DPReview Readers' Choice Awards 2020: Product of the Year

Hello Kandid

Not a whinge, a personal observation from personal experience.

D810 - bought mine used, well hardly used, as a stills camera and the quality is still hard to beat. Can't see the Canon bettering it.

D780 - that was bought for video. I'm not shooting for the big screen - but which dpreview states 'On the video side, the D780 is also quite compelling. The quality of its 4K footage is excellent and nearly class-leading.'. Add to that the use of nearly any Nikon lens ever mad, battery life and price..... !

The Leica - well that's something just to have a affair with without upsetting my other half.

@user77655677
I somehow doubt that you have had personal experience with the R5 yet you feel able to compare it to the cameras you do have and mention overheating twice.................ummmmmmm🤨

.............ummmmmmm🤨. Sure the R5 is a nice camera, but I'm not sure clients are too concerned, my wallet would be and, yes, overheating could be a problem.

So is 8K that overheats in prolonged shooting worse than having the feature in the camera for those who can still make significant use of it in controlled shootings and b-roll? It doesn't make sense to criticize it for not excelling in something no other competitor does, doesn't it? The D780 while a good camera for video, the R5 is in a whole different league with the HDMI output, timecode, 8K, 8k-4K oversampling, perfect UI/peaking/zebras, gorgeous EVF for video, an in camera powerful IS for all manual video glass and a mount that can take them all, not to mention the size and weight and the Dual Pixel AF and the beloved C-LOG. Just a whole different class of video camera. You can shoot Hollywood films on both cameras an no one will complain about the image just as you can shoot a gallery masterpiece of a 24mp excellent D3500 yet that doesn't mean photographers and especially us, camera geeks should,'t buy and enjoy the higher performing/more featured photography cameras like the d810

> You can shoot Hollywood films on both cameras

Sorry, no. As someone who has worked on professional film and video shoots I can tell you that no Hollywood professional would want to use a camera that can overheat and shut down in the middle of production.

@steppen
Better, but not popular - surely a contradiction...?
Launched in 2019 anyway - clue is in the name of the award......😐

Yes, it was a terrible year

List was designed to push canons to top. No real choices were given.

thx1138:

That's not an argument for the R5.

For example you didn't say, "the R5 has better AF", or, "the RF is one stop better for higher ISOs", or, "the R5 has optically better native lenses", or, "the R5, within limits, is a better video camera".

Steppenw0lf has a valid point about how good the 5DSR is. Pretending the 5DSR is analogous to using coloured pencils says more about you than Steppenw0lf.

Kristain1:

You are right, I'm sure the camera makers who deliberately cripple their products in the name of "market segmentation" don't care about our objections to their practices, and they will continue to not care until we as consumers stop rewarding them by buying said crippled products.

@mikegt
It’s Camera of the year because it deserves to be 😁
How even a bitter die hard anti Canon poster (such as you repeatedly seem to be) can call this ‘crippled’ when it can do more than any competitor is difficult to understand - and makes me concerned as to your grip on reality.....😳

So cameras designed primarily as stills cameras should be judged solely on things that only apply to video? Is that about right? How about we also judge dedicated video cameras solely on how well they do taking stills?

Those who use the Canon R5 for its intended purpose, shooting stills, couldn't care less about the mini-HDMI connector or heating issues when doing something no other hybrid camera on the market even attempts to do.

MGradyC: Most folks here like to shoot both stills and videos and don't want to carry around two cameras to do so! Plus Canon made a huge deal about the video capabilities of this camera; so you are mistaken in your belief that the R5 was not designed and intended for both uses. Lastly, if you don't care about video why do you want to spend $5,000 on an R5 when for stills there are much better and cheaper alternatives? Like the 51 megapixel Canon 5DSR, which these days sells used for only around $1,200 ? If you really want to spend five grand on a stills camera, then get a medium format model like the Fujifilm GFX 50R; this would be a much better choice for someone who only cares about stills.

Kandid: You are well-known as a Canon fanatic and troll. Your words are never worth reading, and in fact I stopped reading your post as soon as I saw your name! Didn't you get banned for a while for being a super troll ? It's a shame they didn't make the ban permanent.

Kandid: No one is reading your crap. Give it up already.

It really doesn't matter, its not too hard to like any of the products here.

@Andy

$500.00 for a nothing spectacular prime lens is too much.

Tedolph

Andy that wasn’t voted the #3 product of the year.
I’m not saying anything about the Z lens selection. I’m just saying a 50mm f1.2 lens that cost more than $2000 is the product of the year, then it was a boring year.

@tedolf: Yes, it's pretty spectacular, one of the best 50mm primes on the market. Please check reviews.

I thought we were talking about a $2100 50mm prime lens here that got the most votes among Nikon products for product of the year.

Mike: we were talking about the $500 1.8 lens too.

@Andy

That's what I thought. The 50mm f/1.8.

A $199.00 lens that is selling for $500.00.

Tedolph

@tedolf: Damn man, get some logic. Just because a lens is 1.8 does not mean its comparable to a cheap nifty-fifty. Have you even bothered to check the review i linked? It's sharper and has less aberrations than the Sigma 50mm art.

A slow 50mm standard lens is the easiest lens to make, and make well. It should be the cheapest lens in a manufacturer's inventory.

Tedolph

Maybe so, but prices have gone up in general, and so have the demands put on lenses by high MP bodies... Even third party f1.8 mirrorless lenses tend to go for more than $200 these days. You might be able to get a Samyang f1.8 for $300 or a Tamron f2.8 for $200 on sale (nothing against either btw, I've bought both kinds), but a first party mirrorless prime that's actually good (let alone an exceptional one) will likely never be $200 again... You can get a Sony 50/1.8 for that price, with more compromises than the third party options.

My original point is still the same. Hard to be excited about Nikon’s 2020 when the readers choice product of the year is a 50mm lens.

It’s a voting of popularity with limited choices. I personally would have voted for the Z5 as the cheapest entry-level full frame camera of the year. They also released the two last missing lenses of the holy trinity all of them with excellent quality. The 14-24 f2.8 is the smallest and lightest f2.8 UWA zoom on the mirrorless market. A stellar 50mm f1.2 might just be more interesting to all the bokeh craze people. On the other hand think about your comment. It’s not only Nikon’s product of the year. It’s also tied lens of the year of all manufacturers. So following your deduction it must have been a boring year for all manufacturers in terms of lenses.

@tedolf the 50mm f1.8 S competes in sharpness with the 3000 Euro Zeiss Otus and easily surpasses the more expensive Zeiss 55mm f1.8 for E-mount. This is not a low quality nifty fifty like the Canon RF version. I guess you call Leica Summicrons nifty fifties as well?

@Hibiki,

Yes. I always thought that the 50mm Summicron (I used to call it the Super Pooperon) was the biggest rip off in Leicas' lineup. Compare it to a Pentax SMC Super Takumar of the same era. It's the Leica 10x better?

And this is coming from a Leica owner. I bought the 40mm f/2 instead-an excellent lens and a much better deal.

Tedolph

The R6 sensor has slower readout speed and more rolling shutter. Would help if you would actually check the reviews.
The resolution is not meaningless either. Maybe is for you. Its very useful and not just for big prints.
Did you ever had to shoot wildlife and crop the center of the image? There are many situations where you cannot have the perfect composition.

The high ISO again, R5 compensates with more than double the resolution.

Ouch.

wjan, so you are saying the Kodak Funsaver is not most popular mirrorless camera? I am crushed. :)

(btw, completely agree)