Wubslin: Great, a list of things not to consider buying.
great for you. But still many will consider them. Neither me will consider any of these. My next buy will most likely be a full frame Canon camera.
stern: DPR says in its introduction to this article: "What follows is our enthusiast-level DSLR roundup. The cameras included all sport APS-C sensors and pull some pro-level features from their more-established counterparts."Well, this might hold true for the big two, but certainly not for Pentax. The Pentax K3 is in no way artificially crippled like her Canikon-counterparts. The only major "pro-feature pulled" from the K3 are the extra pixels (54 Mio.) of the rather expensive medium-format 645. Anyone wonder why so-called "full frame" sensors are smaller than "medium format"? Canikon have NO offer beyond "full frame". Full stop.
But non the less, the Pentax is an enthusiast camera, not a pro camera in the sense the flagship models of Nikon, Canon and Sony are far beyond the Pentax camera. Medium format cameras are not for enthusiasts, but you will have to buy new lens system to use the medium format pentax. You can use a low end Canon, and upgrade to a pro later and use the same lenses. That is true that Canon and the others do not offer anything beyond small format cameras ( Full frame DSLR ). But as far as I know medium format is a very narrow marked, in which there are very few potential customers. Most pros are very happy with the 32 mm sensor or even the APS-C format sensor. Medium format is a niche that if you have a camera ther it is more for showoff then money into the company.
Yes, medium format is better than small format cameras for studio work. It is bulkier and you are much more restricted in the tele end. And it is far more expensive.
raztec: Here's a question that's always plagued me: Why does DPR not adjust the sizes of the studio samples to all be equal? I recognize that the size we see depends on the number of MPx that camera's sensor has, but for a fair comparison they should all be viewed at equal sizes. Surely that's easy enough to do without us having to download the samples and do it ourselves.
If you had equal sizes, someone had found some argument regarding that too. If they take image at same distance, at same focal length is the best when you compare two cameras regardless of different sensor resolution. The sizes will differ because of different resolution, but are comparing for real life situations. You don't go farther away if you have a higher resolution camera.
maxnimo: What we should be striving for is 240 fps video on true 240 fps monitors. The result would simply blow you away.
@maxnimo For sure we might see that movies and cinema will go into 60p or even 120p since it is still details to gain. And especially in scenes with lots of movement todays 24p is way too little to convey all the details. What the ultimate is, I don't know. Data have never been the ultimate solution, it is about the solution that is possible at a given time. There might be a future where all films are shot at 240fps and all cinemas support the same fps. But it is still a way to go. And if you at the same time goes to 4K or even 8K film, you talk about 160 times the required disk space for the same length of 1080 film at 24p. One TB of disk space could fill 26 minutes of movie at 8K resolution and 240 fps. Would I want to film that kind of film today? No. Because I don't have large and enough disks to accommodate so much film. In the future? Maybe. But really not relevant for me now.
@maxnimo I know that bandwitdh are getting broader. But our human eyes perceptional limits are the most important one when you choose the number of frames you send. There is no point sending five times more data to the eye than what can be percepted.
That is NOT the goal here. The goal is to take video that are played back in slow motion so the video are not bad when played off then.Human eye are not so very fast. Even at 24 fps that are used in cinematic films today are enough to make a film that looks fluid. To send ten times the ammount of data to the screen can make it better but at a cost of bandwidth.
Miguel Rodríguez: When is canon going back to the game? Gents I am a frustrated canon user... What happen with this guys just announcing boring orControversial or overlapping products? Many of my colleagues a switching to Nikon and I think I will eventually do it as well.
@BarnETYou makes it sound like Canon is bad. But it is not at all. In my eyes, Nikon and Canon are equally good for getting the shots. The pros use both brands. And Canon have a wider lens lineup than Nikon. It comes down to what you need. And there are not many needing 30+ mega pixels for sure. ( They might say that they need it, but it does not makes much difference ) And if you have a large collection of Nikon lenses, there is no point in switching to Canon. And vice versa if you have a large collection of Canon lenses.
peterstuckings: Anyone who needs Image Stabilizer on a 16-35mm lens probably shouldn't be spending so much money on high quality lenses.
@Paul Guba,Tripod use comes much down to subject matter. Tripod is sometimes impossible to use. Try take pictures of birds in flight with tripod.
Rawmeister: Whoopdy do. A 70D on steroids.I don't see how image quality will be better than that from a 70D.They could not come up with a 24 MP sensor for this?If your not a sports photographer, why not just keep your 70D or 7D and buy better glass instead. Geez - it's a no brainer.
They market the 18-135 with this sensor? What is the world coming too exactly?
The reason I did say "It is not about the quality of the photo" was because ALL DSLRs today without exception gives good enough images for the pro photographer. There are other aspects of the camera that makes one buy one camera or another.
white shadow: This is a great camera for those people who cannot afford the Canon 1DX or who like a lighter body.
Great for fashion shows, sports and wildlife photography.
Canon knows how to fine tune the 7D to be even better. There is no need to join the megapixel race. Those who want a flip screen can always buy the 70D. Those who prefer an EVF and even lighter camera can buy a mirrorless camera. Those who prefer what the 7D Mk2 can offer are happy that they have the camera they want.
I presume you are joking.
Entropius: I wonder how the AF compares to the system in the D7100, the closest thing Nikon makes? AF speed and accuracy, more than anything else, is the killer feature for the sort of action work that this thing is designed for.
The 7D II have same or upgraded AF from the 1D series, which is very good. If you have large set of Nikon system lenese I would not go for Canon just because of a camera. If you have yet to choose, then it is a matter of taste and what subject matter you do. For sports and wildlife, the 7D II is about the best that have been presented, ever. And at a very reasonable price.
Peiasdf: I wish Canon shrink it down to K-3 size.
Why? I find the size of a 1D series body very nice and I have not large hands. 7D is a bit smaller.
and I would buy the battery grip for the 7D making it even larger, but then the pinky is not falling below the edge of the camera making the holding of the camera much better.
I am saving up to a 5D III or the follow up camera though. I have only an old 1D mark III right now.
It is not about the quality of the photo. It is about better AF, better sealing, more frames per sec. So your chance of getting better photos are there, but quality wise, same exposure, same lens will yield same image.
Eric Hensel: I'm curious how many still need a dedicated delete button on-camera. I always do my deleting in post.
Much safer. If you press delete but your intention was something else, your photo is gone. If there is a dedicated button for it, you don't press it unless you really want to delete something. Good user interface design.
Anastigmat: How well this camera does in the market place pretty much determines where camera technology is heading. The future is either more pixels on the puny APS-C sensor or a move to FF. There is not much of a price gap between the Nikon D750 and the Canon 7DMKII and the maximum frame rate is not that much different. Image quality, OTOH, is very different. The larger sensor wins in most cases.
Actually they have different applications. For some type of photography when you are mostly limited in range ( mostly crop the image anyways ) then it is better using a APS-C sensor. If you are a casual photographer APS-C vs FF does not matter much. Larger sensor wins for all non range limited photgraphy when it comes to quality, but not when it comes to price. entry level FF options are more expensive than the entry level APS-C solutions.
SushiEater: Monkey did not post the photo, human did. How he obtained the photo is irrelevant because it was his camera after all. Wikimedia posted the photo knowing that it was copyrighted and yet posted it anyway.
If a photo is on my camera, then it does not automatically make it copyright to me. It depends on the situation that particular photo was taken under. it can be taken by a thief, a friend, a monkey, a dog.
meanwhile: If Slater is correct, does that mean I can loan my camera to another photographer, have him take some award-winning shots, and then rightfully claim them as my own because I own the camera?
That is why he have a very bad case. I believe he will loose the case versus wikipedia simply because he cannot claim that he controlled the shooting of those photos.
kerensky20: The photos only exist as a result of the photographer's intervention in nature, which would mean that the photo would not have existed if the photographer did not set out in the first place to document the monkeys.
I do support that the photographer reserves every right to the photos.
PS: Saying that the photo is the work of the monkey is as good as saying every winning lottery ticket's monies belong to the computer that rolls the numbers every draw. There is causation that resulted in the effect.
Well, if you go a trip with the camera and someone happens to not have a camera with them. Then they take your camera and take some snapshots with it. That does not make the photos taken by that other person automatically yours, even if the photos could not have been taken without you having your camera with you.
Gollan: Microsoft persuaded me to go with the yearly licensing plan for Office by offering compelling features - mobile Word and Excel, along with 5 installs and plenty of One Drive space for file syncing across machines. I'm not worried about Microsoft going out of business and leaving all my Word and Excel files as orphans. Similarly, I'm not worried about Adobe going out of business and holding all my NEF files hostage. Lots of programs read them - even my iPad 2 reads them. The main reason I haven't gone with Adobe CC for Photographers yet is that the mobile Lightroom feature just isn't there for my mobile needs; when I'm travelling and taking a lot of photos, I want keywording early in my workflow and mobile Lightroom doesn't have it.
If Adobe ever starts struggling in the photography software market, we will all have migrated away from Lightroom long before they go out of business.
The only thing that is sure is that the future is not given. Large companies have gone into the drain before, and will also do so in the future.
desaint: A lot off people saying there rare a lot of alternatives,i really like to know what the alternatives are,i mean a program where you can do the same thing as in PS,working in layers etc.
GIMP is a free editor, but is a bit limited compared to adobe PSBut it is quite advanced, and enough for many.