Reading mode: Light Dark

Returning to Photography - Nikon AF Quality Control?

Go to last post
Jlow34 said:
Hi all,

I'm returning to photography after taking a hiatus.

My first love is Nikon, starting with an F3, then a D90, and D300s.

More recently I had a Canon 40D and the Fuji X100 and X100V.

The reason I left Nikon was because I had lots of issues with AF Quality Control on my D90. The autofocus was poorly calibrated and when I took it to Nikon for service, they tried to fix it twice and then told me it was unfixable and not covered under warranty.

In any case, it was a bad experience.

Can anyone speak to the degree of AF quality control in the Z cameras and lenses?

I'm leaning heavily towards the z5ii or z6iii.
Click to expand...
I never had a D90, but AF on my other Nikon DSLRs are fine, and I had a bunch of them including the D300, D7200, D750, D5, D500, and D850. My Z6iii has been great and so are the Z8 and Z9, but I don't have experience with the Z5ii.

Since you already have Fuji mirrorless, you should have plenty of experience with mirrorless in general. I would say just go ahead and get a Z5ii or Z6iii without worries.
 
There should be no difference in focus accuracy at different focal lengths of a zoom when each shot is focused on the sensor at the focal length being used at the time. Zooming does not affect how the camera focuses, it just changes the magnification doesn't it?
 
Jlow34 said:
thayes15 said:
Is the question more along the lines of QC from one body to another consistent

some folks think QC in a lens varies between individual copies of the same lens. one copy might be fine and the next copy of the same lens have alignment issues due to poor QC at manufacture

Is the AF good across all samples of Z8 bodies or does it vary between individual bodies of the same Z8?

At least I think that’s what the original question is but I could be wrong of course
Click to expand...
Exactly, I'm asking about consistency between bodies.

Thanks for the careful clarification.
Click to expand...
This is not a problem with mirrorless cameras as others have stated above. There is no separate focusing plane used as in dslr's. Focusing is on the sensor itself and is consistent across different bodies. If the sensor was in a different plane on a different body, the focus on the sensor would still be of the same accuracy.
 
Thanks so much to everyone for your thoughtful and informative comments.

I nearly forgot how helpful the DPreview forums are. I'm blown away by the support.

It's clear that the current lineup of mirrorless Nikons have massively improved AF due to it being embedded in the sensor. I feel much more confident and will buy either the Z5ii or Z6iii in the coming months.

My top priority is glass, so am leaning towards the Z5ii so I can afford a used 24-70 2.8 S or the new version ii.

If more income and less expenses are in the cards, will bite on the Z6iii instead.
 
I have the 24-120mm F4 S lens and the image quality is magnificent. Cost is also less than half that of the 24-70mm f2.8 of either version. It's also less expensive than the original version refurbished. There is also the 24-70mm f4 S lens which has a cost similar to the 24-120mm f4.

My goto when I purchased my Z7 II was the 24-120 and it wasn't offered as a Kit lens with this camera, however it was offered with the Z8 at a kit lens discount. A Huge, Gigantic, plus for this lens is the Range of focal lengths and that it is amazing at any focal length in the range. I will also note that the difference in the out of focus backgrounds between f2.8 and f4 is pretty small and in my opinion not enough to matter.

As you are on a budget that f4 difference will not only provide the funds for a Z6 III but also for the 50mm f1.8 S which will very noticeably "blow out" the background. Note, I don't have the Z6 III but there are times when I consider getting the Z6 III. That semi stacked sensor means it's not only has much less rolling shutter but that faster scan time means the AF is just a bit faster and the viewfinder lag is much smaller.
 
Last edited:
Jlow34 said:
It's clear that the current lineup of mirrorless Nikons have massively improved AF due to it being embedded in the sensor.
Click to expand...
That's a gross overstatement that mischaracterizes how mirrorless AF systems work.

The Nikon D5 generation and newer DSLR autofocus systems are excellent. Many early Z9 adopters continued to use their DSLRs in certain situations because they got better AF performance from those reflex systems. Some still prefer the DSLR autofocus in certain conditions.

If you explore the recently released 2024 Wildlife Photographer of the Year gallery, 10 of the first 25 images were made with DSLRs.


Yes, mirrorless AF is more advanced and is objectively better, especially in entry level equipment. That has as much, if not more, to do with data processing as with the physical architecture of the sensors.

However, the notion that DSLR autofocus, in general, or Nikon DSLR autofocus, in particular, wasn't consistently good to excellent or was unreliable simply defies the last 20 years of real world performance. The photography done with DSLRs clearly tells that story.
 
Bill Ferris said:
Jlow34 said:
It's clear that the current lineup of mirrorless Nikons have massively improved AF due to it being embedded in the sensor.
Click to expand...
That's a gross overstatement that mischaracterizes how mirrorless AF systems work.

The Nikon D5 generation and newer DSLR autofocus systems are excellent. Many early Z9 adopters continued to use their DSLRs in certain situations because they got better AF performance from those reflex systems. Some still prefer the DSLR autofocus in certain conditions.
Click to expand...
AF on the D5 and D500 are indeed excellent, so is the D850. However, after I bought my Z9 in February 2022, I have pretty much stopped using those DSLRs, but it took firmware 2.0 (April 2022) and then 3.0 (November 2022) before the Z9's AF became really good. Part of the reason I prefer the Z9 is that it is 45MP, and part of the reason is the native Z lenses. The likes of 24-120mm/f4 and 100-400m are superior to their F-mount counterparts. After Nikon added the 400/4.5, 600/6.3 PF, 800/6.3 PF, 400/2.8 TC and 600/4 TC, there is no reason to use the D5, D6, and D500 unless one is really constrained by budget.

I go on a fair number of international wildlife photo trips with a bunch of photographers. In 2019 and early 2020, most people were still using DSLRs. Due to Covid, I didn't travel for two years. By late 2022, I noticed that most people were using mirrorless. From 2023 on, hardly anybody is still using DSLRs in the field.
Bill Ferris said:
If you explore the recently released 2024 Wildlife Photographer of the Year gallery, 10 of the first 25 images were made with DSLRs..
Click to expand...
I assume the reason is that plenty of the entries were images captured a few year prior to 2024, perhaps even prior to Covid.
 
Last edited:
Bill,

I feel I had to get my Z8 to equal my D750 in basic AF dependability. And even now my Z8 occasionally reports locked (green) but is not. You can argue about focus calibration and all the mirrorless af features, but in basic center point functionality frankly I still give the edge to my old 750. This is especially true for AF-C where the Z cameras never seem to “settle down”.
 
Last edited:
HyperCypher said:
Bill,

I feel I had to get my Z8 to equal my D750 in basic AF dependability. And even now my Z8 occasionally reports locked (green) but is not. You can argue about focus calibration and all the mirrorless af features, but in basic center point functionality frankly I still give the edge to my old 750. This is especially true for AF-C where the Z cameras never seem to “settle down”.
Click to expand...
Do you still have the D700? I love that camera so much...I know off topic.
 
Pshots23 said:
I have kept my D700 and my D750. Of the two I prefer the 750. I know the reputation the 700 has, but in actuality the 750 is/was just better in practice practically every way. The exception would be shooting or processing raw in B&W where the noise profile of those big 700 pixels has a great look I know this is contra everything you read. There is something very cool about the color handling of the 700 but you can come so close in Raw processing 750 files it was not a thing for me. The 750 greens are a little too yellow so I’ll just shift them toward blue sometimes, and pull yellows lum down ever so slightly. This is very subtle but became obvious to me when I replaced my 700 with a 600 and then the 750 a few years. That was prompted by much better live view of the 600 over 700 and then the articulating screen on the 750 which the 600 did not have as well as the return of the 51 point AF system in the 750. Both important features for me and my property photography efforts. Plus dual cards. Also, my 700 made two trips to Nikon service in 3 years of professional use for heat related damage due to the not very good live view engine in the 700 - while the 750 went seven years without issue … 135000 shutter actuations.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I don’t know if I agree. My Z8 will still tell me occasionally that a focus point is in focus (green) and later in post it just simple missed. This is in property photography where the camera is often on tripod and I have plenty of time to focus and I am just moving a single point manually to an object in the frame that makes sense. The little single point box will report green. To be sure, the tracking and other features are impressive, but I get misses in this simple scenario where you would think it would never miss and more often than I recall with my old 750. That’s the way it is for me. Frequency ? 1-2 shots out of 50 … enough that if I have time I zoom to 100 % to check. The center point on my D750 was more reliable.
 
Interesting, I never used a D750, I will never sell my D700, (I should not say never but..). If I ever get the inkling, I will check out a D750.

I can't replicate what the D700 does with any of my mirrorless gears. The color is legendary.
 
HyperCypher said:
Bill,

I feel I had to get my Z8 to equal my D750 in basic AF dependability. And even now my Z8 occasionally reports locked (green) but is not. You can argue about focus calibration and all the mirrorless af features, but in basic center point functionality frankly I still give the edge to my old 750. This is especially true for AF-C where the Z cameras never seem to “settle down”.
Click to expand...
Sounds like there could be something wrong with your Z8 if it doesn't lock focus where you need it. Are you using AF-S mode on the tripod and do you turn VR off?

I spent years shooting with the D750, still have it, and it is a great camera, but the Z8 (at least my copy) blows it out of the water when it comes to AF accuracy, tracking and speed, especially combined with Z-mount glass and especially after the 2.0 and 3.0 firmware update.

You're also zooming into 45 megapixels vs. 24, so the D750 image could look sharper for that reason. 🤔 Have you done tests with both cameras at the same scene?
 
Don't misunderstand me ... on balance my Z8 is a better camera than my old 750 ...

BUT ... occasionally the Z8 AF system reports "locked" (green) when it is not - even with firmware 3.0. This happens in AF-S as well as AF-C on or off tripod and with or without VR enabled. It is infrequent, but often enough that blind acceptance of the focus point showing green has a certain level of risk. Roughly 1 out of 50 frames. Tolerable, but not as solid as I think it should be. If you used the 51 point optical system of the 750 - especially the central cross point positions, that kind of miss was exceedingly rare. If you used D750 "live view" that outcome was common.

I think this has something to do with the Nikon Z AF system needing vertical contrast targets to function efficiently.

Part of my rational for moving to mirrorless was that "live view" on the LCD and EVF were the same system , and advertised as much improved ... but frankly I had to move from a Z50 to a Z6ii to finally a Z8 (expeed 7) to get almost equal consistency compared to the phase detect cross points in the D750 finder.. I'm pretty sure I would have the same things to say about D5/6s and 850s ... but I never owned one those ... didn't have to. The 750 was just a very good camera for me in this very basic and fundamental aspect, which turns out to be really important exactly because it is foundational.

Of course on balance the Z8 has so many other features, it becomes hard to deny that it is anything but a step forward; for me in particular these include the rear screen articulating in both axis', the silent shutter, and the now tremendous programability of the buttons.

Also while you can wax nostalgic about a certain subtle "look" the old 700 has ... I kept mine only because it's not worth the effort to sell (mine has some stuck pixels) and I like to goof with it from time to time. My 750 is actually my backup body for the work I do. I kept my AF-S 14-24 2.8 for the same reason.
 
The D90 has relatively primitive around 20 year old AF technology.

Modern AF in all brand ML bodies is dramatically improved.

The Z6 III and Z lenses have day over night AF performance compared to 20 year old technology.

Would you expect the performance of a current laptop to be no improvement over a 20 year old laptop?

--
Leonard Shepherd
In lots of ways good photography is similar to learning to play a piano - it takes practice to develop skill in either activity.
 
Last edited:
Leonard Shepherd said:
The D90 has relatively primitive around 20 year old AF technology.
Click to expand...
The D90 was among the best enthusiast DSLR's available in its day. People made great photos - award-winning photos with that camera.

Let's not rewrite history to suit a contemporary bias. The impression given by the OP that DSLRs from the 2000s couldn't reliably autofocus is simply false. Autofocus technology wasn't as capable then as it is today. But that's a far cry from claiming that autofocus in the 2000s was incapable, that it couldn't be used or relied upon to make quality photos. That narrative is a myth.
Leonard Shepherd said:
Modern AF in all brand ML bodies is dramatically improved.
Click to expand...
It's dramatically improved for certain types of photography. If you are a landscape enthusiast, there's zero reason a 2000s era DSLR like the D90 couldn't be used to achieve good focus on a scene. Macro photography, cityscapes, portraiture, night sky...DSLRs could be used and were used to make great photos. Their focus systems were up to the task.

If your genres are fast, dynamic action, a modern mirrorless system will deliver a higher hit rate in comparison with the 2000s DSLR. It's not that the DSLR is incapable of producing a quality, well-focused image. It's that the modern AF system is capable of producing many more usable options from a burst.

A Z9 on the hands of someone who knows what they're doing can deliver 16-18 images in a 20 frame burst that are usable. A D90 can deliver 2-3 frames from a 4-5 frame burst over the same time. A D500 can deliver 7-9 keepers from a 10 frame burst. A D5 can deliver 9-11 usable images in a 12-frame burst.

The most significant limitation of DSLRs in comparison with modern mirrorless bodies isn't autofocus performance. It's the burst rate. The Nikon D6, their last flagship DSLR, is limited to a 14 fps burst rate. Several Nikon Z bodies can shoot at 120 fps when recording JPEGs.
Leonard Shepherd said:
The Z6 III and Z lenses have day over night AF performance compared to 20 year old technology.

Would you expect the performance of a current laptop to be no improvement over a 20 year old laptop?
Click to expand...
The laptop comparison nicely illustrates the flawed analysis of the OP and others in this thread. Twenty years ago, that laptop was capable of running apps, surfing the web, and performing any task the vast majority of laptop users did. People weren't buying and then mothballing new laptops because the devices available in 20 years would be so much better.

If all one uses a laptop for is perusing DPR threads, using apps like Word, Excel, and PowerPoint, sending email, and similar tasks, an older laptop is still capable. It may not be compatible with the latest OS but it has the necessary computing power to be productive.

If one uses a laptop to play Borderlands, Cyberpunk, or Red Dead Redemption; or to edit and watch 8K video, then you absolutely want a more capable, modern system. It's not that older tech wasn't incredible capable, usable, and reliable in its day. It's that new tech is capable of dying things older tech couldn't.

A modern mirrorless camera can shoot at 120 fps compared to 16, 14, 12 or fewer fps for a top shelf DSLR. That's the real game-changer.
 
Bill Ferris said:
Leonard Shepherd said:
The D90 has relatively primitive around 20 year old AF technology.
Click to expand...
The D90 was among the best enthusiast DSLR's available in its day. People made great photos - award-winning photos with that camera.

Let's not rewrite history to suit a contemporary bias. The impression given by the OP that DSLRs from the 2000s couldn't reliably autofocus is simply false. Autofocus technology wasn't as capable then as it is today. But that's a far cry from claiming that autofocus in the 2000s was incapable, that it couldn't be used or relied upon to make quality photos. That narrative is a myth.
Bill Ferris said:
Modern AF in all brand ML bodies is dramatically improved.
Click to expand...
It's dramatically improved for certain types of photography. If you are a landscape enthusiast, there's zero reason a 2000s era DSLR like the D90 couldn't be used to achieve good focus on a scene. Macro photography, cityscapes, portraiture, night sky...DSLRs could be used and were used to make great photos. Their focus systems were up to the task.

If your genres are fast, dynamic action, a modern mirrorless system will deliver a higher hit rate in comparison with the 2000s DSLR. It's not that the DSLR is incapable of producing a quality, well-focused image. It's that the modern AF system is capable of producing many more usable options from a burst.

A Z9 on the hands of someone who knows what they're doing can deliver 16-18 images in a 20 frame burst that are usable. A D90 can deliver 2-3 frames from a 4-5 frame burst over the same time. A D500 can deliver 7-9 keepers from a 10 frame burst. A D5 can deliver 9-11 usable images in a 12-frame burst.

The most significant limitation of DSLRs in comparison with modern mirrorless bodies isn't autofocus performance. It's the burst rate. The Nikon D6, their last flagship DSLR, is limited to a 14 fps burst rate. Several Nikon Z bodies can shoot at 120 fps when recording JPEGs.
Bill Ferris said:
The Z6 III and Z lenses have day over night AF performance compared to 20 year old technology.

Would you expect the performance of a current laptop to be no improvement over a 20 year old laptop?
Click to expand...
The laptop comparison nicely illustrates the flawed analysis of the OP and others in this thread. Twenty years ago, that laptop was capable of running apps, surfing the web, and performing any task the vast majority of laptop users did. People weren't buying and then mothballing new laptops because the devices available in 20 years would be so much better.

If all one uses a laptop for is perusing DPR threads, using apps like Word, Excel, and PowerPoint, sending email, and similar tasks, an older laptop is still capable. It may not be compatible with the latest OS but it has the necessary computing power to be productive.

If one uses a laptop to play Borderlands, Cyberpunk, or Red Dead Redemption; or to edit and watch 8K video, then you absolutely want a more capable, modern system. It's not that older tech wasn't incredible capable, usable, and reliable in its day. It's that new tech is capable of dying things older tech couldn't.

A modern mirrorless camera can shoot at 120 fps compared to 16, 14, 12 or fewer fps for a top shelf DSLR. That's the real game-changer.
Click to expand...
Agree with what Bill wrote. I used my D90 for everything for several years. Some of my favorite images are D90 shots. I can say the same about my D500 -- what a great camera.

Right now I am not reading this forum on my custom built photo-processing dual screen desktop computer. I am reading and writing on my 15 year old HP laptop.

Tools to task.
 
AWG_Pics said:
Bill Ferris said:
Leonard Shepherd said:
The D90 has relatively primitive around 20 year old AF technology.
Click to expand...
The D90 was among the best enthusiast DSLR's available in its day. People made great photos - award-winning photos with that camera.

Let's not rewrite history to suit a contemporary bias. The impression given by the OP that DSLRs from the 2000s couldn't reliably autofocus is simply false. Autofocus technology wasn't as capable then as it is today. But that's a far cry from claiming that autofocus in the 2000s was incapable, that it couldn't be used or relied upon to make quality photos. That narrative is a myth.
AWG_Pics said:
Modern AF in all brand ML bodies is dramatically improved.
Click to expand...
It's dramatically improved for certain types of photography. If you are a landscape enthusiast, there's zero reason a 2000s era DSLR like the D90 couldn't be used to achieve good focus on a scene. Macro photography, cityscapes, portraiture, night sky...DSLRs could be used and were used to make great photos. Their focus systems were up to the task.

If your genres are fast, dynamic action, a modern mirrorless system will deliver a higher hit rate in comparison with the 2000s DSLR. It's not that the DSLR is incapable of producing a quality, well-focused image. It's that the modern AF system is capable of producing many more usable options from a burst.

A Z9 on the hands of someone who knows what they're doing can deliver 16-18 images in a 20 frame burst that are usable. A D90 can deliver 2-3 frames from a 4-5 frame burst over the same time. A D500 can deliver 7-9 keepers from a 10 frame burst. A D5 can deliver 9-11 usable images in a 12-frame burst.

The most significant limitation of DSLRs in comparison with modern mirrorless bodies isn't autofocus performance. It's the burst rate. The Nikon D6, their last flagship DSLR, is limited to a 14 fps burst rate. Several Nikon Z bodies can shoot at 120 fps when recording JPEGs.
AWG_Pics said:
The Z6 III and Z lenses have day over night AF performance compared to 20 year old technology.

Would you expect the performance of a current laptop to be no improvement over a 20 year old laptop?
Click to expand...
The laptop comparison nicely illustrates the flawed analysis of the OP and others in this thread. Twenty years ago, that laptop was capable of running apps, surfing the web, and performing any task the vast majority of laptop users did. People weren't buying and then mothballing new laptops because the devices available in 20 years would be so much better.

If all one uses a laptop for is perusing DPR threads, using apps like Word, Excel, and PowerPoint, sending email, and similar tasks, an older laptop is still capable. It may not be compatible with the latest OS but it has the necessary computing power to be productive.

If one uses a laptop to play Borderlands, Cyberpunk, or Red Dead Redemption; or to edit and watch 8K video, then you absolutely want a more capable, modern system. It's not that older tech wasn't incredible capable, usable, and reliable in its day. It's that new tech is capable of dying things older tech couldn't.

A modern mirrorless camera can shoot at 120 fps compared to 16, 14, 12 or fewer fps for a top shelf DSLR. That's the real game-changer.
Click to expand...
Agree with what Bill wrote. I used my D90 for everything for several years. Some of my favorite images are D90 shots. I can say the same about my D500 -- what a great camera.

Right now I am not reading this forum on my custom built photo-processing dual screen desktop computer. I am reading and writing on my 15 year old HP laptop.

Tools to task.
Click to expand...
My Nikon D40x has 3 AF points. Do they work? Absolutely. Did I take some great photos with it? Absolutely. Is having only 3 focus points a PITA compared to modern cameras? Absolutely.

My D7000 had a better AF module than the D40x, but the front and back-focusing issues were out of control, even after multiple trips to Nikon. My D610 was great, but had more issues in low light compared to my D750. My D750 AF point centered cluster was a little tougher for wildlife compared to the D500, and my D500 is great, but not like the Z8. The keeper rate with the Z8 is miles better. AF points all across the frame with excellent tracking capabilities and subject recognition. I could only dream of that back in 2014, let alone 2008.

Older cameras were very capable, but they required extra attention from the photographer to get things right. The keeper rate for action was nothing like it is with a Z8 for example, but landscapes never really required big speed, unless the desired lighting is fading, or we're trying to freeze motion.

Would I go back to shooting with the D40x only? No way. Would I go back to the D500 for wildlife, or anything else? Why would I? It doesn't offer any advantages over the Z8 that I can think of, especially when you consider the excellent Z-mount lens offerings that I wouldn't be able to use anymore.
 
TheSoaringSprite said:
My Nikon D40x has 3 AF points. Do they work? Absolutely. Did I take some great photos with it? Absolutely. Is having only 3 focus points a PITA compared to modern cameras? Absolutely.

My D7000 had a better AF module than the D40x, but the front and back-focusing issues were out of control, even after multiple trips to Nikon. My D610 was great, but had more issues in low light compared to my D750. My D750 AF point centered cluster was a little tougher for wildlife compared to the D500, and my D500 is great, but not like the Z8. The keeper rate with the Z8 is miles better. AF points all across the frame with excellent tracking capabilities and subject recognition. I could only dream of that back in 2014, let alone 2008.

Older cameras were very capable, but they required extra attention from the photographer to get things right. The keeper rate for action was nothing like it is with a Z8 for example, but landscapes never really required big speed, unless the desired lighting is fading, or we're trying to freeze motion.

Would I go back to shooting with the D40x only? No way. Would I go back to the D500 for wildlife, or anything else? Why would I? It doesn't offer any advantages over the Z8 that I can think of, especially when you consider the excellent Z-mount lens offerings that I wouldn't be able to use anymore.
Click to expand...
True. I can get nice photos from my D40, but I vastly prefer to use my Z6iii, Z7 and Zf. Autofocus, low-light capability, frame rate, quiet shutter and no auto-focus fine tuning along with excellent IQ are all things I would hate to give up by using DSLRs, as fine as they were.
 
Bill Ferris said:
Bill Ferris said:
Modern AF in all brand ML bodies is dramatically improved.
Click to expand...
It's dramatically improved for certain types of photography. If you are a landscape enthusiast, there's zero reason a 2000s era DSLR like the D90 couldn't be used to achieve good focus on a scene. Macro photography, cityscapes, portraiture, night sky...DSLRs could be used and were used to make great photos. Their focus systems were up to the task.
Click to expand...
On your last sentence - how much up to the task?

AF was very centre weighted with no provision for focus shift at different apertures, not much AF ability in low light, quite low resolution etc.

These are areas where ML is much more practical and 24 MP or 12-14 stops dynamic range were unheard of.
Bill Ferris said:
using apps like Word, Excel,
Click to expand...
My 13.5 year old laptop has not been compatible with using all the current Word, Excel, Lightroom and PhotoShop options for several years.

I agree you can often get older gear to perform - to some extent - but still somewhat lagging compared to recent cameras or laptops.

I got some very good images from film, though I would not choose to use film now.

--
Leonard Shepherd
In lots of ways good photography is similar to learning to play a piano - it takes practice to develop skill in either activity.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
Decentering / quality control - Voigtlander Z lenses
2
Replies
20
Views
79
ContaxComeBack
C
A
What camera is best for me (Z5ii, z6ii, z7ii)?
2 3
Replies
44
Views
828
Dennis
D
L
Camera Suggestion for a Trip
Replies
18
Views
468
Bob
B
arniebook
Nikon D500 to Z8 transition … Questions
2
Replies
32
Views
905
arniebook
arniebook
M
Lens recommendation for food photography
Replies
16
Views
1K
mballard
M

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top