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?
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.
steelhead3: I'm tired of floppy plastic lenses from Canon.
just buy L-lenses then. You don't have to buy the cheap lenses.
peterstuckings: Anyone who needs Image Stabilizer on a 16-35mm lens probably shouldn't be spending so much money on high quality lenses.
not all types of photo work have tripod use as an option.
RickC452: Your all missing out on the best camera out there in their in the mid price range. The Pentax K 50. Better than both the canon and the Nikon and cheaper. I switched because both canons and nikons are getting cheap in their builds. And the pentax can use any pentax lense ever made. I'm using a 135 mm f2.0 from the 80s with awsome results.
nice for you. But this is a Canon camera review. Both Nikon and Canon have larger range of cameras and going more to the high end than pentax does with their K-mount.
RickC452: The only thing the Pentax doesn't have is an external mic port. But no body in their right mind does pro video work with a DSLR anyway. And you can get it a wild assortment of colors. Check it out, use one and you will also dump canon and Nikon like I did.
many pros are actually making film with dslr.
RickC452: One more thing. The pentax has in camera stableization not in the lens like canon and Nikon. That's what makes it work so well with older lenses. Canon and Nikon don't want you using older lenses. They want you money.
non stabilized lenses can work nicely on Canon. A lens without IS is not useless. A non IS lens does not become invalid when a new IS lens in same range shows up.In some applications IS actually have no use.
hotdog321: Some have wondered why the new 16-35 is f/4 instead of f/2.8, even if they did include IS. I think that losing that extra stop may have been the tradeoff to create a truly sharp wide angle zoom in this range. I am eagerly waiting to compare this new version with version 1 and version 2 on DxO Mark.
Also, I wonder if putting IS on the 16-35 might point to putting IS on that marvelous 24-70 f/2.8L II in the near future?
rememer that canon also have a 24-70 F4 IS lens already.
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.
What part of the game is Canon missing? If you think about the lack of 30+ mega pixel cameras then you are right. They still does not have that, but they have very good camera lineup. And they also have a very good range of lenses.
MarshallG: I would love to see Canon do this with their 200mm f/2.8 L lens -- a compact, sharp lens that 200mm f/2.8 or 400mm f/5.6. That would be fantastic.
there is a 100-400 4.5-5.6 for the masses already. That would suit most people on a budget. and you have the 70-200 2.8 which you can turn into a 140-400 5.6 with a 2x teleconverter.
Dr Bhaskar Maitra: Very expensive. Out of bounds for 99% of photographers. Canon should reduce its price to realistic levels for increased sales. Only then, it can make a good profit margin. Very poor value for money.Waiting for a head-on comparison with others....
Reduce price? It is a very specialized and costly to develop lens. For the right people this lens is much value for the money. But you have to earn money from your shooting or have loads of money to buy this one.
focuscz: What basic problem with noise at EOS 70D is, that high ISOs changed white ballance strongly and every picture differently... http://www.canonklub.cz/clanky/canon-eos-70d-kompletni-test-sumu-180-fotografii?page=0,1
What WB mode did you use?
J Kerppi: This is what the majority of camera users always wanted. We did not buy the DSLRs on voluntary basis. We were forced to do so as compact cameras offered no high pic quality. Things are moving to the right direction. Cameras with very high pic quality and reasonable zoom can soon be carried in jacket or even shirt pocket. You don't anymore need a mule to carry your equipment when travelling.
Actually the pocket size APS cameras can cost even more than basic DSLRs. Price is not important when you get what you always wanted and get rid of something you never wanted. I will give my 3000USD Canon to my dog once a small quality device is available. My dog knows better how to carry useless obstacles around the yard. It may even enjoy this. I never did.
Many buys DSLRs and use only the kit-lens and for those kind of people the DSLR is a point and shoot camera. If you like to travel light, then these one in all cameras are the way to go. But you loose the ability to put on a macro lens, or a long tele lens, or a large aperture fixed lens. For those people , travelling with the kit-lens when you don't want the extra weight. And having the ability to take more advanced lenses on when that is wanted is a really large plus for the DSLR.
hdkhang: Regardless of the technicalities behind achieving the score, or the validity of such a score, or the relevance of the score to the general photography centric market that dpreview serves... the important thing to take away from this is that advances from video technology has the potential to improve still imagery. So all of those people who whine about camera companies using up their precious budget to add video capability should really think twice before adopting such a stubborn egocentric viewpoint. Much the same as how smartphone photography and all that onboard processing power has the potential to shape future standalone camera features. The improvements in video/processing etc. spill over into other areas and so far have yet to negatively impact still photography capability.
It might be able to help the long exposure scenarious. But not the action shot. Because video usually have quite long exposure of each frame.
But still, the DxO mark is not very consistent in the way it calculates the score since it compares a multi-exposure with a single exposure. I thought DxO mark was to compare sensors. Not software.