Readers' Choice: Best Gear of 2013 Awards

But How long can it last, as a new breed of photogs move up, the old dogs retire.... Canon And Nikon need to wake up before its too late... RIP. KODAK.

Very funny indeed. One nice FF, own it for 5-years, half the yearly cost of a tiny sensor camera that will go obsolete in 2-years, while providing double the performance. Maybe Canon/Nikon owners know something?

Half the people here are whining their cameras are going obsolete. The other half are whining their sensor isn't the latest and great. Go figure.

True, Fuji and Olympus cameras seem expensive for what they are. Sony's are more reasonable with a FF A7 being £1200 in the UK.

One thing I've noticed about 4/3 in general is that you pay more for the crop factor. An example would be the 70-300 lens for 4/3 that is badged Olympus but manufactured by Sigma (or at least it seems very, very likely that it is). That lens was more expensive in 4/3 than Nikon, Canon, etc., because you got 140-600mm instead of 105-450. Yes, that is a RIDICULOUS way of looking at it, but it is how the manufacturers look at it.

It is pretty easy with an Oly or Panny camera and two kit lenses to cover 28-300mm equivalent, and that is part of the price. Heck, getting out to 600mm is not too tough with m43. The crop factor is an advantage from one point of view, despite the ceaseless trolling about FF cameras on here. So... you can get your foot in the door pretty easily with the Sony A7, and it is a fantastic camera, but when you start talking about lenses it is tough to get that Sony from 28-600mm without spending a lot of money, even if you're willing to carry the weight around.

That crop factor advantage is a poor marketing ploy used by manufacturers as "reach" only really depends on the pixel size of the sensor and not the sensor size. As the resolution in larger formats goes up, so does their "equivalent" telephoto focal length. With 24MP APS-C sensors there is no benefit to a 16MP 4/3 sensor.

Ayoh,

I pretty strongly disagree with you. Take my Canon SX230HS, which is something like 480mm equivalent at the long end (I'm guessing; I don't remember exactly), but has a very tiny sensor, something like 1/2.7 (again, I'm guessing, but it is something like that).

There is NO WAY that you are getting a picture of a bird as detailed as I can with that camera at 480mm equivalent, by cropping a 1/2.7 part of a full frame sensor using a 25mm lens. It doesn't work that way. You've been sold a bill of goods. The principle is the same with APS-C and m43, or any other two formats. A longer crop factor is an advantage. It may be cancelled by other disadvantages, but it is still an advantage. There are good reasons to prefer APS-C or FF over m43, but this hogwash about being able to crop a much lower focal length and get the same detail isn't one of them.

What if your full frame sensor had the same pixel size as your small sensor - it would have the same resolution hence same "reach" with a lens of a given focal length. The only reason it is not currently done is due to camera processor limits which would struggle with 100-200MP full frame sensors. But with each generation the resolution goes up..

No, it still wouldn't work, and here's why. Even with 32 megapixels on a full frame sensor, you have to struggle to get more detail than with 24 megapixels on a full frame sensor. You need the best lenses and tripods there are, and even then you have to pixel peep to see the difference. Check out dpreview's reviews of these cameras. They are very cautious in their statements about being able to get more detail.

As your pixel count goes up, it becomes correspondingly harder to stabilize your camera, IF you are expecting the kind of detail that you are talking about. Let's say that you have 10 pixels in a row. You shake your camera in a minor way while taking the picture. It is almost enough to blue one pixel, but doesn't. If you put 100 pixels where those 10 were, you blur 10 pixels with the same shake! The picture is not LESS detailed then before (when down-scaled), but not MORE detailed either.

Best I've seen is Fuji - and this from a dedicated Nikon shooter!

Colours are personal preference - keep in mind that ot every one sees colours the same way! People have different ratio of the colour sensors in their retinas and have different sensitivity to different colours. And on top of this "hardware" issue people have different preference to colours. Some people are also believed to be tetrachromats and able to see much more colours.
My colour preference is:
Nikon
Pentax
Sony

Yeah, right, modern like 1970's?

Last time I looked my 70's SLR did not have IBIS or an EVF... The styling is irrelevant IMO. Even then, I must admit that I prefer "retro" styling to the shapeless ugly black blobs that most modern cameras have become.

I myself admire the engineering and design put into some of the 60's 70's and 80's cameras.
One of the biggest leaps in the industry and a piece of art is the 1972 Olumpus OM1 (and lens system).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympus_OM-1
Also the Olympus Pen F with its ingenious design
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympus_Pen_F
...
Unfortunately their LAST big camera was released in the distant 1986, the OM 4 Titanium!

Its not hard to find. Google is your friend. And it is not hard to imagine either. The lack of an AA filter in the K3 could bridge some of the gap to the 5D3, with a decent processing engine helping as well. In truth though, I think we all know that "ultimate" IQ is a pointless search now and we are at the time of diminishing returns. I bet you could put K3 and D610 images side by side in large print and a random sample could not pick out which was which..

I don't own any of the gear in this poll, yet I ended up voting for most of them in the previous polls. I would not a buy a Pentax K3 or a Sony RX100, but I can recognize excellence when I see it.

I'm not aware of DPReview hyping the Pentax K3. It's one of the few cameras in the list they haven't yet tested.
Yet it won.
Maybe people like myself who have never owned a Pentax can recognise that they produce some of the nicest and most innovative DSLRS around

Maybe he just likes a good camera, regardless of how it looks like?

actually I find that there are far too many Olympus fans in this community, who swear that it smells good when Olympus farts.

I might be repeating myself, but this is the vote of many RETRO-CAMERA-FETISHISTS out there.

... and Fuji and Olympus taking advantage of that.

@ Anastigmat: too many Olympus fans? A smarter person would be asking themselves why so many people are fans of that brand at this time. Maybe because it is. Developing cameras that people really want to own...

@ Everlast, equally, the success of the OMD and X100S and recent launches such as the DF and X-T1 surely indicate that the smaller, metal-bodied, more dial-driven style of camera is welcomed by a sizeable chunk of the camera-buying community. You may not share those preferences; that's fine, there are other products for you. But no need to insult those who do.

Mark, I am not denying the qualities of the camras, but there are psychological factors in peoples' voting for one or another camera here. Ok the original Fuji X100 in 2010 was interesting with its hybrid viewfinder and retro styling, but four years later and counless cameras from Fuji and Oly that explored every aspect of the 70's camera design we are still stuck at the same design repeating over and over with minor variations. Fuji and Oly just accidentally struck gold as they didn't expect the proportions of this retro camera fetish. And now even Samsung and Nikon are trying their luck, should we encourage this?
There can be small metal cameras with manual controls without being retro! Even conservative Leica is staying aside from this momentous fashion.

I own both Nikon and Canon and I agree with RichRMA completely.

Anastigmat, maybe people can recognise quality cameras from other brands than the one they own. I voted in every category for the most innovative and well rounded camera. i.e the one I would most like to own even though I cannot justify owning them all.
Surely that's a better way than fanboyism.

Noted for future reference.

So Medium format by Hasselblad or Phase One. I just have to sell the house to afford either one.

Thanks!

Dear JB, Frank C. forgot to explain that shallow depth of field, which gets shallower and blurs the background more with the increased size of the sensor, is paramount to him personally. Millions of photographers (including me with my award-winning fine art photography) are very happy with the other side of the coin: increased dof for the same f/stop, the ability to stay closer to the lens IQ sweet spot (f/5.6, f/8) and avoid extreme f/stops (f/16 or f/22) were diffraction rules and kills sharpness. If I need shallow dof with my m4/3 and APS-C gear, I do not mind just using a longer lens. The E-M10 looks like an excellent first camera to me (quality/size/weight/price balance), and it comes with a comprehensive selection of dedicated lenses which you would greatly appreciate as your technique grows.

Such a specious comment. DOF is under your control, and with fast lenses and appropriate management of subject to background distance ratio, you can get as creamy a background as you desire. The ultra thin DOF look is overused and the assumption that m4/3 is bad while APS-C is marginal is frankly lazy thought. After cropping both to 8x10 for portraits etc, you end up realizing that there is about a 1/3 stop difference in crop factor against Canon APS and about .44 stops against Nikon APS. I.e. nothing to wring your hands over.

The strong point of m4/3 is it allows excellent depth of field control without compromising on shutter speed or sensitivity (~noise). It's at a very sweet point where subject isolation is easy but you can still get good (more is usually better) depth of field without too much trouble.

I spent most of the time in the film days using apertures of F8 or smaller. Not the best apertures to use to get the best out of the lens.
There used to be articles in the photo magazines explaining how to use hyperfocal focusing to get more DOF
Now, with m43 I get the same results with F4 or F5.6 which is generally around the lens sweet spot.
Things have got better as far as I'm concerned.

Trolls detected.

Plenty of control, just use the appropriate lens.

I think Boris has forgotten the Voigtlander F0.95 Trinity of primes, SLR MAGIC also make T0.95 lenses and some F1.4, 1.6
Sure the lowest DOF is equiv to FF 1.9 - but one thing that M43 can do is hoot wide open with decent sharpness, as FF large aperture lenses often need to be stopped down.

Theres a price for less size and less weight, DOF control is less per F STOP, but LOW LIGHT possibilities are increased!

It's a great rant, I have to admit, but as usual the accusations of bias conveniently ignore the praise we've heaped on every camera in this particular Pentax line. We've given Gold Awards to the K-5, K-5 II and K-5 IIs, and before them the K-7 was Highly Recommended. I can't quite see how that fits into this particular conspiracy theory.

correct, still waiting for Pentax review....

Indeed, considering this site is called DP REVIEW, it is surprising just how little reviews are actually published.

There is now a considerable swage of popular, established cameras and lenses that have been in the market for some time and have not had any more than a "first impressions" from DPR.

DPR need to have a long hard think about their mission. There is no point in pretending they are a review site if reviews are not quickly responsive to the market.

DPR need to hire some testing Gimps. Shut them in a room with cameras and not let them out until DPR has caught up with the backlog.

Frankly, DPR should be pushing out reviews of new gear every couple of days. They are failing to do this. If this is simply because they lack the staff, then hire more people. If they don't want to do that, then quit pretending they are a review site. As long as large amounts of gear remain unreviewed, they are failing in their core purpose...

I assume that you'll be taking out our Platinum membership to pay for all these people I'm supposed to hire.

Yeah, it makes me chuckle. Most of us who use this site, me included, are freeloaders. A few years ago, we bought magazines to learn about new camera gear and that money paid for staff etc. Now we get it for nothing! My suggestion to those who complain that they are not getting what they (don't) pay for is go to a subscribed site and complain there.

Seriously, be grateful people.

If you can't keep up with the pace of gear coming out ( Pentax K3 for example has been in stores for what seems like aeons now ) then either stop pretending to be an up to the minute gear review site, or reassign / replace people doing other stuff....

The whole point of the Gearshop is that people can buy "your favourite gear"... the idea being that we read a review on DPR then use DPR to buy the gear you review.... if you don't get around to actually reviewing the gear while it is new and interesting, then that particular business model is rather flawed.... people are not going to buy "your favourite gear" using gearshop when they have to go to other sites to read a review, are they....?

If a site that actually did detailed reviews of gear before or on their launch to market, when interest is highest, then I think people would pay more attention - maybe even pay. I would.

DPR simply does not review enough gear anymore to justify its name, especially lenses...

onlooker - What planet are you from? Open your eyes and read the Comment sections everyday. Then you'll see all the clueless morons who badmouth m43 vs. FF.

You are just looking to the wrong category. Awards which Canon won are in the WORST of 2013 category (see links below): SL1 is the worst DSLR of 2013, S120 is the worst enthusiast zoom of 2013, EOS M2 is the worst mirrorless of 2013, 55-250 STM is the worst lens of 2013 (for some reason).

I do not believe that there is a site that can be a point of reference for purchases but instead there are many sites ( DPReview is one of them) that can help in the search for characteristics of cameras more suited to our needs . Finally regarding the survey am convinced that the readers of DPReview (I'm one of them) have only voted their favorite product and that does not mean that they have or will buy the reflex that they have voted . I voted for Pentax K3 but I use Nikon . My vote is just a personal opinion based on many reviews I have read and express only my personal opinion on a camera that I really admire for its features. I am an admirer of Pentax camera because I know some friends who use Pentax and I got to try Pentax products . They are great machines .

Anybody forces anybody to take a "click bait"? Is it like trove of other interesting and helpful information to be enjoyed on the DPR suddenly becomes unavailable to you as a punishment for not clicking on a poll?

Of course it's click bait. I'd love to see a meeting where someone says, "Hey, let's create a site that contains content that no one wants to read!". If you're not interested in the content, then don't click on it.

@Resom...I hope you're not merely passing the Bach ;-p Is that a Luger in your pocket?

In case of X100s not trendy but hipster. Better get the new Fuji soon before you start loosing respect in the local scene...

By the way it's January and this is just the first camera to be released this year. Don't get me wrong I think it will be great but calling it camera of the year in January already just because the put the EVF on top and integrated a grip is a bit too early ;)

@theprehistorian...no, I'd say you've simply done your homework and have a great kit. A trendy would have a modern dslr in a Tamrac Expedition 50 bag with 20 lenses, some of which he may have used. Or not ;-) And everyone who uses the word "hipster" will be outed as a wannabe metrosexual and forced to write their own material and read it aloud before the class. Get those crayons ready ;-p

"simply governed by their physical structure which can be advantage or disadvantage at times"

Doesn't that refer to everything everywhere?

@paulo79...yes it does, that's exactly what I meant. I draw the conclusion from your comment that you didn't deliberately misunderstand my comment.

There were some 6 000 people voting, which is only a fraction of the total number of people visiting this site. I think we can say that, among the enthusiasts who are actively participating in forums and comments threads on DPR, a large number use m4/3 cameras. But that DPR "is largely followed by 4/3 users", isn't necessarily true.

And then, why can't a camera with a 4/3 sensor be innovative? Is there some magical border between 4/3 and APS-C, that makes innovation impossible in the cameras with the smaller sensor? And is all innovation tied to sensor size? Would the AA-filter simulation in K-3 lose its status as innovation, if used in a camera with smaller sensor? Weren't the Olympus 5-axis IBIS innovative at all, because it was used in a m4/3 camera?

The sensor size isn't the innovative bit, it's all the other features

Exactly I don't shoot mirrorless cameras. Never will ever buy a m43 camera EVER (just love FF images and m43 will never cut it for me). BUT I believe the EM-1 is deserving of being a winner. Its a very good camera at its price point.

It has no real weakness that would detract from its winner tag.

Enjoy:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3594897
The worst DSLR of 2013 - Canon SL1
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3594881
The worst enthusiast zoom compact of 2013 - Canon S120
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3594916
The worst lens - Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM (I am baffled by this one)
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52751134
The worst mirrorless - Canon EOS M2
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52751234
The worst fixed FL fixed lens compact - Nikon A

Boris, thanks for your analysis of past reviews - nothing beats objective numbers!

Not sure I see the point of measuring from day of announcement. Maybe more sense in looking from first day of availability in marketplace (in US since that's where DPR resides)? Manufacturers can announce a model any time they want in advance of actually producing the item.

I've been using Olympus systems since the early nineties, along with other equipment. "Small but robust" has always been their unique attraction and the present incarnation of this idea - the OM-D series - is just lovely. It's not the "best" in any way, but it just works for me like no other system. Importantly, the lack of overwhelming flaws in those products makes them exceedingly useful.

The E-M1 (which I own) belongs in spirit to a special genre of cameras which I call "a camera for the road". Small but not too small, fast, durable and capable enough (though not necessarily "perfect") for every conceivable situation one might encounter. It can be thrown in a rucksack with a smallish prime or two and you don't have to worry about it.

Those polls are remarkably meaningless as most voters have not had the chance to use any of the options. Nevertheless, it's quite reassuring that a small (in more than one way) manufacturer can enjoy this kind of acceptance. Kudos indeed.

If the Olympus forum pull the same nonsense they did last year, it wouldn't be a surprised E-M1 won. If you can dig up my past from a year ago you will see. Olympus forum mobilized three times as many voters as all other mirrorless forums combined.

What an appalling thing to say. I'll bet you haven't got a shred of evidence to back up such an accusation.