I bought FF 5DMk1 as I wanted the best IQ (non med format) for landscapes.My Sigma SD14 was better but only under ideal conditions. ISO 200 was it.I still use my 5D – now for real estate photography where a clean image is essential and lifting shadows common. The 5D is way ahead of the 7D in IQ. (which I have had to use when the 5D went in for a service). I use the 17-40 on the 5D and 15-85 on the 7D for this. Both good lenses. I will at some point upgrade to something like a 6D in order to get even cleaner files. APS-C would have to come along way until I was satisfied it was equal to FF. Initially I used a 60D with a Sigma 8-16 lens but the files were too soft. The 5D Mk1 has more bite and micro detail/sharpness in it's images. You can't compensate in Photoshop for this. Still prefer 5D for landscapes although often use 7D or X100 for convenience.Compare my X100 images to 5D here: http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2014/05/07/memories-of-new-zealand-and-julia-by-doug-barry-martin/
Yuvalm: Five significant factoids:
1. FF equipment is, especially FF glassware, is big, heavy, cumbersume and not at all noticably better in any optical sense, than that of APS-C
2. FF is practically meaningless with APS-C lenses, while APS-C camera is happy to work with both FF and APS-C lenses, which are lighter, smaller, shorter, and as good, optically.
3. Most people who convert to shoot from APS-C to FF, are left withtheir previous glassware gone to waste of to be sold for cheap.
4. The above 3 reasons clearly show why converting to shoot from FF to APS-C makes much more sense than converting to shoot from APS-C to FF.
4. Give it a few more years, and many, like myself, will get the gist of it.
5. The only people who get mad reading this are those who migrated from APS-C to FF, and now feel like fools to have done that.
OK. my response to your points
1. Yes. Doesn't bother everyone.2. FF lenses are often just the wrong focal length on APS-C due to the 1.5 (1.6) x factor eg a 24-105 is a very useful on a FF but a much less useful 35 -160 on APS-C. As good optically?? Can't compare any two lenses that are not the same focal lengths etc Silly statement. A 18-270mm Tamron is not a good as a Canon 300mm prime for instance. Generally with lenses you get what you pay for.3. True. But many like me keep an APS-C body anyway.4. Does it? It doesn't at all show the reason people move to FF. Which is superior IQ under challenging conditions and ability to get shallower dof with the same lens plus greater file malleability eg ability to recover highlights and lift shadows and and overall cleaner (less noisy image).4 b. ??5. Another unproven generalisation.
Factoids indeed! See Wikipedia.
friedduck: I kept expecting affordable full-frame when I sold my last APS-C camera and all my glass. I was sure it was around the corner, and pledged to jump back in when it arrived (thinking along the same lines as the author.)
i'm still waiting.
Aside from buying an RX-100 I haven't spent a dollar on photography in 5 years. There's a huge untapped market here. It looks like buying used is going to be my solution.
@next shot. Using?!!
Still prefer my original X100 images.
Mirko123: This looks like a great lens. Well done Fuji!While Nikon and Canon are stilling on their hands producing the same old, out dated rubbish and expecting us to buy.
HUh? Canon just released the excellent and cheap 10-18mm EFS lens not to mention the range of new stm lenses now available. Oh yes the 200-400 with 1.4 x converter, the 100-400mkII etc
Mike FL: Adding OIS makes any given lens BIG, HEAVY, SLOW, EXPENSIVE.
Fuji say "NO", and shows you on this "XF 16-55mm F2.8 R LM WR" comparing to Samsung "NX 16-50mm F2.0-2.8 S ED OIS" which is weather sealed too.
This Fuji lens has NO OIS, but BIG, HEAVY, SLOW, EXPENSIVE vs Samsung.
Fuji, update your Lens Road Map, to see what do you get for the next year.
I think Fuji have shown how good there lenses can be eg the 18-55. Samsung as good? Unlikely despite the extra desirable features.
BeaverTerror: Perplexed about the lack of OIS, given that the wide angle 10-24mm has it. There is now one less compelling reason to purchase this lens over the much faster primes.
There must be a good reason not to have OIS. Most likely weight and complexity. You don't really need it until you get past 50mm. My 18-35 Nikkor was without as is my X100 23mm (35mm FF equivalent). OIS is not so important on a modern camera with good High ISO performance. Remember the hue and cry about the X100 not having IS? No one comments anymore because it is not an issue. My 17-40 that I use on my 5D for real estate work has no IS. I often shoot at 1/40 sec and rarely have an issue (but I am pretty steady handed.)
I just wish I could read all the text without the interference of the award graphic.
Richard Franiec: There is no doubt that Canon put a lot of advanced engineering into 7DII.As a system, paired with newly revised EF lenses, including EF100-400 Mk II, this camera will lead the pack for the intended purpose: action photography.Several "cons" will not even remotely apply, if you think about it.There is always a room for improvement, of course.
@ Just a Photographer. Have you tried it to see how much better it is or isn't? My understanding from someone who bought one it that is is way better than Mk1,
Dougbm_2: Then again a Sigma merrill seems to resolve as much. 3 for $3000?
Ha! I use the standard scene with the bottles etc. My experience with an SD14 is that the files res up much more than an already interpolated Bayer sensor file does (or doesn't). So an APSC Foveon is a match for full frame but MF is probably stretching it too far. I replaced the SD14 with a 5D and this confirmed that the SD14 was better in ideal conditions than the 5D.
(unknown member): Dear DPREVIEW...I read your reviews carefully. Because I think you have the skills, and the expertise, to produce quite good reviews. And many, many times, I was on the same page with you, especially when you pointed (rightly) the clear flaws some of the Canon cameras have. But not this time. I own the 7D 2. I had the 7D before, and between these two there is no contest. Sony sensors, ah, yes, they DO have more DR (but not that much). Other brands DO have more video mumbo jumbo (and big minuses in other areas). But the 7D 2 is, in my opinion, a photo tool, first hand. So tell me, please: which photo tool in the APS-C world is matching the 7D 2? The SLT A-77 II? I would have to disagree, as I have use it, too. Other brands don't have anything close, but, like the 7100, are "Gold award" cameras.I think the Silver Award is a BIG MISTAKE (and many EU and US articles seem to be on my side here...), a mistake that will cost you credibility. Not now, but in the mid-long term. If it matters.
@Samuel Dilworth. Good list. What significant flaws for the 5DII?
Well all tests and reviews I have seen of the SD1 and compact Merrills especially show a resolving power at least the equal or greater than an D800e. As usual the claimed 45 Mp are actually 15mp that performs like 30+Mp. But not quite up to MF. No.Have a look and compare on Image resource. http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM
Rservello: Got it yesterday and I must say, I am very impressed! Its a lot smaller than I expected. The screen is very clear, so I don't understand the criticisms. I personally hate touch screens, so that's not a con imho and IQ is incredible. This is my first 4/3 camera and ita really surprising that is can do a nice shallow dof and has very good low light. Plus, the ois is SO nice, I can hand hold at 1/15 shutter! So the faster lens plus the awesome ois means I can shoot at lower iso than my ff. This is gonna be a fun new tool!
I can hand hpld my x100 at 1/15 (usually limited to 1/30) with no IS so I would hope for even better with this.
Then again a Sigma merrill seems to resolve as much. 3 for $3000?
A wedding and event photographer I met said her 7D II was a huge improvement over the mkI. Better autofocus, faster and much better IQ - also at high ISOs. She also has a 5DIII which is mainly used for landscapes.
Pretty good overall and some nice shots too. Usual pastel Fuji colours which is good for skin tones not so great for landscapes unless you like the retro look. High ISO is poor but I wouldn't expect anything decent over ISO 800 for this sensor size.
RomanC: Dear Dpreview team,
I have to decide if I will buy a A7 II or a A7 S. For wedding photography I currently use an old Sony R-1 (don't laugh!). It was always possible to work with it without a flash in the church if it was bright enough outside, I don't like flash lights, especially at wedding ceremonies. And: I love this camera because it's shutter is nearly unnoticeable, so can work without attracting attention.
Now I want tu upgrade to a full-format Camera. I read that the A7 S has an (activatable) electronic shutter which makes it possible to take photos without any noise. What's about the A7 II? I could not find any information if this 'noiseless mode' is also available on this model.
Want to add an image but apparently only on forums!!!SO…. Fair enough. Check out this from a 4.5Mp Sigma SD14. See my gallery.
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/9311784622/photos/3087242/sdim0020Clickoriginal size then click again.
Any full frame sensor will print A2 easily unless you are a real pixel peeper. I have great A2, even A1 images from my 6Mp Fuji S2 Pro. Yes more Mp gives more detail but 12Mp is quite enough - unless you want to heavily crop. Also the A7s better in low light (a big plus) with smaller files and less demanding of lenses.Images from my 5D Mk1 with 12.9Mp regularly get printed on large real estate boards and look great.
My favourite Nat Geo photographer. A master of light.