carrigman: "For anyone simply looking for the best image quality from a compact, the RX100 II is the answer." You can stop reading after that. IQ is what it's all about and the RX100 (versions 1 and 11) delivers that in spades. I have the original RX100 and I am constantly amazed at the quality it delivers.
Except that it feels like you're taking photos with a bar of soap. Sony needs to work on the ergonomics aspect of the camera.
steelski: What a bunch of phooey. The D7100 beats the K-3 how exactly....ergonomics, no,IQ, noprice, noLV, nomovie mode, nospeed, NO!!!buffer, noAF, debatable....AF in the dark, Nomenus, no!in body sensor shift, NoGPS stat tracking, noMetering, noViewfinder, noMagnesium body, noshutter actuations reliability, nodampening, noUSB3,noflash sync, yesbattery life yes, flash system yesNikon badge yes!!!!! I think your assessment is total bias. to put it mildly. thanks for putting in time and effort.
Sorry but IMO the D7100 has better image quality. Yes I know I'm traitor...but I have to call it as I see it. You are more than welcome to disagree with me.
Paul Guba: Because we all know photography is about buying stuff. Thanks DPR for reminding us.
Some folks might find this information helpful. I'm not sure what's so bad about providing an analysis of what's on the marketplace these days.
You could of course split hairs between models but the overarching theme here is that everybody makes good stuff in this class of camera these days.
vapentaxuser: Technical image quality from these cameras are impressive and certainly on par if not slightly better than their full frame competitors, based on what I have seen so far. But still I find myself not overly impressed with the images from this camera. I think it has to do with the color reproduction and the way it handles skin tones. I realize that is a bit of a subjective observation, but I still think the big two have a bit of an edge in that regard.
I really don't care if you don't believe what I say, honestly. But yes it is time to change my username because I got away from Pentax some time ago. I'll spare you the details of why for another time.
@HelloToe That is a fair point. But when I shoot with a Canon, I get more desirable colors right out of the gate and don't feel like I have to do much tinkering with the RAW files to get them to where I like it. But like I mentioned, that may just be me being biased. Some folks may like the Sony colors better.
Technical image quality from these cameras are impressive and certainly on par if not slightly better than their full frame competitors, based on what I have seen so far. But still I find myself not overly impressed with the images from this camera. I think it has to do with the color reproduction and the way it handles skin tones. I realize that is a bit of a subjective observation, but I still think the big two have a bit of an edge in that regard.
Pentax Forums did a review of this camera and in the midst of all the praise they gave it, they noted it was noisier than the K-5 series and was heavy handed with the noise reduction in the higher ISO JPEGS.
I suppose you could argue that only a fraction of people would notice both of these things but at the same time, the camera is marketed towards semi-pro photographers and as whole they tend to be more discerning about image quality.
IF what they said is true, it might make a case for buying the K-5 IIs instead and putting the extra money you save towards a nice lens.
Allen Yang: It would be interesting to compare the samples of K-3 with that of Nikon D5300 in the aspect of image quality.Wait and see!
My money is on the D5300. Ironic I say that because of my username and I don't like to bash Pentax but..I think what Nikon has been able to do so far with the 24MP sensor that they use is pretty remarkable.
Superb image quality even with the middle of the road 18-135 WR lens. If I had one minor gripe about the images, it's that the color saturation is a bit much in some scenes. But you can always adjust the image parameters to your liking in the camera settings.
joexu: prepare to be disappointed
..at first glance. But it will fit like an old pair of shoes once you shoot with it.
King Penguin: Nice camera but sadly crippled by the small sensor.....I'll wait for the FF version from someone else.....
@Shamael I don't think M4/3rd sensors are garbage. I was using sarcasm to get the same point across as you are.
@Shamael I was being sarcastic.
I disagree with your original comment but I take back what I said about "mediocre photography skills". I get irritated at how people just dismiss excellent cameras flat out because the sensor is something less than a full-frame. But at the same time I did nothing to elevate the discourse regarding this topic by taking a cheap shot at you regarding your skills as a photographer. So, my sincere apologies. I will try to keep it more civil the next time.
@mister_roboto You know, you're right. What was I thinking? Micro 4/3rds sensors are garbage. There's absolutely no way or how that you can get a nice picture in any circumstances out of any camera that has one. The OP is right, you can only take great photos if you have a FF camera in your hand. Who is behind the camera taking the shot matters little.
Even though you lose a little at wide angle and telephoto, this seems like a better option for the money than the older DA* 16-50.
What's the matter? Is a Micro 4/3rds camera not big enough of a crutch to make up for your mediocre photography skills?
It's hard to judge sharpness because I am using a lousy monitor. The color reproduction is very nice though.
Will Gerrits: In 2013 when everything electronic is minimizing , compare cellphones in 2005 and now, in the department handling there should be more focus on size. In that aspect this Canon is big, very big. Moreover if you consider the enthusiast photographer is not carrying just a single (zoom)lens but a few lenses : the size and the weight you have to carry around for a longer time is a problem that's not taking into account in this review. Please DPReview addept your reviewing aspects to 2013 -2020 standards and don't stay in the low 2000's
To be fair...one of the editors (forgive me if I forget who it was), posted an article back in August or September basically saying that they no longer lug around their DSLR because there are so many compelling compact alternatives.
But outside of your assessment of the level of awareness of the editors, I agree with what you're saying. A lot of people (including me) aren't interested in lugging around a big camera like the 70D anymore. If I go for a dayhike, I would rather take a G15/G16 or a Rebel SL1.
JimBob0: Is anyone here a real photographer? You know, someone who actually takes good photographs? Or does everyone just argue about minor specification details that no one will ever see or notice in a photograph?
I'm beginning to worry that too many commentators can only take a good photograph if they have the very best camera to do it rather than actually having the skill or talent to take a good photo in the first place.
Too many dull nerds here.
I don't think there's been camera announcement within the past year where someone hasn't gone into the comments section and declared the camera "junk" or "trash". Especially the smaller sensored ones.
But at the same time, people are right to level criticism towards camera companies for charging significantly more money for cameras that are only minor refreshes over their predecessors (this is especially true in the enthusiast compact segment right now). Camera companies are shooting themselves in the foot by getting greedy in a buyer's market.