A great torture test for an image stabilization system would be to let Barney take photos while trying to stand still on roller skates.
Ogawa-san looks so serious in the photo. These are cameras, not heart-lung machines :)
Thoughts R Us: It's funny to read the comments and see how many times people can post virtually the same thing...a variant of "this guy is clueless...out of touch...head in sand, etc." And then go on to complain about Canon sensors.
So the main indictment from what I see is that Canon sensors have less DR at low ISO than the competition. OK. But does that merit the vitriol? Does that mean their cameras are worthless? Aren't there other measures of a camera system...like lenses, support, ergonomics, color signature, QC, etc?
There's also the indictment that Canon doesn't pursue mirrorless with enough seriousness...with no admission that the mirrorless market isn't that big and is stagnating.
If you need more DR, then fine, go to another brand. But Canon has the most customers and most pro's stick with Canon, and it's not because they cannot switch. It's because Canon is for them the overall strongest system.
Now Canon is not perfect; no company is. But let's have some perspective.
If you're convinced that Sony's DR range advantage is due to the cooking of raws then you should be able to match Sony's DR with a Canon raw in post-processing, because "cooking" implies image processing and that can be performed in software as well. Awaiting your image comparisons that support your case.
Vegetable Police: Let's make everything wireless! It might even be safe for humans. We're not sure yet, but it could be. There's a small chance that you will not develop any health conditions being exposed to wireless signals all day long, and we like those odds.
If I'm ever lucky enough to be in Iceland I'll be out taking landscapes every day even if the forecast called for earth-destroying meteors :)
Horshack: Amazing how $1,800 lenses can have a decentered/tilted element. It's something you expect (and get) on a Samyang 14mm but not on a class of lens like the 14-24mm. Sadly it's a problem seen on many expensive optics. I've tried three different copies of a Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II and all have had significant tilting issues.
Rishi, initially it based on your comments about the relative performance differences between the two, but rereading I see your note that you think the Tamron might be the one tilted based on its underperformance of the right edge. Comparing the f/2.8 images both lenses look mushy on the ridge edge @ infinity, the Nikon a little more so (the houses at the extreme right of frame, top 1/3). It's hard to judge either copy for centering precisely on these due to the distance differences of subject detail @ infinity for left vs right...but based on what I see the Nikon looks relatively well centered.
Amazing how $1,800 lenses can have a decentered/tilted element. It's something you expect (and get) on a Samyang 14mm but not on a class of lens like the 14-24mm. Sadly it's a problem seen on many expensive optics. I've tried three different copies of a Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II and all have had significant tilting issues.
Yamaki-san for Prime Minister!
For when you want your very best gear stolen at the airport ;-)
Horshack: Great review. The extensive pages on dynamic range are very well done.
The only important note I'd add about the A7s is how much harder it is to manually focus vs the A7/A7r due to its lower-clarity Live View magnification and surprisingly, its much worse low-light Live View noise performance. It appears Sony is line-skipping for the A7s's LV feed ala the D800/D800E. I compared all three A7 bodies for MF here: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/54123743 and http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/54128288
That is the issue with subjective recollection - it's fallible.
zakk9: The camera fondlers are attacking...
Do you guys ever take photos? For real photographers, he D7100 was, and still is, a great camera, but it had a buffer that was too small for certain kinds of photography. The D7200 features a larger buffer plus several other improvements, and all the majority of nerds on this forum manage to utter is "meh... the 7D II is better".
It might be an idea to remember then that the 7D II is 50% more expensive as well as 50% heavier. It's simply another class of camera. For advanced amateurs and a lot of professional photographers, the D7200 will be a great workhorse.
Nikon owes them $1199.95 of value, nothing more, nothing less.
Great review. The extensive pages on dynamic range are very well done.
People are unhappy at Nikon's practice of trying to milk photogs by consistently releasing bodies with missing features. The D7000 should of had the one-button push to 100% zoom of the D7100. The D7100 should of had the deeper buffer of the D7200. The D7200 should of had the articulating screen of the D7300. And the D7300 should of had the touch-screen and USB 3 of the D7400.
Welcome to iteration city, population you.
Seems unfair to penalize PJ's for matching the embellishments of news anchors :)
Roger Cicala posted an evaluation of the lens today on his blog, including a comparison with the Nikon 14-24mm and Canon 16-35 f/2.8
Horshack: Samples looking good. Here's a sharpened version of the f/2.8 landscape shot:
Odd bit of flare at near the right edge though.
Samples looking good. Here's a sharpened version of the f/2.8 landscape shot:
joe6pack: All pros and no cons. I am feeling more and more that these videos are all paid advertisements. Tell me this isn't so!
Nah, if these videos were paid advertisements you'd see slogans like "I AM A GOOFY CAMERA" or "See the Impossible With an 8 Year Old Sensor"
How well does the camera survive a collision with a tree?