ozturert: I'll hold my comment until I see the DxO Mark point. I just have to see the god..mn number to feel comfortable. I know that it's way better than all Canons but if I can see the point with my own eyes, I'll come back and fire!DxO is just everything to me... wouldn't live without it...
As that appears to be the way many people here actually think, it's too believable that the worship of the DxO score actually happens. It sounds like sarcasm but it also sounds like the behavior of many commenters, which is to say both ludicrous and a reality.
Next war we hope will die away quickly: the zoom wars. Still, looks neat if not utterly useless.
maxnimo: I'd love to see a camera just like this, but with a 2 inch sensor.
You'd have to buy an SUV to haul it around.
prossi: Seems Canikon are not getting the fact that DSLR market is imploding and that there are way too many cameras plus all the old models that are still good enough and never really go away. Incremental updates like these are not going to cut it. And they are also not getting that the only people buying DSLR are people hanging out on this site. Who among the readers here has the time and inclination for cameras like nikon D3xxx D5xxx & canon rebel line? If you have $700 for a D5500 then you have $1800 for a 7DII. Sell 1ff, 1apsc, 1ff pro concept so stratospherically priced that nobody's going to buy - that's all you need. Make them really nice save the money on logistics and part farms.
And there are new customers they need to appeal to by making sure refinements are made in such a way and at such a pace as to not appear complacent. They absolutely CAN afford to release products that don't make happy users want to upgrade with each new model because they know a three year update cycle for consumer electronics allows their name to fall out of the headlines. Ever heard the saying "there's no such thing as bad press"? Having their name mentioned, cameras reviewed, minor improvements tempting people to avoid older/cheaper models or used items are all important public relations tools. They aren't trying to please the gearheads that want to be constantly excited. They want to attract customers that probably don't want to upgrade until their camera breaks. Most people keep cameras forever because using Auto mode with modern image quality is better than they could have ever dreamed.
Joseph Black: So, here's the list of things you're supposed to remember when you're out shooting:1) Basics like depth of field at various apertures and focal lengths.2) Lens aperture sweet spot for sharpness.3) Lens aperture for desired depth of field (at a given focal length and subject distance.....this should probably be three or four things to remember).4) Diffraction-limited aperture.5) When to use the native ISO and when to use ISO100 and push in post.6) Shutter speed at which you can hand-hold a shot including how effective your image stabilization is, also taking into consideration whether that shutter speed is useful for your intended effect (freeze motion or blur).7) If you switch cameras you have to remember whether ISO invariance applies or not, or at which points it does apply and where it does not if there is a range of invariance and a range of variance.8) How many stops you can push in post before the noise floor becomes an issue when trying to determine exposure...
That list could probably go on and on, and I'm sure there are people who will remember that stuff for their bodies and lenses. I'd imagine that the information used to obtain optimum noise considering the other twenty variables used when setting up a shot would be especially applicable in the studio or when you have all the time in the world to set up a shot. For the most part, this kind of information is purely academic and kind of a good idea to keep in mind.
So, here's the list of things you're supposed to remember when you're out shooting:1) Basics like depth of field at various apertures and focal lengths.2) Lens aperture sweet spot for sharpness.3) Lens aperture for desired depth of field (at a given focal length and subject distance.....this should probably be three or four things to remember).4) Diffraction-limited aperture.5) When to use the native ISO and when to use ISO100 and push in post.6) Shutter speed at which you can hand-hold a shot including how effective your image stabilization is, also taking into consideration whether that shutter speed is useful for your intended effect (freeze motion or blur).7) If you switch cameras you have to remember whether ISO invariance applies or not, or at which points it does apply and where it does not if there is a range of invariance and a range of variance.8) How many stops you can push in post before the noise floor becomes an issue when trying to determine exposure...
phoenix15: What a fantastic camera... Not !Sorry Nikon, you can't compete with Canon EOS 7D II. Even the 2 years old pentax K-3 beats you in many aspect. With that price tag, if I have money I will buy Olympus OMD 5 II.
CMOS was first described in the late 60's and developed in the 90's. Why are these camera companies using such ancient technology still? Jeez, invent something new every year to entertain me and give me a reason to think you're doing something.(please note: dripping with sarcasm)
virtualkyr: From a stills perspective - the D7200 is an awesome camera, and a likely good upgrade from my D90.
However, I believe Nikon has really missed a great opportunity to attract video shooters by not incorporating some 4K into this one. They really would have done something Canon hasn't done yet and provide a larger sensor alternative with better low light performance and DR than the Panasonic GH4.
Most people who own DSLR's don't shoot weddings. They don't shoot video at all. If they do shoot video, it's not something that is done often or with great expertise and creativity in mind. Think about people for a minute. Most people I know who own DSLRs can barely use it for stills correctly.
I think people vastly overestimate the number of people who want to shoot video with a DSLR. Chances are people are interested in one or the other, still or video. And until video on DSLR is as convenient and easy as a video camera it just won't be a big deal. A 4K camcorder fits in your palm, has a hand strap that keep the tiny package right in your hand at all times, and has greater focusing abilities. A DSLR would have to have full time DP PDAF and the ability to choose full sensor or crop modes to allow for either greater or narrower DoF.
Do you and the majority of others commenting here think that the pace of digital camera development can continue to match that of the first decade of this century? Also, most people buying a DSLR don't hang out here. They may visit to do some research, but they are more likely to read reviews on Amazon and call it a day.You're a fool to think that someone willing to spend $700 on a DSLR is equally willing to spend $1,800 on one. Every difference in price point makes a huge difference in who will be interested. Whether someone has the money for it or not, they have their priorities. Why do you think places like Amazon and Wal-Mart exist? It's because people will sell their soul to the devil to save a dime.You must think the world's population is several billion clones of yourself.
vadims: You know guys, to me, this is hypocrisy at it's worst.
People get hellbent over darkened photos or removed objects... But isn't "adding/removing" (or rather "selecting") objects what photographers do when they frame AND press shutter?
Let's take BBC coverage of elections in Russia. Every freaking year I see images on bbc.co.uk with an old woman, or soldier (conscript), or both, casting their votes. For an outside observer, it would seem like no-one else votes in Russia.
To go on and say "we maintain highest standards of image taking, that old woman and the soldier were not over-darkened blah blah blah" is such a joke...
So, my dear purists, you're so funny. And sad.
Purists? So the next logical step is to say if you don't take a full 360 degree image every time then you're actively TRYING to deceive? There are limitations and there are deceptions, but they are not the same thing. Justifying changing the content of an IMAGE (notice that is not an attempt to change the content of the original SCENE) by saying any image is inherently dishonest is invalidating everything based on the possibility of any image not being absolutely real. An image does not fully represent the whole of human perception. This is like saying all photographs are a lie because you can't smell the scene, touch the scene, and travel back in time to be present at the moment of capture.If you have removed or added anything digitally then the remainder of the image is suspect and the integrity of the image has been compromised. It may only be 1% compromised, but who gets to judge how important that trash on the ground was? You? Nope, this isn't a Photoshop contest.
Leo "Zoom": If they seek for truth - then it is impossible. Even straight from the camera picture can lie - it can be staged, can be framed to hide unwanted things, etc. IMO contests should seek evaluate the photos, not the event behind them. That's why manipulation shouldn't be disqualified.
PicOne,Scenario Number 3) Someone took a picture of what they saw and then didn't make any changes after the original capture except for those related to making sure the color itself was true-to-life (e.g. white balance, which is something the camera doesn't even do in a permanent way within the RAW file).BOTH of your scenarios would lead to disqualification if there was any evidence that they had occurred. There will always be liars and cheaters and people who believe that if you can get away with it then you didn't break the rules, but if you're suggesting we give up on trying to motivate honest behavior at any level even at those that involve strictly voluntary involvement in creative pursuits, then we might as well embrace anarchy right now and burn the world down.
Mirrorless Crusader: Who cares if someone digitall manipulates a photograph? Cameras already cook the raw files and raw converters manipulate the data as well.
Then don't enter a contest that has rules. And digital manipulation done to create an image doesn't mean anything done digitally is on equal footing. Oh, the bayer pattern was demosaiced so images are all completely fake and any amount of Photoshopping is exactly the same thing! Dumb.
So if a rule CAN be broken there should be NO rules? What an idiotic argument. The point is to try to get as close to the truth as possible. Of course everything can be faked, but if you have honor and integrity you'll tell the truth and follow the rules.
arrr: These dinosaurs need to evolve, many digital effects can be applied in camera at the time of exposure. It's no different than smacking a filter in front of your lens. Cloning out a distracting element shouldn't be an issue either. This is something any talented printer could have done for you in their darkroom. Photoshop aint cheating baby... it's part of the camera.
Photography Purists need to go back to shooting film and processing it a Walmart.
That's a very fluid definition of cheating you have there. Photography purists are called photographers, and the good ones don't have to fake a composition to get a good composition. If you have to clone things out, you've gone beyond the basic processing done to create a RAW file and then maybe correct the white balance. What you've done is created a digital piece of artwork not a photographic artwork. And smacking a filter on the front of your lens isn't allowed in a lot of photographic contests either, depending on the filter. People want to live in a world without any rules or standards, which is how they define creativity but it's really just being either lazy, a liar, or both. If you do something, own it. If you enter a competition that has rules, follow the rules. Nothing wrong with manipulating an image as long as you have an ounce of honor about it and be honest. In the PRESS their main priority is journalistic integrity, not changing things to suit their audience.
AngryCorgi: Can't compete with Nikon and Pentax's entry-level IQ? No problem, we'll throw an LCD panel on it! That'll do the trick. :-P
In 2012 Nikon (read: Sony) finally came out with a slightly higher MP sensor, 16MP. It was just starting to look almost as good as the 7D sensor as ISO went up. You can have your half stop DR advantage at ISO 150.....I mean 100 on your Nikon as long as I can have the DR advantage at every single other ISO. And the latest Sony sensors did take the DR debate up a notch, but people act like that has been the case for a decade when it's really been the case for a year or two, which means one company shifted manufacturing and design before another one could....while the other company designed a whole new autofocus technology. Thanks for projecting your priorities and ignorance on to others.
That's a really stupid education you're trying to give me. A normalized bunch of test results that are only representative of a very narrow range of the tested variables, fails to take into account other important variables or destroying any meaning with their nonsense normalizations, and all aggregated into a score that means absolutely nothing because its origin is an absolute mystery. If you looked at the variables, tested and not tested, and also across the range of performance you wouldn't have to rely on all that useful information being boiled down to a single score meant to simplify something complicated so you won't have to think or have an actual educated opinion. You don't have a thought in your own head and try to give anyone else an education? At least demonstrate some understanding of the single idiotic blogger entry you're referencing. Your opinion is handed to you on a silver platter by others.
The 7D looks better at 12800 than the D300S (same 12MP sensor as the D90) looks at 6400. If you used your eyes rather than an ancient article from the church of DxO you'd know that....a bad article at that.....with about fifty words in it simply repeating the impressions he got from a quick glance....about the idiotic, enigmatic, never-explained DxO score. Is that all people understand is some arbitrary number a site assigns to a sensor? A number they could not possibly understand because it is never explained anywhere? My "education" as you call it is an attempt to drag more people into the black hole of ignorance disguised as some sort of condensed genius. This amazing score doesn't take into account actual detail resolution of the sensor, the 7D shows an actual lower base ISO than the Nikon, and starting at ISO 200 the marginal lead of the Nikon at ISO 100 (less than half at the Nikon's fake ISO 100) and leads by a little less than a full stop the rest of the way up.
SmilerGrogan: Publishing photos of that small girl with food plastered all around her mouth is tantamount to child abuse. Girls have very fragile self esteem as it is, there is no need to feed it into the internet for further punishment. Internet content never goes away and those pictures will condemn the poor child to a lifetime of shame, obloquy, and ridicule.One imagines that the person who took them thinks of them as innocent documents of a life stage, or humorous examples of a childish lack of self awareness. But they are neither, what they are is cruel.
Yeah, the 90's called: they want their sarcastic humor back.
AngryCorgi,That statement displays an extreme lack of attention paid on your part. Either that or you are a terrible judge of image quality. Put the Nikon D300S up against the Canon crop sensor of the day found in the 50D, and shadow noise is noticeably better than the Nikon. At least now I understand what your disdain for Canon is based on. The 1DII is a 2004 camera and you must have quit paying any attention at that point. Funny thing is the Canon sensors were ahead in shadow noise even then. It was only a few years ago that Nikon finally released a high resolution crop sensor that both compete in terms of noise and megapixels...and by Nikon I mean Sony. For ages the 7D sensor was the best crop sensor you could get and that's why Canon had so much momentum going forward when Sony finally got off its duff and did something. Now Canon technology is still waiting to come from R&D to manufacturing and your short attention span thinks it's been a decade. Recalibrate.