halfwaythere: Its pretty sad that even dpr has succumbed to the " low ISO dynamic range matters above all" theory.
I think most enthusiast FF users are using these bodies for their low light, high ISO, superiority. I don't get how is the A7 recommended above the 6D since the latter has access to the most comprehensive system while the former is, basically, a cheap mirrorless camera that happens to have a FF sensor.
If your camera hasn't turned on yet, and you miss the shot, then how much does image quality matter? So now you must keep it on all the time, which is lame because on mirrorless cameras the battery is already smaller and every second the camera is turned on uses exponentially more power than with a DSLR (with live view off).
People do care about picture quality but we are splitting hairs between most of these cameras, as you know. If you're a pro, your customer is likely much more interested that you got the right pictures, rather than infinitesimal differences in what it looks like blown up 200% in Photoshop.
6D's much longer battery life and much faster startup time, IMHO, are far more important advantages than anything to do with the actual image quality.
Because what good is a picture you didn't get, due to a dead battery or because your camera didn't "boot up" fast enough?
Where is Leica on your list? Also, why limit it to just 35mm?
Non-mirrorless ... ...
Serious Sam: In Australia
$900 Panasonic Lumix GM5 Kit
$1000 Nikon D7100 Kit
$798 Sony A6000 Digital SLR with 2 Lenses
You serious asking that much for a m43 when the other choice is that much better?? Someone need to give Panasonic a wake up call.
Anyone who buys ANY new camera when it first comes out and is at its highest price it will ever be, is paying "the early adopter tax."
Just wait until it's as old as A6000.
GoneMirrorless: The GM5 makes the A6000 look/feel like a DSLR. I do believe the camera is pricey and not for me but even with several prime lenses or the kit zoom it fits in pockets and is very stealthy. IIRC it has the electronic shutter option which is silent. I think it needs to be closer to what the RX100iii sells for, but maybe demand is high?
LOL. You sell something for what people will pay for it. Then you drop the price when they stop buying.
That's basic math.
RX100 has nothing to do with anything.
Adrien S: So... I totally need a body with these specs BUT A FULL-FRAME SENSOR.
On the day they release a FF body with similar specifications (and a comparatively low price!), Samsung can just take my money.
Point is I'm right. "Full frame" is a meaningless term these days. CHANGE THE LINGO. It's stupid!
Yes, it is. All the Samsung NX lenses are full frame relative to the APS-C sensor in the NX-1 body. "Full frame" defines a *relationship* between the lens and sensor, it does not define a specific size. Just because all you idiots abuse the English language and misuse this term doesn't change the meaning of the words.
I love how they never mentioned battery life, once, in this video.
It is full frame, idiot.
What, so the light doesn't go in your lens unless you have a smartphone or GoPro?
What about Sony ActionCam? Nikon D810?
This pretty much says it all.
This looks awesome. Now I can finally upgrade my Canon GL2 and use all my Olympus glass. Sweet.
A scourge on all good things has been eliminated from reality.
I'll toast to this!
The 7D has plenty of lenses that are full-frame relative to it.
dark goob: I applaud DPreview for not mentioning "equivalence" in this article, and for not calling Super35 a "crop sensor".
I'm glad we've finally evolved beyond calling things "full-frame" vs. "crop". Clearly, when Canon's most advanced optics by far are made full-frame relative to Super35 (24.9x14mm), which is much smaller even than an 16:9 APS film frame, we are finally in the future where 135-format's long dominance over the cultural milieu has ended.
Maybe now DPreview would be open to switching to using Range Factor terminology. This lens is a 2.01:1–41.08:1 Range Factor. The ratio is D:W, where D=distance-to-subject, and W=width-across-frame. I.e. a 1-foot ruler will occupy the entire width of the frame left-to-right from 41.08 feet away at 1000mm. With the extender it increases to a max of 59.76:1.
"Compare" this to a Canon SX60HS which has a Range Factor of 0.62:1–39.55:1 on its 1/2.3"-format (6.2x4.6mm) sensor, which is a 27% crop of Super35.
Well, I don't think that having a foggy, milky "intuition" or "feel" for something really counts for much. Sounds like what new age people say about the spiritual power of crystals.
What that "intuition" actually is, is just a feeling of familiarity and recognition, and a vague idea that only approximately corresponds with reality. It's not actually useful for anything specific. It has no degree of precision. Very complex math involving trigonometric equations and squares is necessary to determine anything useful from it about the angle of view or the extent of the captured frame at a given distance.
Further because camera manufacturers report the *actual* aperture but only the *equivalent* focal length, then it leads to even more confusion for consumers. This is bad.
The first step is moving away from 35mm-equivalent focal lengths and only using Range Factor (or something similar), while also ditching the idea of calling 35mm "full-frame" since "full" is a purely relative term.
@random78 In that respect I have no sympathy for people who say "we have to develop the intuition all over again about what those mean" because first of all, I highly question the idea that anyone actually really does know "what those mean."
I'm sure you know what the normal focal lengths "mean": 24, 28, 36, 50, 70, 85, 105, 135, 200, 300mm, etc.
But what about 247mm? 12.9mm? 21.4mm? 43mm? There are an awful lot of weird ones nowadays if you actually do the conversions and don't round it up to the nearest decimal (which is especially dumb to do at the wide end). I challenge anyone who thinks they really know what these 135-equivalent focal lengths "mean", to honestly sit down and try to write down how far away you would have to be from a 6' tall person to get their whole body in the frame, top-to-bottom, with focal lengths of every whole number from 1 to 50.
Now I'm sure you don't know how to do that. Nobody does. So people will say, "yeah but I have a *feel* for those numbers."
@random78With all due respect, I am opposed to the idea that it is a bad thing to develop new ideas, new intuitions. I believe that is the benefit of being human: we are allowed to be creative, and we have the capacity to learn and to think.
Setting things up in a way that makes logical sense and is mathematically useful follows the spirit of photography. For example the F-stop numbers and flash guide numbers were developed to make it easy to determine the distance-to-subject necessary for a proper exposure using simple division, as opposed to having to perform algebra or trigonometry. The disadvantage to using degrees (or hey, radians!) would be that almost no one can perform arctan in their head. Sorry, but you can't.
The advantage to the Range Factor idea is that, like guide numbers and f-stops, it deals with distance-to-subject and only depends on simple multiplication.
If your range factor is 41:1 and your subject is 3-meters wide, 41x3 = 123 meters distance-to-subject.
I applaud DPreview for not mentioning "equivalence" in this article, and for not calling Super35 a "crop sensor".
Imagine if Apple did this.
They would never live it down. Never