Mister Joseph: 10fps is mirrorless territory.
That's not *quite* correct, cosmicnode. The a6300 doesn't show the previous shot, it shows a single-frame live update before then blacking out again. It's a subtle difference but it means the camera is much easier to pan with than a camera showing the last shot.
Your overall point about DSLRs giving you a better feel for movement in the scene is true though.
GRUBERND: about Snapbridge:yes, it's a bit clumsy, especially picking select images - you have to use an extra menu item for that, or has anyone found a way to do it from regular image review? or transfer star-rated images. or similar easy accesible things. sure needs polishing.
but it makes me think about getting one of them mobile social picture apps like instagram because suddenly i have a professional level camera attached to my phone without the need for computers etc.
and i dont have to take that social shot with my phone and then it turns out it was the best of the lot. doh. people who shot polaroid proofs on their hassis or large formats know my pain...
Press the '*i*' button when in playback and 'send to smartphone' should be an option in the menu that pops up. It's not quite one-button selection but it's quicker than going into the main menu.
The Rale: I apologize for my ignorance but I am struggling with application of whole ISO-invariance thing. Since shooting at e.g. ISO100+5stops is "almost" as good as ISO3200, why not just shoot ISO3200? Can somebody give me real life example where this would be beneficial?
For every 1EV you increase the ISO, you reduce your available dynamic range by around 1EV (because the brightest stop of data you captured gets amplified to beyond clipping).
Consequently, if you use the shutter speed and aperture that you'd usually use for an ISO 3200 shot but you keep your ISO setting down, then you'll suffer very little noise cost but you'll have multiple extra stops of highlight data that give you more processing flexibility.
(The test also gives a good insight into the sensor performance)
Lawrencew: Correct the summary on the home page"The Nikon D500 is a 24MP DSLR"
I've fixed that.
notime: The key points has an X instead of %"100x coverage viewfinder with 1.0x magnification"
Thanks for spotting that. I've corrected it.
Nick Carrigan: What does this CON statement mean: Lack of external charger makes it hard to keep a spare battery charged???
There are plenty of Sony external battery chargers for the NP-FW50 battery. The Sony BC-VW1 is the best charger and works great. Charges the NP-FW50 battery in 1.5 hours.
Yes, but that's not the product we're reviewing. We're reviewing a $1000 camera body with moderate battery life that doesn't provide an easy means to keep a second battery charged. It's a con we've included on just about every camera that fails to include a charger.
As with all pros and cons, if it's not relevant to you, ignore it.
Pooya Rastin: This shot noise thing which is used excessively in DPR is fundamentally flawed. Taking a picture is not like collecting raindrops. Raindrops fall in a route mostly parallel to each other. But Each spot in real life reflects or emits light in all the directions. Considert wo adjacent spots, spot A and spot B in a unoform object which we are taking a photograph of. spot A reflects billions of photons in a fraction of a second. Spot B reflects billions of photons in a fraction of a second. Spot A corresponds to pixel X in the sensor. Spot B corresponds to adjacent pixel Y in the sensor.There is no way all the photons reflecting from spot A and entering the pixel X in the sensor in a time however small are in a substancially lower number than the number of all the photons coming from spot B and entering pixel Y.
When you're talking about billions of photons, it makes little difference. The absolute value of the shot noise is high but the signal is so immense that this still means a very good signal-to-noise ratio.
However, what about the darker tones in your image? The whole reason they're dark is that they're *not* made up of billions of photons. They're made up of few enough that the randomness of light starts to play a visible role. This is why the tiny sensors of smartphones look good in bright light but fall to bits as the light level starts to fall.
OttawaTony: I am/was contemplating moving from my NEX-7 to the A6300. I am/was worried that I'd not have time to learn the new camera before my vacation in three weeks. It appears my worrying is for naught as the A6300 has a manual 47 pages long while the NEX-7 was 211 pages.
First these companies remove the paper manuals and now they can't even be bothered to put together a soft version.
[This 'Help Guide'](https://docs.sony.com/release//Help_4574960111.pdf) is 286 pages and can probably be downloaded onto your phone.
Unlike a paper manual, you can search for specific words and find them, regardless of how good the indexing is.
photominion: If the absence of color aliasing helps with the resolution in the text samples, how fares the Leica Monochrome II?It has no color filter array and should thus have much better resolution and far more luminance gain, because all pixels record all incoming light, no?!
The Leica Monochrom's lack of AA filter and CFA do indeed give higher levels of detail and result in the base ISO jumping by around 1EV, because light isn't being lost to the CFA.
bmwzimmer: I'm TOTALLY LOSTWhen comparing them side by side at say ISO 12800, the D500 looks great but Can someone explain to me why the D500 with the same lens as the D7200 require 2 full stops more light to achieve this result? The shutter speed is 1/1600 vs. the D7200 which is 1/6400. This means in real world shooting where you set your Aperture and shutter, you need to set the ISO 2 stops higher than other cameras for proper exposure. That's CRAP NIKON!!!
Check the notes when you press the [*i*] button. You'll see that the lighting for the D500 shot had been reduced to 8EV (rather than the usual 10), in order to keep it below the 1/2000th shutter speed threshold for using electronic first curtain shutter.
The images are comparable.
Henrik Melander: Fix your lens for Pentax DPR
Sure. I'll just go and get the screwdriver out.
LensRentals (who check their lenses before they're loaned-out, I believe), let us borrow this copy: it's probably in a better state than most lenses.
However, we have now got a copy from Ricoh, so we will check to see which is better, and use that.
No lens is perfect. This lens isn't broken. We will check if we can get a better result.
Barry Goyette: Lets be honest DPR...your love affair with the sony a7r-II sensor would fall apart if you would simply pay attention to the lack of detail that comes along with sony's noise reduction. Your constant need to show how pushing an image 4+ stops is the most important camera metric would cease to influence your minions if you acknowledged that the A7r-II shows less detail than the other cameras when pushed using your preferred method of exposure.
Of course we don't believe it's the only important metric.
We are impressed by the a7R II's capability at both low and high ISOs, in terms of noise and DR. Or, at least, we are now that you can turn the lossy compression off. We'd be even more impressed if a version were available without NR at high ISOs (though I think you're over-stating its impact).
For now, though, the a7R II and D810 feature probably the best two sensors we've seen (with perhaps the RX100 IV's chip, if we're thinking pound-for-pound performance). Thus they act as our benchmark until something better comes along.
zakaria: Why not using the sigma 70 mm macro and make the standard lens for all testing work since it is available for all.
That's the problem: or more.
By the time you've added the impact of copy-to-copy variation, the impact of adapters and the non-availability of some adapters (quite beyond the logic of shooting full frame and micro four thirds at radically different distances), you don't end up with as much consistency as you might think.
Conversely, using very good 50mm and 85mm lenses (for the most part) stopped down a little gives very good results. As well as better reflecting real-world usage.
You may find it hard to believe but it's a lot harder to actually try it. And we have.
Mister Joseph: What's the lens used on the K-1? Outside of the image center seems to be out of focus or just soft?
You can see which lens was used by pressing the [ *i* ] button at the lower right of each preview panel.
We have, on several occasions, tested the possibility of using versions of the same lens across multiple mounts. But, between copy-to-copy variation, the effect of using adapters and the non-availability of some adapters, it doesn't bring the consistency benefits that you might, in theory, expect.
techjedi: Results presented are very compelling. Does a 1 second exposure become 4 seconds due to multiple shots? Is this even relevant for long exposure?
techjedi - correct.
thegreat26: I am a Pentaxian but from what I see the D810 is still the winner....Not with pixel shift enabled.Can we please have the settings used?Lens, a a simulation on or off?
I don't think the D810 does have the same sensor as the K-1.
The D810's sensor is able to offer electronic first curtain shutter and offers an ISO 64 setting. From what we've seen so far, the K-1's sensor has more in common with the D800 and a7R.
We have, on several occasions, tested lenses that were available across multiple systems. We found it provided less consistency, rather than more.
Ultimately, we try to use sensible lenses for each system and we try not to over-interpret anything that is likely to stem from lens performance.
bentheoandrews: Fuji X30 and XQ2 now officially discontinued. Keep up DPR.
@bentheoandrews - they are still readily available in some of the countries where we have significant numbers of readers. Simply skip over those pages if they're not cameras you're considering.
Dan DeLion: Once again DPR shows the value of their scores. It’s amazing how much difference there is between DXOmark and DPR scores. But, it is important not to offend any brand.
BTW – The new white background is a great improvement.
What makes it surprising (let alone amazing) that a website that reviews the totality of a camera should arrive at a different conclusion and score from one that solely tests Raw sensor output?
deep7: While that "Equivalent Aperture" graph isn't wrong per se, it is quite misleading. If the y axis started at f1 (the functional zero point of aperture calculations), the lines would appear much closer together, reflecting how the real world aperture differences have been exaggerated. Further, using a logarithmic scale on the x axis is very misleading and plays down the significant differences in focal lengths.
I'm not accusing anyone of anything but the graph, as presented, looks as if someone had an agenda...
You're right, that sentence is perhaps a little too simplistic.
Essentially we were trying to say 'lower is generally better' for a general audience who probably don't want to engage in a war about light-per-unit-area *vs* light-per-image.