Award-winning photojournalist and videographer Dan Chung from DSLR News Shooter has just posted a video shootout pitting the Canon EOS 5D Mark III against the Nikon D800. In the interesting and in-depth article accompanying it, Chung looks at the video features of both cameras in detail and compares them, not only in terms of output quality, but also usability.
Among the factors covered are the cameras' video detail resolution, susceptibility to moiré patterning and the extent of rolling shutter effect. Using a range of different lenses and accessories on both cameras, Dan also takes a detailed look at how well each camera fits into a professional video workflow.
What an F-ing dissapointment that Canon and Nikon are for stooping so low to the point that their DSLR's are more geared up with video and have now begun to ditch actual useful features and opt for the video BS . Everyone is on this video bandwagon and it is getting stupid, I have a suggestion for the video guys.... Get a dedicated VIDEO CAMERA.
The main reason people are on this 'video bandwagon' is quite simply, cost. To get a dedecated video camera that gives you the quality and depth of field professional filmmakers require will cost tens of thousands whereas a DSLR plus several lenses will be significantly less. Since getting my DSLR, which I got primarily for photograpy btw, my film work has never looked so good.
I was thinking of pickup a D800 body for my wedding biz, but frankly the high ISO performance stinks, what a disappointment. The 5DIII is far better for weddings......
It is obvious that these two cameras have their own characteristics and those cameras have their own setting to produce some sort of good pictures. If we put all settings at zero/neutral position and use the same lens, I believe each camera will produce different image characteristics.
If we intended to compare the performance of those cameras, we have to compare the best picture produced by each camera with their best setting. Then we really get the real information which camera is really the winner because the winner can produce better result than the other.
I think this is the information that I or perhaps most people need.
Tripods, special mounts, matte boxes, lenses with extensions, external mics, head phones, dedicated recorders for uncompressed HDMI feeds, large monitors, control options that would fill 70 non-existent Wiki entries. Oh, and helicopters! At $500 / hour for custom shots? We're talking $100k-plus before one can get rolling. The camera body is chicken feed in the gross equation.
When one sees the fabulous amounts of gear used with FF DSLRs to shoot video, the amalgam resembles an old-fashioned Panavision or TV camera, or maybe an antique X-ray machine. To contemplate the bulk and expense cures me, suddently, of GAS: gear aquisition syndrome. Or should the treatment be called TUMS: too utterly much stuff.
Chung himself uses something practical, like an HX9V, when shooting casual video. A little camera won't cause crowds to gather or authorities to pester you for permits, bribes, or casting selections.
looks like both cameras have their relaitive pros and cons and summed up are probably comparable shooters. It's really not much different than the days of film shooting, you have to know the characteristics and limitations of your medium and compensate for it. That's why photography is an art form.
It's completely obvious. For fair comparison, you need to use the same, identical lens. You can't put a Canon lens on a Nikon and using two third party lenses for each brand adds an another possible impact on the results (not all lenses are the same, not even the same model). The adapter has zero impact on the results.
Firstly, great info, however as others have pointed out not quite apples and apples. Looking at the bridge pics the Canon seemed to have an edge in the acutance, however darker. The Nikon appeared to have in my minds eye better color rendition, especially in the brighter shots. At this level of technology this is not going to make me jump ship because its all nittpicking. Be happy with what your lens supplier makes and work on photography, because at the end of the day that's what its all about. By-the-way did Canon move the mirror lockup to a switch either physically or by menu choice? Jab Jab.
Excellent report. Only prob i have is in my opinion handicapping the canon by using a nikon lens with an adaptor on the canon. That does not seem to me to be an apples to apples comparison. I would have thought to be fair you would get say a good tamron lens and use a lens made for each camera. I understand that by using the exact same lens you are getting a better comparison in the cameras BUT it is my opinion that would not over weigh the handicap put on the canon camera by using an adapter and a nikon lens.
They are both great cameras. If i did not have a lot of money in canon lenses (5d mkii) I would prob buy the nikon if i was starting over today.
I dont quite see how nikon can put that much technology for that money.
Its still hard for me to believe that the electronics of the nikon lens that was made to talk to a nikon camera would act perfectly talking to a canon body. Does not make sense to me.
A real handicap for the Canon would have been if they used Canon glass, hehe, just joking guys don't take it seriously. :P
While I agree the shouldn't be any handicap by using an adapter, I am wondering is it possible that this allows the Nikon use in body lens correction while the Canon can not, with a non-native lens. They should have used a third party lenses to be completely fair.
@ Everlast66 What if the two - for example - Tamrons were not equally sharp? How is that for completely fair comparison? Only completely fair if you use exactly the same lens.
I'm pretty sure both cameras used the light gathered by the same lens in the same way.
a more valid comparison would have been that you had 2 of the same 3rd party lens and test each camera. then you would only have the variation between the samples
Yes, the adapter does not have glass... but the adapter should at least be distance calibrated to the sensor to ensure optimum performance... I doubt this calibration was performed... and in the end it may not make that much difference... but then again, it might make a great difference... we won't know now.. But I do know that all of my lenses require calibration... both Canon and Nikon lenses....
> Buy a dedicated video camera if you want to shoot video?
If I understood the issue correctly, the prices for pro/semi-pro interchangeable lens video cameras, compared to the DSLRs, have too many zeros on the end. Same goes for the cine lenses. Yet, apparently the DSLRs are capable of delivering "good enough" video quality.
Quote: "what i don't understand is people's obsession with the video quality on these DSLRs. Shirley the main reason to buy a DSLR is for still photography? Buy a dedicated video camera if you want to shoot video?"
But what you have failed to realise is that most "dedicated video cameras" cant use interchangable lenses, like DSLR's can! ...And stop calling me Shirley! :)
For the millionth time - people need to realize that combining video and photography into one device is what the vast majority of consumers and professional want.
Yes, there are still people out there that could care less about paying extra for video when they themselves are not interested in doing video. However, in a business perspective it would be suicide to not combine the two into one single device.
Your point and shoot and mobile device do both and yet no one here complains.
The wave of the future is Youtube, Vimeo, independent film making, amateur to professional video journalism and the like. Nikon and Canon are smart and realize this and will continue to capitalize on this.
I'm sorry to be so "in your face" but telling people to go buy a dedicated video camera is a little bit out of touch with reality. I don't want to buy a $1500 DSLR then pay for an $8,000 or more video camera only to learn the controls and lug around 2 different HEAVY devices.
Most professional photo journalists can't just live from stills alone anymore. They have to provide a story in stills and video. Their clients are not magazines anymore but online platforms, news channels, etc. Combining both features into one tool allows them to be more flexible and to carry less equipment.
And I want a cell phone that just makes & receives calls, but we've in the minority. The other part of the answer is that there is good money to be made getting people to buy all the accessories needed to do video.
Still and video in one is great when I go on vacation. Why carry two, that's just dumb. I bought a D7000 for my Europe vacation, and I think it's short in video functionality. Finally, Nikon is catching up.
For home videos I use a Sony CX350V Handycam. It has vastly superior image stabilization compared to anything I've ever experienced. It also has a low-lux mode that gives awesome low-light performance from its F1.8 zoom lens. A dedicated video camera can also use larger batteries that let you record for up to around 8 hours. Unless you've got a fancy stabilizer rig and an expensive external microphone, using current consumer DSLRs for home movies is taking a HUGE backward step in time in stabilization technology (not to mention the weight of the setup). If you haven't experienced Sony's Steadyshot with Active mode on one of their Handycams (it's not as good on their compacts and their NEX cameras don't have it except for their VG series), you've got to try it out. It is mind blowing.
These DSLRs are not video cameras, they are stills cameras you can use to capture very high quality video, with all the lenses you have, with small DOF and high sensitivity. They are not straight competition to video cameras, they have their own field to play, or actually have snatched a large part of the field which used to belong to $100000+ cinema cameras. Those of you who worry about having to pay for the video features: do not. Not counting some cheap connectors and ADC for sound recording, video features are practically free, as they all reside in the software. If you do not need it, do not use it. There are many other things there also you will not be using. But remember to NOT use the live view, ever, as that it VIDEO = evil. Basically what the video is is just the live view put on the memory card.
If you are going to say the "vast Majority" you better back it up with statistics because the vast majority of people I know don't even use video.
Video on a DSLR is mediocre at best. Nikon and Canon have been thriving up to this point without good video on their cameras and would most likely continue to do so. I'd love to see Nikon and Canon introduce separate versions of their cameras: one that has video and one that has none. That way all you people who want the video function can pay for it. I, and many others, don't want to have to pay the extra money that is built into the DSLR price for the few of you who whine about having video.
If Nikon and Canon were realizing that video was important it would be a lot better than it is today and would have gotten better much sooner.
Just because you don't want something doesn't mean the rest of us should have to pay for it.
Why don't you people buy a video camera with a stills photo function?
The differences are down to the choice of the picture style. But in theory, yes, Nikon's sensor is capable of better color reproduction. Not sure that we can see it in the video, though.
Except that most users will use PP to change the tones on everything. They'll add a bit more saturation and add cooling or warming in the final edit. Unless you were doing on the spot broadcasting for a Videoblog or Newscasting, I really don't see any real complaint about colour accuracy.
Actually the D800 resolves close to the same number of lines as the GH2. But where both the 5D III and D800 will be better is low-light work, shallow DOF, more and better native lenses, weather sealing, etc. Moire may show up occasionally but rolling shutter is nearly non-existent with the D800. Kudos Nikon.
I say this as a happy GH2 user, and former 5D II user, and someone who has purchased a D800, which is clearly a significantly better stills camera than the GH2, and an extremely competent video camera.
Ok, like i found by myself they are both great cameras for video and still imaging. I found the 36mp on d800 not so game-changing to the 22mp on 5d3 (there is a mere 15% linear resolution difference and human error and lenses become more relevant than this differtence) and 5d3 high iso performance not so game-changing to 5d2 and d800....
So at the end there is no real winner. Price whise... Canon is lowering road price (here in Italy we can found 5d3 at 2900€ and d800 at 2600€ with the silly "internal system error" on nikon ..hihi)
If i where starting now i had an hard choice ... but beinbg a Canon user with much more invested in lenses i'm no brainer on 5d3...
meanwhile we are facing m43 surging with really interesting cameras coming (i'm watching om-d really close as a light inexpensive and performing camera for many works that dont require top of the class quality) Eventually i can think on switching to Hasselblad for real top class works and m43 to light works....
Ok, Dan tried to compare the outputs' percieved sharpness, but in the first test (distant bridges), you can easily notice the D800 sample is taken with the optics zoomed to a longer focal length (or from a different place). I would also say the D800 takes a very slightly sharper video, and also a lot punchier at the used settings, but resolution is hard to compare in real world shots. The review also proved that the 5D III produces less moire, probably thanks to the its sensor's native horizontal resolution, which is exactly 3-times FullHD...so the 5D downsamples the image easily with less or no artifacts.
I've tried video and photo's on both over a few weeks. It's very personnel what you like. The 5DMkIII had better colour reproduction and ISO for the footage and images I need and like. As many more people are starting to say. It's what you have and want. There both great cameras everyone. Enjoy using them.
I guess it comes down to (in terms of video) whether you want: 1. 5DMIII - Softer image, controlled moire, sharpen in post 2. D800 - Tack sharp image, very visible moire, fix moire in post.
As a Nikon shooter I'd say I'd much rather deal with the first issue than the second which is disappointing.
"fix moire in post" - yeah, good luck with that. :)
Perhaps the moire issue change if you use the 15 Mpx FX mode instead of the D800s high resolution? 1080p video is after all just 2.1 megapixels per frame anyway...
For a hollywood style shallow DOF footage, D800 is better, For a documentary pan focus video footage, 5D3 is better.
THIS IS IRONIC, considering a lot of documentary photographer prefer Nikon, and Nikon wide lenses are superior / Canon's tele lenses are vastly superior.
I think both Canon and Nikon released great products for this year. Most of their customers will be very satisfied. Maybe not the gear heads.... but overall they both have done something very good. can't wait NAB..... Nikon shooters should be very happy with a d800 and d4. canon shooters should be very happy with 5d3 and 1dx. Gear heads should be very happy with all the fuzz and energy spent arguing on forums....
I fully agree. Nikon fan boys used to say that they never need more than 12M pixels, and better low light performance is the most important. Now, they are saying the opposite. And vice versa for Canon...
Personally the camera I'd really like is one with a D4 sensor in a D800 body ( a real D700 successor) - Canon are closer to this than Nikon - but I guess I'll have to take the extra MP count - and then use my D3 for the more everyday shots. Or maybe I should sit this round out - and just get some better glass instead...
Although this is about video, let me hazard a guess here: both Nikon D800 and Canon 5D3 end up with the same scores (> 85) in DPReview's final reviews. :)
You guys should test less cameras and test those quick. Huge amounts of previews (and 'overviews' and shootouts and whatnot) in the 'recents' but very few actual reviews. Fewer but actual 'reviews' would be So Much Better.
OK message heard! I presume you speak for everyone here? Great! Cutting most of the content will sure make our lives easier! By not posting this we could've saved several minutes of the news editor's time. Not that he does reviews of course...
Speaking for myself Simon, did I claim more? But I mean it. dpreview these days does 'everything' yet ends up with very few actual reviews in the recents. Try and look at the 'latest reviews' bottom right. preview, preview, preview, etc. Some of these cameras have been on sale for months. So do less!
i'd love to do reviews but I just don't have the time. And I'd like to clarify that previews DO NOT affect review productivity (since the content is part of the review the truth is quite the opposite). More importantly, in this case, we didn't do anything except post a link to a story on another site.
Just to back up what Simon said, we (collectively) find nothing more irritating than being told we don't do as many reviews as we used to, or could do if we didn't do so many previews. It's just such a maddeningly lazy line of argument, and completely false.
We could go back to the old days of reporting a new camera then going silent for months before delivering a review, or we could give you some informative previews and articles in the meantime AND STILL DELIVER THE REVIEW. Which would you prefer? You seem to be forgetting that previews are almost always written from experience with pre-production cameras, which we couldn't review even if we wanted to.
Sorry for the rant, but a couple of the commenters on here deserved it... and as Simon says, literally all we've done here is repost someone else's content because we thought our readers might find it interesting. No reviews were harmed in the publishing of this 2-paragraph news story...
@Simon, while I totally agree with your point, you tend (this is not the only time) to have a condescending and belittling tone when you reply. This is exactly the type of attitude and tone that make forum discussions turn foul.
As an editor I wish you would not respond on the low level that some of these questions are asked.
Agree, dpreview do seem to resent any criticism. It actually went downhill when the yanks took over. This isn't a dig, it's just an observation. And they still don't review anywhere near enough lenses. However, it is still the best review site on the web, but they do need to take notice of the people who use the site (we can stop using you guys you know).
'the yanks' took over 5 years ago, and I would be really interested to know in what respect it has 'gone downhill' since? I mean i know we've added tons of new features (inside and outside the reviews), and have hugely increased the amount of content (lens reviews, btw, came after the 'Yank takeover'), and I'm pretty sure Phil wasn't famous for his reception to criticism in the good old days. But I struggle to see how 'publish less stuff' is sensible criticism, or that by reducing considerably the amount of content published we would be in any way serving those who use the site (since the content we do publish gets lots of traffic I would suggest at least some of those people approve of what we're doing).
Nikkors are hugely popular with videographers who shoot all different types of cameras because many of them have real mechanical aperture rings, and because the are superb optically, but if you want to blame the test results on the lens that's up to you.
I agree with @marike6. I sold a 15yr old Nikor mount Sigma 28-70 2.8 EX lens for just about what I paid for it. The guy bought it because it had a mechanical aperture. And, he wasn't even mounting it directly to the camera but was using some sort of 3rd party coupling thing that film makers use?!? I was thrilled, It allowed me to buy a 1.4 50mm lens.
Excuse me Ruy but on what facts do you base your bet? In this test Nikon gives us better looking images.Nikon has better colour rendition and more accurate exposure. Based on this test I would without any doubt pick the D800.
Is hard to say anything from these images but the author opinion is Canon - he said this in the end, except for the sharpness. To compare both I would need better observation and patience but based on the fact the Canon has more experience with pro camcorders than Nikon since a long time and with video capable cameras too I bet in Canon without doubt. To tell you the truth the differences should be minimal and the lens quality will speak at the end.
I have seen a videoreview form the canon 5D mkIII where they showed with sharpening afterward that de Canon was very sharp. This was not possible with the mkII. The output is very clean.
at what? because resolution wise the canon is more like 720p video. very mushy and waxy. the nikon suffers from moire but that never stopped the 5DII shooter. I don't see why it will stop the nikon shooter. you can always avoid moire but a soft image is a soft image all the time.
pfft, plenty of users here will go down to the pixel level of pictures and rant off about every issue that shouldn't be present. But when it comes to video many are quick to right it off as a blatant feature that's merely a marketing scheme that won't serve them any good and therefor doesn't deserve any attention...
Come on! How cool is it to be able to shoot beautiful high-res photos AND high-res video using one body and the same lenses? Seems this argument has been around since the MarkII, but I'm disappointed in seeing comments that aren't welcoming to video, maybe this isn't the post to comment on? I can understand how the focus of such DSLRs can switch from pure photography to being a hybrid, to eventually really just being about the video, but I don't see a photo camera shooting better video than pictures... they're too different anyways so that doesn't make sense~
People are not welcoming to Video because we never wanted to be amatuer film makers we wanted to be photographers otherwise we would have been doing film for years on a DV cam or Super 8 or VHS... The camera companies have lumped these two genres together and make half assed attempts at both instead of one device purely for one job. Does your car fly ? Why not maybe you should get a flying car incase some days you decide you are not happy with just driving. Most people on here are technical users who dont really use cameras how they were intended. Film was miles ahead but just more expensive & a bit more hassle. You all need to spare a thought for photographers out there who have had there art and industry pulled from under there feet by anyone with a dslr thinking they have what it takes then telling camera companies they want more "features" which only takes away from the real essence of the camera which is its ability to take a picture!!!
the D800 shows moire in the building top above and to the left of Pier 17... and even moire distracting, moire in the water that shows up as color splotches. Very interesting and informative video comparison.
yes, similar to the 5DmkII. But the resolution advantage on top of the uncompressed HDMI make it prefereable for detail capture. like 5DmkII shooters, nikonians will just have to avoid moire. the 5DIII is just a soft camera for video 100% of the time and the lack of HDMI is a kill.
One thing Dan didn't mentioned was that on the D800 and D4, the frame rate drops dramatically when magnifying the image. I shot a video project with the D4 last weekend, and this glitch drove me crazy, especially since I didn't have an external monitor. Weirdly, this wasn't the case when using the 2.7X crop mode.
All in all, I've learned something from all of the various "reviews" and commentary about the D800 & 5D mk III - for me it is the D400, if it ever comes. I don't need this much camera. I think they are both great, but for me a D400 would be great - smaller file sizes with a 16 MP DX sensor, the auto focus, metering, buffering and video from the D800 would be great. ;-)
I agree with arhmatic. I just care about image stabilization and color. If the government didn't force everyone to get HDTVs, most of us would still be using SD. I still find DVDs on a CRT to be perfectly fine.
But did you get a load of his fully kitted camera? With that much gear added to the basic body you are still limited to the old DSLR form factor and one has spent almost as much as one would have for a "real" pro camera. Yes, I know, it's all about bokeh but shallow DOF is now available for very reasonable prices on real cameras.
well just all basics red rock rig with monitor, follow focus would cost around $3K or more. can't imagine shooting a short without that really. I think the main thing on the dslr is the FOV compared to other cameras. because of the full frame. so all in all you can get a good setup for like $7K....... but honestly most of the people I know usually just rent gear to shoot anyway.
Looks like Nikon has finally worked out the rolling shutter issue. I'm sure that this video tech will cascade down to the D7000 replacement. I might finally be game to upgrade my D90.
A very impressive evaluation of the D800 & 5D mk III. Clearly this stuff is for the pros. But it is nevertheless very interesting to get some insights on all this stuff. .... Thanks for the evaluation. Very insightful.
Can we just stop that silly quest of finding a 'winner'? Yes these cameras are not identical but it seems there is an obsession to find the marginal differences and amplify them for the sake of declaring a winner.
Truth is, if I was a Nikon shooter I'd be happy with the D800 and if I was a Canon shooter I'd be happy with the 5D III.
Neither one is missing out something significant by being with their brand. Thanks to Canon and Nikon for making excellent cameras! Now that we don't have to argue any more about who is better we can spend more time talking to each other rather then at each other or even arguing.
In the end we all have the same goal, we want to create beautiful images (moving or stills).
nothing to do with fanboyism, I just think it's good to know which one is better under what situation, unless it hurt your feelings. But then why it will hurt your feelings?
So..to sum up...no matter which you decide to get, you'll be fine. If you already have Canon equipement, stick with Canon. If you already have Nikon equipment, stick with Nikon.
Why so serious - dear haters - chill and forget your brand mania - just enjoy both fine cameras. I use both brands professionally all the time, as do my colleagues. Wonder why we all like both and no one ever gets serious. Light changes - great cameras don't - both. Nikon did change the game as they were lagging behind C in terms of video. Canon let no one do anything, they just chose a certain strategy - it will bring its grapes too.
Who the hell started a brand war - cut the crap and enjoy yourself dear antenae. :)
@DioCanon I think it's you who needs to take a closer look in the history books. Releasing the first FF sensor isn't all that impressive when Nikon were pioneers in bringing us digital SLR's in the first place. The same goes for video in DSLR's, where Nikon was first (if only by one day).
In the end both brands have been important in the development of camera technology. Picking a handful of things either did first to claim they are more innovative overall is just silly IMO.
What's the deal with the still pic comparison of the bridge under 'Detail'?
Both of the Canon images...unsharpened & sharpened...show a LOT more detail & clarity than the Nikon ones. Look at the bricks in the support tower...the Nikon images barely register that there are individual stones/blocks, where the Canon ones not only define them superbly, they show the different COLORS of the blocks!
How then does Mr. Chung say that the Nikon has better resolution?
The bridge picture the Canon has more contrast, and a darker image, and the Nikon has a very flat image, which is exactly what you want if you're going to color grade it in post. But the detail in the bricks level is higher in the D800 image, and if you look closely you see the 5D III is slightly soft in comparison. Be careful not to confuse contrast with sharpness.
The NYC Skyline screen grab clearly shows the D800s resolution advantage.
I agree with you. I did see the Nikon as giving better detail in that instance. But was a DOF issue or out of focus? I don't know, but I do agree with you.
because the nikon does have better resolution. the issue here is the exposure on the nikon is about a stop higher. it has been confirmed all over the web. many are calling the 5DmkIII a faux 1080, 720p camera.
I explain my rant, I have not read the article but again it was talking about video. I have been working as photographer many years, I know around 50 people doing the same professionally and nobody would care about the video feature so much. To say that video is a great feature in todays DSLR is a selling point to asian gadget freaks. It requires a very different technique, and as a photographer i would almost never switch to video, if i did, i would be video photographer and would have to think and work totally different. Some do and they are a really big minority. But maybe there are more gadget freaks as customers than still photographers. I am so tired of listening about video features that only one out of thousand byers are going to use to something relevant.
I imagine that is true for the circle in which you operate. That is not necessarily an accurate barometer for the rest of the world. Someone in the videography profession may think differently of this. The 5D mark II made significant waves not only in television but in Hollywood as well. Just recently I noticed that two of the cameras used by crew of a local TV station were DSLRs (on sophisticated booms). I think the videography landscape may be changing and that is the reason for the interest.
Don't read the article, give your opinion first. Makes DPreview to what it is: smart people loving their hobby saying dumb stuff...., well at least quite a lot of them...but not you of course dear reader!!
Lensrentals most-rented gear of 2017 contains a few interesting surprises. Among them: Sony has out-rented Nikon for the first time ever, and a Sony battery somehow took the #6 spot overall.
The D850 was just announced, and by all accounts it's shaping up to be a very impressive DSLR. But should you upgrade your current camera? In this article, we've broken down the D850's main selling points compared to several popular models.
The Nikon Z7 is slated as a mirrorless equivalent to the D850, but it can't subject track with the same reliability as its DSLR counterpart. AF performance is otherwise good, except in low light where hunting can lead to missed shots.
Nikon's Coolpix P1000 has moved the zoom needle from 'absurd' to 'ludicrous,' with an equivalent focal length of 24-3000mm. So far, it's a fun camera to shoot with – if a bit over the top.
The Canon EOS R is the first full frame mirrorless camera to use the new RF mount. We're well underway putting it through our range of standard tests – take a look at how it compares to the competition and our thoughts on using it so far.
The GFX 50R is a 50MP rangefinder-style mirrorless camera. It borrows heavily from the existing 50S model but in a smaller body and at a lower price. How does it differ?
The instant camera market is heating up, and with four formats and 15+ cameras to choose from, we felt it was high time to examine them all and pick our favorite.
Whether you're hitting the beach in the Northern Hemisphere or the ski slopes in the Southern, a rugged compact camera makes a great companion. In this buying guide we've taken a look at seven current models and chosen our favorites.
What's the best camera for a parent? The best cameras for shooting kids and family must have fast autofocus, good low-light image quality and great video. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for parents, and recommended the best.
What's the best camera for shooting landscapes? High resolution, weather-sealed bodies and wide dynamic range are all important. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for shooting landscapes, and recommended the best.
What’s the best camera costing over $2000? The best high-end camera costing more than $2000 should have plenty of resolution, exceptional build quality, good 4K video capture and top-notch autofocus for advanced and professional users. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing over $2000 and recommended the best.
Photographer Peter Guttman was given some of Kodak's revitalized Ektachrome 100 film and took over Kodak Professional's Instagram page to share the images he captured.
We sat down recently with top Canon engineers to talk about the EOS R, and the delicate balancing act of experimenting with a new platform and the risk of alienating existing users.
Sony has updated its image sensor spec page and as expected, a few of the chips they make bear an uncanny resemblance to sensors found inside Fujifilm and Panasonic cameras.
This week Chris and Jordan are joined by renowned macro photographer Don Komarechka, who demonstrates a few simple techniques that can improve your macro photos in a big way.
The Pixel 3 represents another step forward in computational photography for Google's smartphone. We're just getting started with our testing – for now take a look at some sample images, including 'computational Raw' files available for download.
The Kickstarter campaign for Yashica’s digiFilm Y35 camera has produced a wave of complaints about delays in shipping product as well as cameras that don’t work.
Although Raw performance of the EOS R is very similar to the 5D Mark IV, Canon's done some tweaking on the JPEGs - take a look at our studio scene to see for yourself.
If you've backed one of the company's crowdfunding projects, the reward will not arrive and you won't get your money back either as Meyer Optik Görlitz's parent company, Net SE, is completely dead.
Google's Super Res Zoom technology uses pixel-shifting methods to achieve zoom results comparable to some optical solutions. Google has published an in-depth explanation on its AI blog.
Toy manufacturer Tomy has launched a no-battery-required smartphone printer that is remarkably like the one Holga has been promoting via a Kickstarter campaign but which is already available for $40/£39.
The Nikon Z7 is slated as a mirrorless equivalent to the D850, but it can't subject track with the same reliability as its DSLR counterpart. AF performance is otherwise good, except in low light where hunting can lead to missed shots.
After shaking up the Lightroom ecosystem with Lightroom CC last year, Adobe has released version 2.0 of the cloud-centric photo organizer and editor. We look at new features like People View, how far Lightroom CC has come in its first year, and where Lightroom is headed.
The weather and has most definitely taken a turn toward fall here, and our shooting opportunities have followed suit. We brought the Canon RF 35mm F1.8 along to a harvest festival of sorts and a few of our usual haunts.
Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf has signed House Bill 1346 into effect, which imposes a fine upwards of $300 to drone operators who invade the privacy or harm the physical wellbeing of citizens.
Sigma is a company in flux, but CEO Kazuto Yamaki is undaunted by the upcoming prospect of developing lenses for eight lens mounts. The challenge will be keeping the company's identity along the way.
If you've been meaning to convert all of your old photos, video, and audio to digital formats, but simply lack the time or willpower to get through it all, a new service from Kodak will help you get the job done.
Almost all new cameras include impressive video features, but for the best results you'll often need an off-camera recorder. Chris and Jordan take a look at the brand new Ninja V from Atomos, and explain why it might just be one of the most useful tools you can add to your camera.
Award-winning photojournalist and videographer Dan Chung from DSLR News Shooter has just posted a video shootout pitting the Canon EOS 5D Mark III against the Nikon D800. In the interesting and in-depth article accompanying it, Chung looks at the video features of both cameras in detail and compares them, not only in terms of output quality, but also usability.
Comments