Frank_BR: A video teaser to announce a no video camera?
OK, I got it is "pure photography"…
I would never buy a car that can't shoot video. This is the reason why I walk the 10 km to work every day, all year round.
Donnie G: My guess is that this camera will be a bare bones, entry level, full framer that will replace the APS-C D300 series in the Nikon lineup. Having some type of hybrid ovf/evf switchable viewfinder and support for full compatibility with all of Nikon's legacy dslr glass along with completely analog controls will be the camera's defining feature set. I'm also guessing that this camera will be priced at around USD $1800, just like the D300 series was. To me, that would be the move that would make the most sense within the Nikon marketing scheme. :)
Somehow, I don't think Nikon will be positioning (and pricing) this camera as an entry-level model, but rather as a premium high-end model, even if the feature set is "bare bones".And it's clearly not intended to fill the same niche as the D300. For example, it won't satisfy the many wildlife shooters who want a pro-grade, responsive crop camera. The "philosophy" behind this camera seems to be very different.
NCB: Wonder who actually makes it. Could be Nikon of course. But this is the sort of camera which Cosina used to make for other camera companies. Nothing wrong with that, they were pretty well built, to the specs of the camera company in question. And Cosina is still going strong. Could make sense for Nikon to farm it out. But they might not do that for public image reasons.
Not all sensors used by Nikon are made by Sony. D5200/5300/7100 have a Toshiba sensor, Nikon 1 have Aptina sensors, and several sensors, including the D4 sensor rumoured to be used in the DF, are designed in-house by Nikon and manufactured by Renesas.
Bjorn_L: Strange that DPR seems at odds with DXOs measurements. For example DR. DXO says it is poor, you say it is good. Are you or are you not partnered with DXO?
DXO's results say this sensor is about the same as the rather ancient 50d.
Canon Canon Canon 70d 60d 50doverall 68 66 63Color bit 22.5 22.2 21.8DR evs 11.6 11.5 11.4ISO 926 813 696
This is 0.7 bits more color detail, 0.2 Evs more DR and less then 1/3rd stop better in ISO.
Lagging well behind every current offering from Sony, Pentax and Nikon. Even the smaller sensor Olympus OM-D E-M1 and Panasonic GH3 best it in every category except ISO (where the Canon has a 1/7th to 1/5th stop advantage, which is fairly trivial compared to the difference between the 70d and its "same sized sensor" peers.
I am impressed by many details about the 70d and by the camera as a whole, but some of your comments are baffling.
DxO analyzes unconverted (undemosaiced) raw files, to get around the processing of any specific software, and get as close to the hardware performance as possible, whereas DPR analyzes converted images, both out-of-camera JPEGs and raws converted to JPEG in ACR. Looking at raw values or looking at final images, they are two different approaches, not necessarily directly comparable.
Yanko Kitanov: $700 for 1/1.7 sensor in a strange body weighting about half a kilogram/1lb with one of the slowest equiv. aperture on the market??
How many long zoom cameras with a faster than F/2.8 lens do you know of? And how many with a constant max aperture of F/2.8? FZ200, RX10 and the Stylus 1 are the only ones I can think of, so one of the slowest on the market is just not true.
CeleryBeats: Let me tell you this;
This camera is 5 times more exciting then the Sony A7 and A7R together.
Because it expresses PERFECTION.
What a sexy camera this is!
You could easily avoid the "flat-ish" images by tweaking your raw files to taste with your choice of raw converter, rather than using the default settings in ACR, which is what DPR is doing.
The gold award reflects the reviewer's subjective opinion (which is what the awards are supposed to do), no more, no less.When the E-P5 review was published, DPR was accused of having been paid by Canon and/or Nikon to sabotage the review by mentioning a problem that supposedly didn't exist. And now suddenly DPR and Olympus are partners in crime.
Why not learn to accept that a reviewer's opinion may not conform with your own, rather than inventing conspiracy theories?
KariIceland: Thank you Olympus very much for just stabbing the E-M5 users in the back when you said back in 2012 "this is our highest range and will be the top in our range of mirrorless cameras, and low and behold then you bring the E-M1.
I am leaving Olympus after years of dedication since the E-PL2 and going back to my roots the company I started with.You don't even know if you want the lenses and cameras to be silver or black. you release a silver lens and say "we will never make this model in black" then you bring a black model ask for twice the price & then you lower it effing the customers who already bought it.
If there are two things olympus are good at, it's making good primes & effing it's customers over and over.
They were referring to the OM-D range, not specifically the E-M5 model. OM-D is still their highest range, sitting above the PEN range. They said from the start, that they would make a more "professional" OM-D model, and possibly also a more beginner-friendly model than the E-M5.
Anyway, I don't see in what way you've been stabbed in the back. The E-M1 takes nothing away from the E-M5 being an excellent camera. The only thing you lost is the bragging rights of having the top-of-the-line model. But what serious photographer cares about that?
steelhead3: You didn't think this was important in the original review, please don't let Amazon dictate another favorable review.
@ShamaelAbout justifying the price of the D4, it has much better build quality, a better shutter, more processing power, more advanced metering and AF systems etc. But you don't just pay for the materials, but also for pro-grade reliability (tighter manufacturing tolerances, better quality control). Also, since high-end cameras aren't produced in nearly as large volumes as consumer cameras, R&D costs are spread out over fewer units, which also raises the price.Btw, the A99 isn't comparable to the D4, but rather to the D800.
pellicle: err:"but enters the market with only one lens designed to fit it without tipping over. "
what about the 14mm or the 20mm or even the Oly 17mm all are shorter than this zoom...
perhaps you should re think this and review your review...
All other m4/3 lenses have a larger diameter, which means that you can't place the camera on a flat surface without it "tipping over". The length is irrelevant, it's about the diameter.
PhotoKhan: From the test I get the impression that the camera does not allow for separate AF adjustments for OVF Focus and Dual Pixel AF.
If this is true, it is a serious limitation.
The AF adjustment only affect AF during use of the OVF, when focus isn't measured from the plane of image capture.
leschnyhan: This would be a great lens for a D7100. Most zoom lenses don't resolve enough detail to really exploit the potential of the 24MP sensor. I don't own a D7100, but I owned a Sony NEX-7 (until it was stolen from me), which has the same or very similar sensor. Sigma should also make this lens available for the Pentax K-3, which likewise shares a Sony 24MP sensor.
The cooperation between Sony and Toshiba was about using each other's production facilities, IIRC. I don't think they cooperate on sensor design. Chipworks has shown that there are significant differences between the Sony and Toshiba 24 Mp sensors.
Average User: I think it is unlikely that the new shutter mechanism has anything to do with the oil issue. The oil isn't used in the camera; it isn't manufactured by the camera, so it has to have dripped into a bunch of the cameras in the production process from an assembly machine. The fixes are: find and fix the drip: clean the cameras that can be cleaned, and replace the ones that can't be cleaned. Has nothing to do with the underlying quality of the camera, or with improving the shutter mechanism, or this upgrade.
Actually, the lubricant is used in the camera to reduce friction. It's just that they were too generous with the substance.
Alberto6674: Why do you think that the sensor is possibly the same one as in the Nikon D7100 (manufactured by Toshiba) and not the same one as in the Nikon D3200 (made by Sony)?
It would be strange that Pentax also switched provider. I guess that until we know more, the safe bet is that this is the same 24MP sensor used in the Nikon 3200, Sony NEX-7, Sony Alpha 77,...
Nikon doesn't use the Sony 24 Mp sensor from NEX-7/A65/A77 at all. According to Chipworks, the sensor in D3200 is Nikon-designed and manufactured by Renesas, while D5200 and D7100 use the Toshiba sensor.
fPrime: OMG... Did Dpreview actually admit here that the D600 has a sensor oil/dust issue? And all it took was a incremental model number change by Nikon! Imagine if Nikon had released a D810 as well... Dpreview might have also had the guts to finally acknowledge the Left AF focusing defect instead of hiding their heads in the sand for a year.
DPR mentioned the oil issue in the D600 review.
mpgxsvcd: I think it is funny how most Pro’s scoff at m4/3s for its not fast enough AF and its overpriced lenses. I will put the 25mm F1.4 Leica lens on the GH3 up against this any day. That combo is about $1400 now. With the extra money left over I could probably get the 35-100mm F2.8, 42.5mm F1.2, and the 12mm F2.0.
This lens is simply for people who want to have something that no one else wants to buy.
I think there is a lot less involvement from Leica than you suggest. On the global Panasonic Lumix site, there's a footnote informing us that "the LEICA DG lenses and LEICA D lenses are manufactured using measurement instruments and quality assurance systems that have been certified by Leica Camera AG based on the company's quality standards."
In other words, the lenses could be designed and manufactured by anyone. As long as they're made using Leica-certified instruments and QA systems, then they may bear the Leica name.
groucher: I'm not sure why DPR have used ACR for the RAW comparisons - NX2 is a better RAW processor for Nikon cameras.
They use ACR at default settings for all cameras. It's part of their work flow.
CaptchaFool: i've forgotten one point. Thanks to dpreview for doing an awesome job investigating new cameras. I never read abuot EP5 problems in the press until yet!
DPR noticed this in the course of examining their pictures as part of their normal, very thorough review process, and then decided to investigate further, just like they've done with other unexpected findings, such as the Fuji X10 "white orbs".
There's no reason for them to back-check other models, since they surely would have noticed the problem during the review process, had it been present.
Stupidco: Your report states 'mounting a camera on a tripod significantly counteracts shake'. It would follow that nothing within the camera causes shake. The shake must result from the interaction between the operator and the user. It might arise from the use of the camera without a viewfinder: holding the camera at arms length in tourist fashion. It might arise from personal bodily tremors beyond parameters recognized by the camera. It might arise from attempts to defeat the stabilization function. It might arise from inappropriate camera settings. Maybe the technology is underdeveloped. Maybe camera manufacturers are trying too hard, or promising too much. Or maybe some camera users don't really like photography.
Why didn't they sabotage the E-M5 review then? The IQ is the same as the E-P5.And they do not post reviews of Canikon cameras mere days after launch. You're confusing previews and first impressions pieces with reviews. Other manufacturers also get previews after announcement.
dejongj: I don't get this...I've had my EP5 since early July here in the United Kingdom. Shot several thousand photos since then, and never seen this double image DPReview is talking about...Very odd...
Andy Westlake wrote in a comment that they tested multiple units, all having the same problem.
Erik Magnuson: DPR: "In a way, this isn't entirely the camera's fault ..."
What an odd statement. Does this mean it's the user's fault? Or that perhaps it's an "act of God"?
DPR: "... it's not some kind of mechanical malfunction that actively causes blurring"
Continuing oddity: Does this mean DPR thinks the blurring is from "passive" causes? Or that it's working as designed and so not a malfunction?
It's certainly the camera's fault and it's certainly a design flaw. It may be either significant or insignificant depending on workarounds and type of shooting. Some additional shots showing what the visible difference is when using the rear LCD or a tripod would have been more useful than these odd statements which appear intended more to palliate brand zealots than refine the issue.
As you say, it's a design flaw, which is not the same as malfunction, which is a manufacture flaw. A design flaw is ultimately the designer's fault, which is probably what DPR meant by saying that it's not entirely the camera's fault.