this will create any delay in reviewing some DSLR you want to see reviewed.
The review was largely written by Jeff Kellar. Jeff has always been great at writing quick reviews of P&S cameras. He's got it down to a science. Dpreview has some sort of arrangement with Jeff where they take his basic review, transfer it into their own format and then publish it.
Everyone wins this way.
Dpreview gets to print reviews for cameras they would otherwise not be reviewing, the Dpreview members get to read these reviews, and hopefully... Jeff gets paid something. If Dpreview didn't do this this we would get fewer reviews of P&S cameras, and many of the members here have a strong interest in these cameras.
Jeff will not be writing the review for the Canon 6D. That will most likely be done by Amadou, Richard, Barnaby, Andy or Lars, or maybe a combination of them.
that's great news! I've been a fan of Jeff from back in the days when he ran websites devoted to Mac clones and camcorders. I think that his work provides a really nice complement to what you do here.
I wish you and Jeff an long and productive relationship.
Airless: So if you used this adapter with the Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6, that gives an effective focal length of 12-24mm, you could have an effective focal length of 8.5mm at f/3.2? If so that is incredible.
What am I missing? The release clearly stated that the adapter only works on FX (full-frame) lenses, not DX/APS-C lenses.
The camera with the adapter uses much more of the lens than it does without the adapter. There would be horrible vignetting with APS-C lenses, so the Sigma 8-16mm would only be useable, perhaps, at 15-16mm.
Bare: This is ideal kit lens for upcoming Nikon D600.
$600 is affordable in the FF world. Look at Canon and Nikon current offerings. Neither Co. offer more than a couple of FF zoom lens for under $1000 each. Off hand, I can think of the 70-300mm for both Co.'s and the Canon 17-40mm. There may be others, but most of the lens offerings are on the pro level.
For me, moving over from Canon, my kit consists predominantly of prime lenses. Sorry, but I neither want to pay $1500-$2000+ for a pro-zoom lens nor walk around with hulking monster that weighs over a kilo and won't fit in a compact pack.
A lens like this meets the definition of walk around for me. For critical shots, I still have a 50 or 85mm prime. However, when I'm on holiday, an inexpensive compact zoom like this one is perfect (assuming it has IQ comparable to the original).
Vladimir Jotov: I don't get where is the focus ...
on the eyes (where it suppose to be) the sharpness is 3-4px, on the teeths 3-4px, on the chair 4-5 px...
On the skin I don't see pore, just 4x4 darker spots
Everything is so blurry on 24M, maybe the photographer should shoot on 15M picture size since this the objective doesn't provide enough sharpness for higher resolution with hi ISO.
Why are you blaming the lens? The softness looks like noise reduction. Nikon and Canon have gotten pretty good at hiding noise in jpeg--this is jpeg, right?--in relatively unobtrusive ways. The noise reduction in the Canon 5DMIII is amazing. It's biggest flaw is its horrific rendering of reds at high ISO.
If this is jpeg, I withhold my judgment until I see high-ISO raw shots.