EcoR1: Aarrg. Read some commments below and I'm just astonished by the ignorance of some people. This Panasonic lens will gather as much light as any f2.8 full frame lens when mounted on the full frame camera. There is no debate. There is no "other" truth. If you think otherwise you are wrong, and that's it . If you wan't to consider the possible size/weight benefits for any full frame lens, the only comparison must be made for the 24mm f2.8 lens. That's it people.
@EcoR1 - The article clearly shows I am right and you are dead wrong. Please re-read the article ! :P
To achieve a shutter speed of 1.3 seconds the Canon 1Dx needed ISO 3200 with a f5.6 lens while the Panasonic m43 camera needed an ISO of 800 with a f2.8 lens.
So my point stands that this is an f1.4 lens and to get the same shutter speeds needed on FF you NEED AN F1.4 lens !!!!
No it won't. I did a easy test. Put a 35mm f1.8 APS-C prime lens on my camera and metered a scene in crop mode and noted the shutter speed at f1.8 and ISO 100. Then I attached a 50mm f1.8 FF lens on my camera and metered the scene without crop mode enabled. Lo and behold the same shutter speed was available ! :P
So NO it does NOT have the same light gathering ability as a f2.8 lens on FF. You can of course increase the ISO to make up the difference and FF will have better ISO capabilities by almost 2 stops BUT it will match the shutter speeds offered by a f1.4 lens on FF NOT f2.8.
stanislaff: I use my Samsung 12-24/ 4-5.6 (18-36 mm in 35 mm equivalent) lens for landscape photo. Yes, it is way slower, but my landscapes and architecture won't run away from me and I got my lens for $260 including delivery and customs taxes.
Who needs such an expensive prime lens?
Stanislaff you and I may lack the imagination to make use of such a lens but there are plenty of photographers out there who would take some great photos with such a lens. :)
Cynog ap Brychan: It's probably all true what is said about the Df, but truth is, I love it much more than my (some say, more capable) D810. It has soul :)
^^ Maybe you need a camera with a built in vibrator ! That will really increase the pleasure of using the camera ! :D
Advent1sam: Fuji x, 16mm f1.4, outstanding lens, f2 equiv and weighs the same!
^^ He is a well known Fuji troll who likes to whine and comment on other brands just because he wants people to know how big a troll he is. :P
Advent1sam: To leave the Fuji Xpro-2 out of this collection is very disturbing!
The X-Pro 2 didn't even win its in category of APS-C cameras. Its a niche expensive camera.
On the Road Again: I just wanted to ask: "Why no Pentax K-1?" and suddenly realised - this body cost much less than 2000 USD! Funny, because Pentax K-1 is IMHO better than some of this semi-pro cameras mentioned above.
^^ There is no BEST method of deciding what cameras to bunch together. DPreview took this option as they felt it is the best.
This test is for cameras ONLY. Maybe they will come up with a systems test in future but that is also highly subjective as what lenses you really want may be what no one else wants. For instance I am a primarily UWA shooter but so many people simply don't care for UWA lenses for many reasons.
DPreview is trying to be thorough and I commend them for that. Unfortunately they can't satisfy everyone .
@On the Road Again - Yes the K-1 is a very good camera. It was tied for first place in the earlier comparison of FF cameras under $2000.
George1958: Like the low price FF review, predictably the answer to what is best = a Sony. While I respect this opinion, having tried an A7, I find the canon 5D and the Nikon 810 are nicer handling cameras and without getting too hung up on Sony sensor performance the IQ is great in any of these cameras.
@Max ISO - The earlier review only said lesser IQ for stills NOT video. Video performance of the A7 II was generally praised with the camera having many aids for video like focus peaking, zebras, slog etc and a key point why it tied in first place with K-1 which was better for stills.
Also the main criteria for it scoring so high was its AF compatibility with 3rd party lenses. With the Sigma MC-11 now offering all AF features like eye AF, focus lock etc with Sigma lenses the Sony A7 II and A7rII are the ONLY cameras in the world right now that allow fast Af with 3rd party lenses with a 35mm sensor. That was the main selling point and the main reason the A7 II scored so high as its otherwise a pretty average camera as was mentioned by DPR.
@George - No one said the A7 is better than the 5d mk 3 or D810. The A7 is a $998 camera while the Canon 5D Mk 3 and Nikon D810 are more than double that price.
In the earlier roundup the competition was the 6D and the D610. Stills wise both cameras were similar with the 6D falling behind because of its small AF area. And while the stills performance was similar the video performance of the A7 II was far ahead of the other two due to additional features like image stabilisation with legacy lenses, focus peaking, slog2, zebras etc which is what tilted the results in the A7 II favor. That was the only real reason the A7 II won that round or rather tied for first place as it was kinda a jack of all trades camera for still and video while the others had stronger stills performance but weaker video.
Unfortunately for you, Soul is not a valid quantifiable metric ! :P
DaddyG: In these shootouts, Canon never feature in the recommended cameras.So why are they always number one in sales, year after year?
No criticism, just genuinely interested.
These award the best cameras. No one talks about the entire system here.
Canon has a full complete lens line up. Pentax, Sony, Fuji etc don't. That said Canon has been a bit of a laggard in sensor technology which is why they don't fare too well in these testing.
However as Armandino said its a safe choice. Most of my friends who shoot Canon are pretty happy with their system and have no desire to switch.
Boissez: Nikon D610: 87% score, Dpreview GoldSony A7 II: 82% score, Dpreview Silver
Best overall according to Dpreview? The A7II.
Even though there's a year between the two, it doesn't really add up does it?
^^ Talk about overkill ! :P
'Useless' ? Really ? You do know that any bird photographer needs to use a lens heavier than his camera right ? How do you think they manage to do that ? By holding the lens rather than the camera ? Or perhaps they should listen to you and stop photography cause you said using larger lens makes camera 'useless'.
lesnapanda: And now Pentax is being punished for the low price. It would clearly be in the top cameras to buy in the highest-end segment, but it simply has a better price tag. My bet would be: a7rii + k1 in the ff cameras without price limit (though there is also Leica)
^^ If it was at a higher price point the Nikon D810 would trump the Pentax as it would offer similar IQ but with much better AF and much better battery life.
photomedium: I don't kno... these A7's are getting long in the tooth, even the mkII. The support for 3rd party lenses has gotten better with the a6300. Even the IBIS is not at par with K1 or even the oly offerings...the canon 6D definitely aged much more gracefully...
Depends on what you look for in a camera. The Canon 6D has a decades old AF system with just a tiny central portion of the frame covered. You need to focus and recompose a lot with fast lenses which can easily lead to OOF images. Most of the competition can easily do better in that regard.
Canon doesn't really care that the 6D is outspeced in this day and age since they are the market leader.
Sure Sony keeps updating their bodies because mirror-less tech is still new and improving quickly. The difference between the original A7 and the A7r II is huge !
The 6D is a heavily stripped down camera to ensure it cannot compete with the 5D mk 3 and I find it inferior in many ways to my A7 II (I have both cameras with me), The AF system alone is enough to drive me up the wall as I have mostly central compositions because of that limitation.
Tom Schum: If you drop the low end to $1000, you can (and probably should, in my opinion) include the Sony A6300. I see now it was included in a recent roundup of cameras in the $800-1200 range. Oops!
^^ Exactly for pros who need the very best my money would be on the D500 coming out ahead. For non pros who still like to short amatuer sports I would wager the A6300 won't be far behind the D500 and of course it costs half the price.
The main difference really between the two is that the D500 can shoot 200 RAW frames which means you can keep shooting for 20 seconds in burst mode while the Sony can shoot for barely 2 seconds. If you are a pro then 2 seconds is waay too less.
Fstop85: In summary: you will be able to take incredible images with any of these cameras.
I don't think any sane person is going to deny that all these aren't capable cameras but even small differences need to be highlighted and shown.
The D500 is a superior camera to the a6300 in almost every way !
It would have been an also ran in this category.
TheTrickster2k: When has ANY of the FourThirds or mFT camera been a cropped sensor camera? This is poor editorial by the DPReview team.
^^ You hit the nail on the head. Basically any camera with < 35mm sensor format. Even 1" should be considered theoretically over here.
Favorable Exponynt: Plenty of offerings below that price that are better suitable for most, but good to see dslr trumps mirrorless :p
Mirrorless cameras are not yet there as a complete package and most mirrorless cameras today are a compromise in some way or the other. DSLRs are a very mature tech and any upgrade is incremental rather than revolutionary. If you need speed, reliability, killer battery life, a real workshorse camera then DSLRs are the only option. Even the best mirrorless cameras have a bit of lag and no mirrorless camera can match even a mid range DSLR in battery life.
That said mirrorless cameras do have some major advantages like size, EVF, video, cross system lens compatibility etc.
DualSystemGuy: So, the takeaway is that the 2-year old A6000 still has a better viewfinder, AF, and sensor? That about sums it up I guess haha.
@Shooter mclens - The answer to your question is very simple - Money.
Sony is making far more profit from FE (full frame) mirrorless lenses and cameras where they can have far greater margins. So all their R&D efforts are going into designing and releasing more full frame lenses and bodies and their crop lenses focus is practically nil. That is why for years there have been a dearth of lenses solely for APS-C Sony cameras.