northwizard: First Panasonic removing the GPS module of it's travelzoom compact, now Nikon! Why?
I think the most likely explanation for removing the GPS is cost cutting. Keeping the GPS while adding the touchscreen would likely make the manufacturing cost higher than for the previous model, so Nikon chose to not include it. Manufacturers have always been adding and removing features like that, so it's nothing new.
(unknown member): Why it has no GPS? Didn't D5300 have GPS?
They added a touchscreen, and therefore had to remove something else in order to keep the same manufacturing cost as the previous model. That's my guess, anyway.
ttran88: Just a quick observation of some GOLD awarded cameras in 2014:
Sony A7R-- 82%. GOLDFujifilm XT-1 84% GOLDOlympus E-M10 80% GOLDPentax K-3 83% GOLDPanasonic GH4 84% GOLDNikon D750 90% GOLD
Canon where are you???
NWT, your criticism misses the mark completely. The scores and the awards are two independent things. DPR has clearly explained that they have no relation to each other. If they were supposed to be intrinsically related, then you would have a case, but they are not.
Also, the four cameras you mentioned above are in different categories, so the scores can't be directly compared.
Btw, would you be able to consistently apply an objective standard to all cameras across all categories and across all levels from entry-level to professional? Try it, it's not as easy as one would think.
James Bligh: I cannot find a word about internal reflection and shutter shock issues of D750 in this review. Please point me to it if I missed it. When dpreview never even mentions (not to say evaluate) the issues, you can no longer say dpreview review is a comprehensive review which I think is a shame. Once renowned for its objective reviews and a comprehensive source of information about camera gears I am afraid dpreview has fallen into the realm of mediocrity many review sites share. The present generation of dpreview staffs may have wasted their talent and ruined the reputation of dpreview. Phil Askey will lament over it seeing the prestige he has built up tainted.
@NWTThere are three things you need to keep in mind when it comes to DPR's scores and awards:1. Scores are only comparable within the same category of camera.2. Scores are relative to other cameras available on the market at the time of the review.3. There is no intrinsic relation between the score and the award, because they are based on different kinds of evaluation. The score is meant to be as objective as possible, and is based on a sum of many component scores, all having different weights.The award is just a subjective opinion on the part of the reviewers, taking into account aspects of user experience that aren't easily quantified in a score.
joyclick: Why Nikon does not address the poor buffer issues across their entire line up?
Maybe they only think that's necessary in a dedicated action/sports DSLR? Too bad that they don't make one, except for the expensive D4S.
Peter Evans: I don't understand the weird mix of entry level and semi-professional features in the D750. I see the logic of dropping the 1/8000 shutter speed at this price point but fail to see the reason for Scene Modes. Does the purchaser of a camera of this quality really want 'Food' and 'Blossom' modes?
And if someone is really attracted by such a comprehensive metering and autofocus system, wouldn't they be the sort of photographer who would appreciate a dedicated AF-ON button? (The AE-L/AF-L button is really too far to the left to be a naturally comfortable substitute for a dedicated AF-ON)
I honestly think Nikon has fallen between two stools with this model and reduced the potential market for the camera as a result.
Oh, and just for the record, I've used Nikon SLRs for a long time. I find the ergonomics and menu systems very intuitive - far moreso than other manufacturers' cameras I've handled (and, as a photography holiday host and teacher, I handle a lot).
Just my 2 euro cents
A "weird" mix of features usually is the result, when a manufacturer decides to make a model that will slot into the price gap between two existing models in the line-up.Nikon was probably afraid to lose potential customers, who think that the D610 is too basic and the D810 too advanced (or too expensive).
helltormentor: @ Barney Britton
Is that true that the X-TRANS sensor becomes ISOless from 400 on? (By ISOless, I mean there is no noise penalty if we increase exposure in post rather than increasing sensitivity in camera while shooting).
@helltormentorThat's not what Barney said at all. He said that she didn't have to worry about slight underexposure, since there's virtually no noise at the chosen setting of ISO 400.
nerd2: XT-1 is nice and all but I think it's still seriously overpriced. Should be similar to a6000 ($700-800 range at most) considering it only has 16MP APS sensor and lacks IBIS.
Comparing cameras with similar sensor size, I certainly would expect a very well-built, weather-sealed prosumer body to be more expensive than a mid-range, non-sealed body, which is what the A6000 is.If build quality and ruggedness isn't that important, then certainly the A6000 offers better value for money, considering its great IQ and AF performance.
tinternaut: Well, you only manage to miss out three manufacturers, and an entire mount.
I think entry-level is mainly defined by the feature set, controls and build quality rather than just the price point.
KKJohn: Just to make a point re the people likely to buy these cameras. I'm a retired photographer who used to have a Nikon system with several bodies and 50 lbs of lenses. After I retired I wanted something light, reasonably priced but with good quality. I started off with the Lumix LX3, then the Fuji X10. My friendly camera store had some good deals on the XA1 with both kit lenses (16-50 & 50-230). I also splurged on the 35/1.4 lens. With all 3 lenses the total came to less than what an XT1 body would cost. For the difference in quality and features, which IMHO is not sufficiently great, I couldn't be more pleased with the XA1.So the fact that you label these cameras for photography beginners and those who will upgrade to DSLRs is unkind to us old timers who are just the opposite, trying to down size from the monster DSLRs but still want quality and don't have to satisfy finicky customers, only our family and friends who have found the quality of my XA1 output to be just fine thank you.
In defence of DPR, marketing labels such as "entry-level", "consumer", "enthusiast" and "professional" weren't invented by them, but by the manufacturers themselves. These cameras really are marketed towards beginners, which of course doesn't mean that more advanced photographers can't use them too.
mpgxsvcd: It appears that there are two different links for this article.
This link from the homepage has almost no comments.
This one has many comments.
The first link is to the "pre-page" where you find the link to the article. The second link is to the actual article. They have separate comments threads.
ttran88: Why doesn't Canon use Sony's sensors, they can make a camera with best lens selection, best sensor, best feature set. Apple does it they buy processors and LCD from Samsung their biggest competitor. Customers come first Canon!!!
One thing to keep in mind with respect to DxO's dynamic range scores, is that they report engineering DR, rather than usable DR.
The difference between the brightest tone a camera can capture and the darkest tone that isn't swamped in noise, depends on what you mean by "swamped in noise". DxO defines it as the point where the signal-to-noise ratio becomes 1:1, but in practice most people would call an image unusable well before that point.So the actual usable DR is always lower than reported by DxO, and the difference between cameras in real life is not as pronounced as DxO's numbers would have you believe. Of course, in some situations there is a visible difference, as DPR shows in their exposure latitude test, but just quoting DxO's numbers without relating them to practical real-life use of the cameras, is very misleading.
radissimo: No sony FE 55/1.8= no vote
That lens was released in 2013, hence its omission from the list.
nandbytes: wow what happened to all the FE sony lenses? not to mention FE55, one of the sharpest lenses around!
The FE55 was released in 2013.
WillWeaverRVA: EDIT: Never mind. The acronym "ILC" is confusing, though, as it's typically taken to mean "interchangeable lens compact" (i.e. a mirrorless camera) and not what it's supposed to mean here: "interchangeable lens camera".
I find it confusing when people use "ILC" exclusively for mirrorless cameras, since an ILC can be either a DSLR or a mirrorless camera. The C in ILC has always meant "camera" to me, not "compact".
Roadrunnerdeluxe: If you like to take good photos you might want to look elsewhere, the sensor rating is a bit underwhelming according to DxO with a rating of 70 that comes with an equally underwhelming dynamic range. I wouldn't call that pro-level.
"If you like to take good photos you might want to look elsewhere, the sensor rating is a bit underwhelming according to DxO with a rating of 70 that comes with an equally underwhelming dynamic range. I wouldn't call that pro-level."
Only if your idea of a good photo is exclusively linked to noise levels and DR. Personally, I also look at the composition and subject of a photo, and I have seen some pretty spectacular photos taken with Canon cameras.
"Pro-level" when talking about cameras refers to the camera body (controls, ergonomics, build quality) and the performance (AF, metering, buffer etc.). Image quality is not the main difference between consumer and professional cameras. There are plenty of entry-level cameras with IQ good enough for professional use.
Tilted Plane: A pretty careful avoidance of Nikon (or Sony) comparisons, overall. Too bad. Head-to-head comparisons are really (!) helpful. Does this hold up next to a D750? Or even the D610? Or the similarly priced A7II? If so, when, where, under what shooting conditions?
Comparing the 7D2 to those FF cameras completely ignores the main target market for a professional crop sensor body: wildlife/sports shooters who see the crop factor as an advantage rather than a disadvantage. For general photography, the comparison makes sense, but not if you consider the use cases that the 7D2 is actually tailored for.
Allen Yang: Metering & focus accuracy is not as good as the old 7D. Interesting!
Yes, scores are relative to other cameras on the market at the time of the review, and it really couldn't be otherwise.
Just think about what it would entail to have an absolute scoring system, that wouldn't change over time. In order to score a camera, you would have to know how it would compare against any camera, not just any earlier camera, but any future camera as well! Otherwise, you would have to constantly go back and re-evaluate (basically downgrade) earlier cameras from the perspective of the present, to recalibrate the scoring system, so to speak. Or else have an open-ended scoring system, where newer cameras get higher and higher scores all the time.There are problems with both those approaches, so I guess the most reasonable approach is the one that DPR has chosen, namely to assess the camera market at the time of the review.
Tap0: Is the 7D Mark II really selling all that well... Let's take the US Amazon DLSR rankings as a reference ...I see 3 full frame cameras, the D810, 5D Mark 3 and the D750 ahead of it. Currently :
i) D810 -- #12ii) 5D Mark 3 -- # 13iii) D750 -- #16iv) 7D II -- #17
I don't think we will see a D400 in response to this. The D750 is Nikon's response to the 7D Mark 2.
No, it isn't. The D750 is basically a consumer body with respect to build quality and control layout, and it isn't an option for those wildlife and sports shooters, who prefer a crop sensor camera exactly because of the advantages the crop factor gives them.
When Nikon is trying to sell D300/s users an FX body instead of a pro-grade DX body, one gets the impression that they don't understand what many photographers are using the D300/s for.
Mirrorless Crusader: Canikon still doesn't get it - the future of digital photography is MIRRORLESS! Not ugly black clunky leviathans!
Also, most of those who are heavily invested in the legacy systems probably will want to continue using their lenses in the future. And many of those lenses just don't balance well with a smaller body.So even if Canon, Nikon, Pentax and Sony eventually will go mirrorless with their legacy systems, they most likely will still make the bodies in the same style as they do now, for reasons of ergonomics and handling.