GaryJP: Whenever I see someone superficially badmouthing another photographer's works here I almost always immediately go to check their gallery.
95% of the time they have uploaded nothing.
And no links to their work either.
And you guys are still not comprehending.
"Not everyone who doesn't post photos is negative, but there's almost always a guaranteed outcome if you go to the galleries of the most negative or destructive posters. Zilch to see."
Which part of that was so hard to understand crashpc? No "all dogs" there at all.
It sometimes gets necessary to rephrase when people have such difficulties understanding language.
What's so tough, if people are going to trash other people's work "superficially" about putting their money where their mouth is?
Jennyhappy2: Kind of sums it up: "photographers who care about speed and ultimate image quality, the RX100 III is the way to go."
Jennyhappy2, you really are on a roll with the childishness. I probably own more Sony gear than you do. Grow up.
There's constructive criticism, but there's also just plain "superficial badmouthing" (which is what I specifically mentioned) as well as brand trolling, and I notice that the incidence of the latter two BOTH almost invariably correlates inversely to whether the person involved ever actually shows any evidence of taking a picture or any evidence of his/her own skills.
Not everyone who doesn't post photos is negative, but there's almost always a guaranteed outcome if you go to the galleries of the most negative or destructive posters. Zilch to see.
Anyone who doubts this could just get into the habit of checking for themselves and learning when a big pinch of salt is required.
It's still the most childish form of argument.
Jennyhappy2. "Argument from authority"? How cute.
sneakyracer: Slap a A7RII sensor on the Canon and it would get a 95% score... just sayin' That missing few stops of DR is Costing Canon dearly in tests / reviews.
DR is the new megapixel race.
Big6D: any point in upgrading from G7X then?
For me, yeah, for the viewfinder above all.
geepondy: My the days of DP Review being accused of being Canon fanboys which used to happen on a regular basis, are long over. Nary a single camera seems to get top honors. The enthusiasts cameras are being accused of overall pedestrian handling (I agree) and the DSLRs are all being accused of inferior sensors compared to the competition. Canon is still number one in sales though, aren't they?
This place is Sony Central these days.
I have an RX100. I more often use my G5X.
These field tests are fast becoming one of my favourite parts of DPReview. They make up for the deficiencies of the comment areas. Nice one. Like his way of interacting with his subjects.
josseee: the colours are truly amazing. One thing I as a sony shooter envy a lot. Sony should team up with canon to provide the ultimate sensor :)
Neodp: What makes a good camera?
1. Better than the best cell phone.
2., 3., & 4. Low CA, to corner acuity, low distortion, wide/fast aperture (light transmission) across the focal range. If not just normal (prime) or better "short portrait" length then 35-100 eqiv f/1.8. Therefore APS-C sized lenses or m43 when m43 sensors improve their (bodies sensor and processing) color sensitivity and HIGHLIGHT DR. AKA OPTICS FIRST. Including AF/AE optimized/matched to the body.
5. The body/combo should be fast in every other way. Such as on time, auto-sleep, shot to shot in raw, max shutter, flash sync etc... This includes EVF and tracking improvements.
6. We have got to fix video in all it's metrics. Not as a poor after thought. No AF and stabilization noises in the video sound. Pro (mini shotgun) mic built in AND replaceable. Outstanding stabilization especially with removable system telephoto.
You seem to be hearkening after a mythical camera past that did not exist. Almost ANY camera we have now smokes what we had then, in one aspect or another
And I know you did not say physics has limits. It's your belief that it does not I am doubting.
People choose between the models that exist. Not between the one that exists and the one that does not. Vapourware doesn't take great images.
>>As far as someone collecting many cameras; that's your fine prerogative.
They pay for themselves. That's my basic rule.
Sony faithful always talk about custom profiles to avoid bad colour, but custom profiles change colours right across an image. Get one thing altered, and there goes another.
ZJ24: Can someone with more video experience than me please explain whether high level videographers use auto-focus much? I just see this show up in a lot of reviews, and 1) I never use it - always use manual if DOF is very shallow, always shoot narrow for a lot of DOF if shooting sports and focus manually if required 2) I have very seldom seen a movie, professional sport, music video, advertisement, interview shot with auto-focus for video [I use auto-focus extensively for stills].
Not denying its potential usefulness, just wondering who is selling their work using it.
In documentary and news, particularly run and gun, it can be VERY useful.
Even green skin.
>> 1. I consider the model not the brand. Plus, it's options.
Me too. It still frustrates me that my Olympus cameras, even the OMD EM1, don't offer the option for 25P. Nothing to do with the names on the label.
>> 2 .... Manufactures are withholding QUALITY and inflating price.
Evidence? I mean, they may well be, but most of us have to choose between what exists. Not the vapourware in our heads.
>>3. One problem is photography runs way deeper than most think. The over-compartmentalized "solutions" stink.
Possibly true. I have way more cameras than I should have, including video, but no one is about to give us that all-in-one solution at an affordable price so all the other companies can go home. And there ARE engineering/physics reasons.
>> You know... If we all start thinking a low to moderate cost camera system will stink then it certainly will.
I don't agree that they do. Guess it's that glass half full/half empty thing.
Neodp: "OK Gary does that make my priorities wrong?"
Not wrong and we'd all like, in an ideal world, to have a pocket camera that shoots wonderful 8k video, even in the dark, captures superb sound, and looks like grainless Medium Format film, at least. The problem is that there are engineering compromises in every camera, and those compromises are the results of conscious decisions about what they think consumers will want. And different consumers want different things or are fazed by different disadvantages.
In an ideal world my camera would have all the pros and none of the cons and cost US$200. That ain't happening. I don't think your priorities are wrong, and I agree with many of them, but then again nor do I think those of equally rational buyers juggling their own wish-lists are entirely wrong either.
Whatever the zeitgeist here says these days, most camera engineers in ANY company are rational people making rational decisions, even if individual users don't like them.
cosinaphile: insanely ugly... why not take a page from sony nex or fuji rangefinder style ....clunky looking crap from canikon shows a cluelessness that cannot be excused
Eye of the beholder.
Sorry, one mistake above. Should read "24p video" not "40p".
By the way Scott, I've been shooting, directing and producing stills, film and video professionally for broadcast since the late seventies (drama, documentary, and cultural programming, most recently for German TV ZDF) and am now older than I might prefer to be, but I'll nevertheless defer to your greater age and experience. It's a rather silly game to play, don't you think?