For several years Sony had the full frame mirrorless camera market all to itself, but recent introductions from Canon and Nikon have changed the landscape. This week, Chris and Jordan compare the current generation of entry-level full frame mirrorless models from each company: the Nikon Z6, Sony a7 III and Canon EOS R. Watch their analysis to find out where they think each model excels or has room to grow.
Also, make sure to read our in-depth written reviews of the Canon EOS R and the Sony a7 III. (Our Nikon Z6 review is coming soon – we promise!)
This is the first review that was well informed and balanced for the Mirror-less cameras on the market now. Great Job Chris and Jordan.. These two guys always to a fair review and its well done and also entertaining.
Well, at least we have a more "balanced" review this time. At least the three cameras are relatively the same in terms of specs, resolution, etc (although the Canon sort of stands out a little from the others, but in practice it's probably an insignificant difference, although it is another 6MP the other two don't have).
Another 6mp of much worse dynamic range and pixels that aren't used in their soft video. Seems like the other cameras have the advantage in real resolution.
I'm thinking it's to lock people into the system, or hopefully to do that. Plus I think they realize that even amateurs/beginners realize that glass is a bit more important than the body. You'll change out the body probably more often then you change out your glass, so you might as well get the better glass from the start if you're going to stick with the system. For me I'd rather pay more for better glass and less for the body than the other way around, since you tend to buy lenses for the foreseeable long term. Bodies you'll probably upgrade every 3-5 years.
But yes, it does mean a higher barrier to entry into the system for beginners. I'm sure that Sigma and Tamron will have cheaper alternatives within a year as they do to compete with other OEM's pro-level glass like Canon's own high-end DSLR glass and Nikon's pro-level glass.
I'm still unable to decide which camera to get next, the Canon 5D-IV, the Canon 6D-II, or the Sony A7-III. Price is not an issue or a factor because it's an easy decision.
The Canon R is not a consideration at all, although I had been waiting for it with anticipation. I'm totally disappointed. Nikon is not a consideration either since I don't have any Nikon glass. Investment in Sony glass is limited (so far), but I use my Canon FD glass on Sony bodies, and I have more Canon FD glass than I'm willing to confess :)
My heavy investment in Canon EF L glass is weighing heavily on my decision (or lack of it). Hopefully, some long-term 5D-IV owners can shed some light (I have already read more than enough reviews). Again, ignore the differences in camera prices.
To get any meaningful answers to this, you need to say more about the type of work you do / want to do with the camera, plus more about what you already have and where your current equipment is lacking. If you're after a tool to solve a problem rather than just a new toy, then you need to say what the problem is. Might be better off in another forum rather than these fan-boy-infested comment sections!
Oskar P you only need to pre focus on lenses that are 100mm or more. Everything else you just need to put the lens in the max focusing distance and you're done. The adapter even has eye-af. That's much better than a confirmation chip...
Sony owners are happy with the 2.5 FPS limit and having to set focus manually to max focus and then waiting 10 seconds for a lenses to possibly focus. Again, anyone can focus faster with a confirmation chip, but with the Z and well over 130 lenses, there is no need...and ther is no 2.5 FPS limit.
You keep denying that Sony cripples A mount and adapted lenses, but the arbitrary 2.5 FPS with AF limit is real. If you owned a Sony camera and an adapted lens you would know this.
Yup, most older primes were unit focusing, meaning all of the optics inside moved at once. There's no quality loss because of this, and the vast majority moved the optics in the same distance the Techart Pro and Fotodiox Pronto can move. For anything else except super telephotos, you can just get close to the distance by using the distance scale on the lens (remember those? ;) ).
Also, AF confirmation is about as bad of a crutch as you can get. DSLRs require separate tuning for their MF focus detection, so it's just as bad as AF when it comes to precision. Nikon users created something called "Dot Tune" for AF fine tuning, because the AF confirmation light has such a loose range for confirming focus. You have to whittle that down to find the actual precise focus spit in that range, which gets plugged into AF fine tune. This is impossible for manual focusing, so you're just playing a guessing game. MF cameras had split prism focusing screens for a much easier time.
Yeah AF confirmation is like cheating because it is so quick and easy.
With those "pre manually focus" adapters, first you have to either manually focus or move focus to one of the extremes. Then you have to wait for it to hunt a while and eventually find focus (remember, you had to put it at an extreme so it has a long way to go probably). By then it is probably too late. It will never work with moving objects either. But that is how desperate Sony users are for lenses.
With Nikon there are well over a 120 lenses that work fast and near flawlessly. ...and all faster than Sonys stupid 2.5 FPS restriction. LoL!!!!!!!
"AF confirmation is like cheating because it is so quick and easy."
And you pay for cheating with failing grade in focusing. Split prisms are way easier to use, which is why there are many variations available for most DSLRs. Even some from OEMs. You see what's in focus when it's in focus, not when a dot off to the side of the screen says maybe.
"With those "pre manually focus" adapters, first you have to either manually focus or move focus to one of the extremes. Then you have to wait for it to hunt a while and eventually find focus (remember, you had to put it at an extreme so it has a long way to go probably). By then it is probably too late. It will never work with moving objects either."
Only on telephoto lenses. The majority of older lenses people adapt are within 17-85mm, as they're the most desirable. Go any longer, like 300mm, and you're just better off with any newer AF lens, due to the increase in image quality and reduction in size.
"What a pain to have to rack focus to an extreme manually before taking every shot."
You're telling me. That's why it's better to use a Techart Pro/Fotodiox Pronto, which does the work for you. :)
"You can't cal that AF, but Sony users are desperate for it."
Meanwhile, it's still more precise than Canikon's AF! And this is with third party adapters and lenses that were produced before autofocus was a thing! XD
"As for focus confirmation, it is awesome when the AF points light up showing what is in focus. You can actually track moving objects and more."
It's even more awesome when you can just use focus peaking, and don't have to rely on the points/guessing/hoping method DSLRs use. And beyond that, actually being able to AF lenses over a century old. :)
"But look at the amazing BIF shots people have taking with adapted Nikon, Sigma, and Tamron lenses showing how well the Z6 tracks focus."
Yes, tracking works fine for AF. For one shot. Once you turn on any continuous drive, it's game over. The camera can't process the incoming focus info fast enough between shots to actually use it.
"And best of all there is no 2.5 FPS restriction (like Sony inflicts) on those 120+ lenses!"
Right, Nikon's 1fps restriction is best for manually focusing. Good thing Sony is the first of the big 3 past 70's tech. ;)
"Sony users are desperate which is hilarious. But they are stuck with 2.5 FPS and those terrible adapters."
Oskar Ps are desperate and hilarious. But they are stuck with comments that never link to any concrete evidence. ;)
@Oskar P - "Canon FD lenses work BETTER on the Nikon Z cameras because of superior stabilization."
Why in the world would you recommend a Nikon Z to him when he can't adapt any of his EF lenses to it? I got a Sony A7II with the Sigma MC-11 adapter so I can use my EF lenses and everything works great, including the IBIS. If I had gotten a Nikon Z, I wouldn't be able to use my EF lenses at all. So it's totally absurd for you to recommend the Z because it supposedly has better IBIS (Nikon's IBIS is only better when it comes to shooting video) but totally disregard the fact that the Z is a terrible choice if you want to adapt EF lenses!
Not to mention, the Zs gimp their image stabilization to 3-axis with adapted lenses. Meanwhile, Sony offers 5-axis full time, no matter what lens is attached.
Every site including DPR says Sony has the WORST IBIS implementation of any manufacturer. Nikon, Panasonic, olympus, etc. All better than Sonys terrible IBIS.
But then Sony owners are so desperate they settle for lenses that force you to rack focus first and take forever to focus. LoL!!!!
Meanwhile Z owners are shooting BIFs with adapted lense and not settling for Sonys crap 2.5 FPS.
@technotic "@sh10453 you should have known better." lol Indeed. I had hoped people would read what I was asking for. I had asked for 5D-IV feedback, and that the Nikon was NOT an option, and now all they argue about is Nikon vs. Sony. Incidentally, my Canon FD lenses are working just fine with the $12 adapter on my Sony, far better than the worthless $100 adapter.
We need DPR to add a DELETE option so one can delete his/her entry (entire thread in the case of the opening statement owner).
How I wish I could blast this entire thread in one click!!!
sh10453, what sony camera do you have and have you tried the mc11? I had the 5DII and got an A7II to replace the 5D I. After getting the sony with the metabones, I stopped using the canon. Not sure you'll see many advantages on the canon over the sony unless you're shooting sports.
I have the A7RIII and had the A7Rii. Using Sonys A mount "sports" lenses with the LAEA3, I am only able to get 2.5 FPS with AF. I briefly tried the LAEA4, but it is a disaster. It doesn't use the cameras AF sys6and blocks almost half the light (with a dust collecting mirror).
Many of the AF modes are disabled too.
So if you own Sony lenses, Sony is hard at work making sure the don't work properly. That is just one way Sony screws their customers.
@Oskar P - Why are you even bothering with Sony A-mount lenses? Many users are already shooting sports with adapted Canon lenses at obviously much higher fps with AF.
Besides, the EOS R which does only 5fps in continuous AF and drops down to a pathetic 3fps if shooting in focus priority is hardly anything to brag about! And that's with Canon's native mirrorless lenses, too! So are you going to complain that that's just one way Canon screws their customers?
@Oskar P - Haha, insecure Nikonians said the same thing about Canon when confronted with the rise of EOS: "I feel bad for anyone who trusted Canon and bought into FD mount. Canon totally f--ed them."
Gee, I wonder how that argument worked out? I wonder what ever happened to Canon EOS? That argument didn't work against Canon, and it won't work against Sony. And it was even worse with Canon because there was no adaptability with FD to EOS. FD users were TOTALLY screwed.
For A-mount, development will certainly slow, based on demand. But I doubt it will be discontinued for as long as people are interested in it-- unlike Canon FD, which was still very popular at the time of its cancellation. And it won't be discontinued like Nikon 1 either. (Canon and Nikon f'd those customers more!) Sony will likely keep it in production much like they did DAT, MiniDisc, and Betamax: for as long as there was a market for them.
Besides, if your main gripe is that the burst rate is limited with adapted A-mount lenses, that's only an issue for some users. There are plenty of shooters who don't need much faster than 3fps. Just ask EOS R users!
I would go for the Canon 5dMk4, I have the mk3 and it is the most reliable camera I ever used, perfect focus, perfect quality, perfect ergonomic, and not too forget the mk4 has the best weather seal.
@Dianeimagen Thank you. I have been leaning towards the 5D-IV. I received several private message with varying suggestions, but I now know where I'm heading. A Sony 7R-II (used) is also on the shopping list for my large FD lens collection.
@sh10453 I was actually thinking of suggesting that as well, an A7 II or A7R II would be perfect for you since the fastest AF of the newer ones it’s sort of waste on FD glass, bigger batteries would’ve been nice but still, but a used one sounds even better!
Get the Nikon Z. The EF to Z mount adapters and the adapters with built in AF motors for manual focus lenses are coming in about 60 days according to Fotodiox.
Nikon has the best mirrorless camera. Best IBIS, best build quality and in 60 days the greatest lens compatibility. Remember Sony cripples adapted lenses with restrictions like 2.5 FPS.
As I stated in the OC, the Nikon is not an option. I have far too many Canon lenses in FD and EF mounts. No need for more adapters. I'm upgrading to the 5D-IV. A used Sony A7R-II or III (later on) will be added and used with Canon FD, Canon EF, as well as Sony / Zeiss lenses. Canon FD "L" glass is still excellent in my book. I'm using them on a Sony body with excellent results. As for 50mm, I have too many of them (f/1.2, f/1.4, f/1.8), and in multiple copies, so I'm not adding more. Thank you all for your suggestions. Now on my way to create a "fund me" page. Be generous in your donations. It's the holiday season! :)
I like dprTV more than competing videos. The delivery is very efficient with very good differentiation between facts and opinion. The videography is focused on comfortable viewing rather than challenging gimmicks. This latter point is very important given that so much contemporary videography seems to be devoted to the cause of making viewers sick with motion sickness. I click on dprTV with the secure knowledge that it won't make me sick, more than can be said of many other channels. Hope they maintain this. The first video that makes me sick drops a channel into my blacklist.
a Canon 50D is far superior to the R for sports photography but we are supposed to bicker about these 3 cameras like they are the only 3 to choose from. And because new = better right?.,...
Just choose the camera that does what you need it to.
There are tonnes of great cameras going all the way back to 2008 still.
I find the news this year about all the new cameras to be very entertaining.... well, at least until the bickering starts. But yeah, the APS-C cameras we already have are quite capable. And I would bet that 99% of dpreview members do not do the type of photography that would benefit from the latest AF and video specs, regardless of how much they'd like to. I still like my Canon 6D as much as when I bought it. And I absolutely love my Fuji XT2. So yeah, pass the popcorn.
@DPR: I know talk is cheap but how about running a poll who with an investment into lenses and ergonomics would actually switch systems? It cant all be gearheads out there, can it? :D And add one on who actually did switch ^^
I recently had the chance to dump all my gear and start over.
I tested head to head 8 cameras, over 6months. Intensely tested.
In the end I bought a 5Dm2 because it did what I wanted to the best. Better than many of the newer cameras. And for 600can$, price/performance not bad also.
SteveAnderson... if you are limited by funds, absolutely buy yesterday's technology that meets your needs.
I have an old 1995 diesel truck that I drive in the winter because it gets me where I need to be, no muss no fuss. I think I'll start calling her "Canon".
@Rocky Mtn Old Boy Funny, kind of like saying your new Hyundai is better than my 01 540i M.
Was willing to pay 3K for a body and 1 lens.
I got the best camera for what I wanted to use it for. It happened to also be a great deal.
Sounds like the truck does what you need it to. Perfect.
If I was an idiot, I mean, If I pushed all my photos 4stops then sure I need a Sony sensor.
Yesterdays sensors with strong CFA are better for skin quality. Not the other way around. New isnt always better. I would put my plasma up against peoples LCD crap any day also.
Steve - No offense intended (I had a 5D2 and D700 back in the day), but if I had the choice of a 5D2 or a D850, I'm picking up and shooting with the D850 every time. Every situation.
Mared, Since they are both DSLR, and the D850 is amazing, I would agree.
But ive got a 7Dm2 for action, crop zoom.
I just wanted something for portraits. After testing many cameras old and new, the 5Dm2 did what I wanted, but also better skin quality than some much newer cameras. eg: A7ii, D610, D750 was excellent but skin quality again not as good. RAW as well as JPG. Also objectively, delta error FAR better on Canon, very noticeable if you like starting with the most accurate colors possible.
And since a 50D is much better for sports than the new R, I was making the point we have more than just the 3 newest cameras to choose from. Regardless of budget.
What a well balanced and fair video about the pros and cons of the big three mirrorlesses, thank you DPR for that! As Chris in the vid said: it comes to so much more than technical specs of a camera if it is useful for my way of creating images. But this video helps me to sort out which cam fits me the best. Anybody who feels themselves annoyed by downranking "their" camera and brand should see their therapist for this sort of relationship between camerabrands and humans cannot be healthy.
@CaPi: don't get me wrong, I really appreciate what Fuji is doing in the aps-c section. Great camera, even greater firmware support! But this article is about comparing the latest entry level ff mlcs, so wth Fuji?
I think the Fuji was mentioned due to price point and the question of what will be the camera of 2018. But, yes. you are right. its about FF here. And no matter which camera wins.. it is to me the year of FF - and looking at the annoucements, 2019 might be, too.
Nikon and Canon aren't really on their very first. They both have experience with mirrorless and being late to the FF mirrorless party means you can "borrow" as much as possible from the leader which they have both done here. What we don't know is how much Sony has held back with no FF mirrorless competition and that should be much more concerning to Nikon and Canon than the other way around. To assume that because Sony is on their 3rd iteration means that they have shown all of their cards is a bit naive. We'll learn a lot in the next few months to a year when we see what Sony releases and we see if Nikon can improve some issues in firmware and stay on schedule with the lens roadmap. One thing is for sure... we definitely do not "already see where this is going".
Awful battery life, ergonomics, weather sealing, menu's, overheating in 4k, lacking lens selection, poor autofocus, weak EVF, single card slot etc etc etc.. all did not matter with the Sony A7rII... at that time DR was the only measurement. (the ONLY thing Sony was doing better than the rest)
Skip forward to today: The DR has become nearly even. So now Ibis and un-cropped 4k are the most important. At the same time ergonomics, menus, weather sealing, pro services, UI, EVF etc etc (The main things Sony a7III still lacks in compared to its direct competition)... still don't really matter.
If you disregard its shortcomings and focus on those of its competition...Sony comes out ahead. OK
The A7RII was praised because it delivered **a lot** of things in 2015, not 2018!
EVF was class-leading, and is considered low-res today only because we have better chips to compare with. Same for battery life. Overheating in 4k does not occur with later firmwares. Lens selection is not an attribute of the camera, but of the system, and can no longer be considered lacking. Autofocus is good but not great, in any case performs better than the current R or Z implementations.
@jay-A.. you are doing much the same as @Thematic.
Certainly there was no competition in full frame mirrorless back then..because there were no other full-frame mirrorless. Most certainly there were several other full-frame (non-mirrorless) cameras...
they outperformed Sony's in almost all ways..except for DR. DPR for the most part scored all the competition lower than Sony
@cbphoto123: I'm doing much the same as @Thamtic simply because that is the answer that your comment logically implies.
You are wrong saying that DR was the only thing exceeding DSLR performance. Please look back at the review. May I list shock-free EFCS shutter, AA-filter free 42MP sensor, silent shutter, internal 4k recording, OSPDAF with C-AF finally usable, eye-AF in C-AF, possibility to AF Canon lenses, superior AF accuracy without need to calibrate lenses, and more...
All these things blew DSLRs out of the water at the time, and made the photography taking process faster, sharper and easier than with DSLRs. Hence the review recommendation. The A7RII was revolutionary in 2015, just like the Canon 5DII was in 2008 or the 5D in 2005. Just that time has passed and that there are better cameras now does not change the way we look at these cameras.
So again and once for all - there is no bias in DPR reviews, there are just biased readers.
@Jay-A... to each their own. I considered the A7rII back then rubbish, and I still do today. It did not check any of the "boxes" that are of use for me then, and still does not today. It also came up short in most aspects that are important to me in a camera "system" then and now.
The A7rIII's on the other hand have "fixed" many of the non-starter issues of the system back then, but to this day Sony's ergonomics, weather-sealing/build quality, UI, pro-services do not compete...for me.
You seem to be of a differing opinion, but when you look at what was on offer by Nikon and Canon at the time, not just as a camera but also as a complete "professional" system... Sony was years behind.
DPR seemingly, as yourself, ignored all this..and just looked at the specs. There was a reason people were not all getting rid of their DSLR's back then... mirrorless as a whole did not compete. DPR's scoring said quite the opposite. They were "wrong" in their conclusions then, somewhat less so today.
Why do you think not more professionals have made the switch to full frame mirrorless? Why are the side lines of major sporting events NOT full of Sony cameras? Why do they still have such a small market share if they are truly the better system that everyone wants?
Before you go on a rant about pro's are antiquated, stubborn, can't afford to make the switch bla bla bla... this is just not the case. Until most recently we could not be bothered, because.. mirrorless was just not competitive. In the real world, did not give any/enough advantages to make the switch. This for the vast majority is still the case. Certainly this will change in the coming years.. but to "score" the A7rII back then as a "superior choice" over the top DSLR's at the time..is laughable at best.
Everything on offer by Sony falls short for me. If I had Nikon glass, the Z6 & Z7 seem the clear winners. I am currently content with my 5dsr's and will wait to see what Canons "pro" R has to offer.
Ok you made it clear that is/was not the camera/system for you. But that bias is yours, not DPR’s, who look at things from the broader perspective given how many cameras they try and how much feedback they get. You are one of several readers not satisfied with their approach and editorial choices. which leaves you free to go elsewhere rather than keeping on accusing an hypothetical bias which may very well be yours rather than theirs.
So what you "read" into my comment was that I have bias, seemingly along with most professionals...and that DPR "reviewers" know better than I/we do, what I/we need or want, again as professional/working photographers, in a camera system. OK.
yes, that’s pretty much it. Again you are best placed to decide on what’s best for you and your pro needs, but since you bring the pro thing to the table may I underline that DPR are also pros in reviewing and that for a general audience their advice is probably worth more than that of many of the vocal armchair referees populating the comments section.
Interesting that you would value the "opinion" of a camera gear "reviewer" over that of a person/persons/professionals that actually use camera equipment daily, in all weather and situations.. for years/decades in a professional manner.
I have stated countless times that I very much like what Canon, Nikon and also Fuji have been producing for years.. All of them make wonderful cameras/systems. I don't feel the same way about Sony...therefor I must be biased?
DPR and yourself seem to be of a similar opinion as to what most want/need in a camera. Remind me again what brand you shoot/own?
If I want a good-looking picture of me I go and see one of your fellows pro photographers. But if I want advice on my next camera I go to see one pro reviewer. To each its own. It’s pretentious to think that because you are a pro photographer you are in good position to prescribe what camera people should buy. This is the logic that sustained Canons market share beyond what it should have been had value been the sole criterion.
So an airline pilot is pretentious if he/she prefers a certain control layout for actually flying a plane... on long flights prefers a comfortable chair vs a smaller one..thinks that leaking in the fuselage is a kind of no starter... running out of fuel mid flight, also not ideal...The ground crew at his airline, well, they really are not around at all... But hey, an aeronautical reviewer thinks it's a really great plane/airline... 91% and Gold!
cbphoto123 argument is pretty silly and stupid. A7rii was revolutionary in 2015. It was camera of the year on dozens of sites and magazines, not just only on DPR. If Canon and Nikon are releasing camerass 3 years later, they are going to be compared to 2018 competition, not 2015 cameras. That's like someone whining why DPR recommended D90 in 2008 but not a camera released in 2018 that is better than D90. What's wrong with you, dude?
@Butoa.. as a professional, I have preferences/needs, based on decades of actually working as a photographer. Since I do not prefer Jay-A's camera of choice.. that makes me pretentious. And seemingly "pretty silly and stupid" to you. What you call "revolutionary".. I do not. If they had come up with the A7rIII at that time..I would have whole heartedly agreed. The very long list of shortcomings of the A7rII, were far too many to even consider it as a practical, much less reliable system. I am sorry you cannot/will not see this.. not my problem.
In spite of all of cbphoto123's whining about the A7RII, it's still far outselling the Canon and Nikon FF mirrorless bodies on Amazon. The A7RII is currently ranked #17, the A7RIII is ranked #21. I wish I could tell you where the Z7 is ranked, but Amazon only ranks the top 100 in sales; the Z7 has dropped off the top 100 at the moment. Maybe later it will pop back on:
Oh look...@T3, the resident Sony Shill... uploading useless links to Amazon for the upteenth time. Isn't posting for Sony and Amazon...a form of advertising? I thought all advertisement is clearly marked as "sponsored" at DPR.
@cbphoto123: It's not about Sony shills or whatever - it's just that you are arguments don't make any sense. Get over it, the 3-year old A7RII is still better than whatever Canon offers now or will offer for the foreseeable future. And it's half the price. So it will outsell the R for some more time, as will the A7III and others.
Did you become a "pro-reviewer" in the last 24 hours? Certainly are a whole bunch of you in the comments sections here. Apologies if I don't agree with your assessment in regards to Sony's superiority.
Quoting yourself: "But if I want advice on my next camera I go to see one pro reviewer."
That's true A7III has better tracking AF compared to Z6 but Z6 has better EVF, has true WR, better built quality, better Video and IBIS, not overheating, and very good AF excluding AF-C, also better menu and much much better ergonomics... all theses are more importatnt for me, so if I have to choose now one of them I would take Z6 for sure.
af-c is the backbone of a good milc camera, so that is a deal-killer.
"Z6 has... better Video"
no, sony has five powered zooms, Nikon has none; Nikon is next to useless for real-world video... both sony and canon have pro video cameras that can use the same lenses as their still cameras, Nikon doesn't have any video background like that.
shame on dpr for not factoring the lack of Nikon video lenses into the review.
@MILC man The obsession with AF-C is ridiculous. It's very useful for people shooting sports and wildlife, and those who like to "spray and pray" every running dog and child. For most people other factors are a lot more important, like being able to keep using your camera without worry in a light drizzle. I could do that with my Olympus, not with my Sony.
The fact that Nikon hasn't made even a "good" video camera before and now leapfrogged Sony's best mirrorless is a big deal. Power zoom lenses that weigh and cost twice as much as regular lenses are irrelevant to buyers of entry-level full frame mirrorless cameras. I mean, just look at it: http://briansmith.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Sony-FE-28-135mm.jpg
The big advantage Sony has now is a huge native lens selection with multiple manufacturers making spectacular lenses for the system.
A7III doesn't overheat, and there is no proof Z6 has better WR. No one tested that claim in real life like rain to prove it. You also forgot to add other A7III advantages, like two card slots and better battery life, eye autofocus, speed booster adapters, and third-party lenses like Zeiss
@dereken - the af-c in your Olympus isn't on the same level as what sony has.
claiming that Nikon "leapfrogged" sony wrt video only proves that you don't know anything about video, at all... because cameras without video lenses are useless.
and no, not all sony power zoom lenses are big... you better just stick to m4/3, lol
I'm not a fan of power zooms at all. Looks like an old camcorder when video footage slowly zooms in. Much better to just add a cut if you're going to change to a closer shot. Just look at how BBC or any pro documentaries do it. Anyway the most popular "pro video lenses" would be manual focus fast primes. You know, the ones called "cine lenses."
Most episodes of DPReview TV are shot on a M4/3 camera. In fact, in older episodes Jordan used the Sony FS5 and now he picks up the Panasonic GH5s. Think about that before you put M4/3 down. (I say that using Sony APSC now for video and no longer any M4/3 cameras.)
Omission of AF-C doesn't make sense in case of mirrorless camera. It's not DSLR, and it's not operated like DSLR. In 2018 the AF-C on mirrorless is a great feature that boosts your success ratio while shooting anything but landscapes and other 100% immobile objects.
Unlike focus-and-recompose style of old, now you don't care about the field curvature, or object moving away from razor-thin DOF, or movement of your own body. You just press the button and get consistent hits.
So Sony wins in almost everything? Sorry but I have to respectfully disagree.
Lens selection: Count in all EF + EF-S glass that works flawlessly on EOS R while Canon glass is hunting in dim light on the Sony, even with the MC-11. Sony lens selection is not that great, lacking a 50mm 1.2 AF, 85mm 1.2 AF, 600mm prime, tilt-shift lenses and so on... So please what do they do on place 1?
Ergonomics and handling: You prefer a poor menu, a grip for Trump hands, a NOT fully articulating screen with NO full touch interface over a maybe not so great button layout? Cause the on-off button is on the left ... (ಠ_ಠ) *suspicously raised eyebrow*
Now I am not a fan onf Sony but let me add: The lenses were only a sidenote in the review. And the GM lenses are very good btw. Canon has announced that they are reducing investment in their cameras. And in this body - it shows (no ibis, reused sensor.. ). Is it good enough to use and even enjoy? They all are by now.
A sidenote that is kinda important especially if you own Canon glass already. I just dont think its fair that this comparison leaves the impression that the Canon is the worst camera 2018. When there is actually more than one reason to prefer it over the Sony and thats ergonomics and natively working lens selection BAE.
Why does everyone say Canikon adapted lenses work "flawlessly" on their mirrorless? Sure, they can mount, drive the AF motor and aperture drive, and communicate EXIF info, but beyond that, performance is sorely lacking vs use on their DSLRs.
Sony can even use Canon's lenses BETTER than Canon's own mirrorless can, and sometimes even better than on their DSLRs. And then there's Nikon AF-D and earlier AF lenses, 2/3 of their AF lens library, that can't AF on Nikon Z. Grab a Techart Pro, and you can AF ALL of those lenses, and ALL of Canikon's manual focus lenses on Sony. Shame on Nikon for abandoning 2/3 of its lens library, and users of those lenses.
One reason why many of Nikon’s AF-D users held off of on moving to Sony mirrorless was because they expected Nikon’s FTZ adapter to support their extensive AF-D collections. As Nikon has disappointed them, Sony has now gained a new opportunity to convert more Nikonistas.
Nikon apparently thinks everyone will be excited to replace their entire lens library with their overpriced Z kit lenses, LOL. But as Z users post their example images it’s clear that there is hardly any image improvement to speak of! Even worse, the Z 24-70 f/4 looks to render images as flat as a pancake.
Nice job, Nikon... plastic beer can lens designs, meh performance, and inflated prices. I’ll keep my diminutive AF-D primes, thank you.
@BlueBomberTurbo: Canon lenses perform better on a Sony looool. Yeah right... maybe watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j05qiBLJl5I And be sure to watch from 10:00 where the A7III fails miserably to find the focus with an EF 50mm 1.4 standard prime in dim light. Also check out its pathetic performance with an EF 70-200 2.8 from 7:30. I don't know where you draw your views from, but they are grotesquely distorted from reality. Even in dim light, dual pixel AF finds its focus WAY faster and WAY more accurate.
Adapted glass will never be native. It will always be freaking huge in comparison to truly native equivalents (especially for black-colored lenses), you'll need to fiddle with adapters, and ultimately the non-native lenses will be mostly replaced to native equivalents.
Ergonomics: Although the Canon has a more comfortable grip, fully articulating double the resolution touchscreen (without the Sony lag), far better evf, superior intuitive menu... the Sony has more buttons & 2 card slots! OK.
Canon comes in 2nd in lens selection: because when it was DSLR's against Mirrorless.. DSLR's had a much larger selection, but since Sony has been in the mirrorless game longer..now Sony has more lenses, even though all of Canon's EF & EF-S work on the EOS R as "native" glass. Odd that logic.
5 second summary: Sony currently have the only competent mirrorless AF system, IBIS, and a decent (if somewhat ordinary) lens selection. In comparison Canon R has a few exciting lenses... but lacks the IBIS needed to use them optimally. Nikon Z can't focus track well or do Eye-AF, so it's basically good only for static photography or videography.
They clearly said Canon had a better AF system in a some situations (low light/single point). They also said Nikon had better IBIS. Canon and Nikon also have native weather-sealed adapters that allow you to flawlessly use hundreds of lenses from the last 30 and 50 years, respectively.
Eye-AF is at best an optional convenience. Photographers have been taking photos of non-static people with literally every camera before the latest Sony. I say this as someone who owns and uses a recent Sony...
It is good to see Nikon and Canon making efforts to catch up. Both of these companies used to be the innovators in the camera world but Canon literally stopped trying and Nikon just slowed down. Personally I will never get another camera without Ibis. It is more useful than some people can imagine. The some people I am referring to are Canon executives.
Voronspb, Do you mean expensive for consumers? I had IBIS on my first Sony camera. It was an A55 model, 7 years ago, which cost me about $500 retail and it worked beautifully. I think Panasonic, Pentax, and Olympus have had IBIS for a long time. Many of their cameras are reasonably priced.
Funny how CANIKON could not make a new camera that blew away a 1 year old Sony... Better luck next time.. Panasonic will most likely have one to compete...
Well all the Canikon fans were posting a lot smack as to how Canon and Nikon were going to totally blow Sony out of the water now that the 'big boys' were here in full frame mirrorless.
What a let down. Even the Sony Execs were bored/asleep when Canon and Nikon introduced their new mirrorless FF cameras.
I wonder if anyone here goes outside with their camera? Or actually owns any of these cameras?
This spec sheet crap doesnt take photos. Its quite annoying that this DR thing is so overblown. Better DR = better camera garbage. I dont need 6 stop pushes in 99.99% of photos.
There are lots of cameras that beat or exceed these 3 mirrorless in some ways. And these are better in some ways. They arnt inherently better because they are new though.
Buy what works for you and use it. If something was so much better than my 5Dm2 for portraits, I would buy it. None of these 3 are though.
SteveAnderson - First - Why aren't you outside with your camera? Second - Yes, I do own these cameras. Third - The dynamic range thing is important. Nobody said you needed 6 stops of push. But, you clearly aren't understanding the issue with regard to banding and shadow recovery if you're bringing it up like this. Finally, I liked the 5d2 but times have moved on since then/d700.
I own a Sony a73 and bought it with kit lens at Best Buy open box for $1650.. My friend has a 5dm4 with 24-70 f2.8 and we tested iq .. lets just say he sold his Canon and bought a Sony ... I had an a nex6, a5100, A6000.. Switched to Fuji for a few years.. Bought an a6500 a few months ago returned it when I saw the IQ from the a73 and was hooked.. yea ergo and build quality isn't amazing but dam iq is even great with kit lens..
The A7iii and kit lens does not have better IQ than a 5Dm4 and 24-70 f2.8.
This is a fact.
If people switch those, its for other reasons. Not because of IQ.
I dont care why someone switches. Lighter? sure, switch. Good reason. Tricked somehow to thinking it has better IQ? Sure whatever, not all people are really smart.
Just watch Tony Northrope recent review on a blind Color science IQ test.. CANICON fanboys need to smarten up.. I'm sure your one of those people that think bokeh is artistic..
Saying no more was certainly smarter than what was sure to be your most dumb reply.
I was kind of looking forward to it though.
Tony was talking about you, but you didnt get that. His entire point is that most people are brand loyal and shouldnt be talking about colour since they know nothing about it.
You guys take such a joy if Canon and Nikon doesn't deliver what you expect. It's weird kind of hedonism. Perhaps you would like to be overcharged by your beloved company due to lack of competition. Mmmm yeah take my money please, yesssss!!
Canon just delivered whatever they could to plug the leak of their customer base to Sony. This will work to some extent, but this camera signals the fact that Canon won't play any meaningful role in the mirrorless world to come. They'll stick to their DSLRs, for the diminishing number of pros that will prefer them, and to the trucks of Rebels and M that they sell at the low end. My guess is that they'll be happy with this because they no longer care about photography, just about sales. I don't think that the future pro R models will be of any interest.
jay-A: "this camera signals the fact that Canon won't play any meaningful role in the mirrorless world to come"
I think you're wrong here. With the first round of lenses, Canon have shown that they are very serious about the new mount. Sure, they will need to up their game with future cameras and stop overpricing them at first release, but I have no doubt that they will pull the stops out when it matters.
@jonby: ' I have no doubt that they will pull the stops out when it matters.'. This is assuming they CAN pull the stops out, which I seriously doubt based on how little technology is present in the first R.
That's ok if you currently have an FF and if you're happy with it. However, for those who are looking to replace their old FF or even to enter into FF, i doubt that they should settle for 'good enough' especially if 'great' costs a few hundred bucks LESS.
Barrym, I post process everything and that's bull. Some raws are just closer to good than others. I shoot video and stills. I always shoot Raw for stills. Among the cameras I currently own are a Sony A7III, a Fujifilm X-T3, a GH5, and a Canon 5D MkIV. And I'll gladly post a pic for sceptics. I formerly owned an A7RII and an A7SII, both since sold. There are stills from both in my gallery.
When I pull images from that range of cameras into my Raw converter (formerly Lightroom but now mostly Capture One) some pictures clearly are going to need more work than others. My A7SII and A7RII pulled into Lightroom always made my heart sink. I knew I'd need more work. (Capture One works better with Sony files, and demands less work than Lightroom.) The Fujifilm is almost invariably close to right
But it continues to amuse me that people say there's no such thing as colour science UNTIL their own favourite brand's colour science makes a jump, and then they point out how much better it is.
I guess some people who don't believe it's an issue should be writing to their favourite brand and telling them they shouldn't bother to improve it, because it doesn't matter anyway.
Except he's not saying what many people think he's saying. He DID admit that his viewers could see colour differences between the cameras. In fact, they liked Sony best and Fujifilm second best, when they were unlabelled. But as he's a Sony booster himself it's hardly surprising that people who like Sony colours go to his site. Judging by his skin tone in that video it's shot on Sony too. (He also, incidentally found Fujifilm users show the least bias when judging.)
However, the white balances vary so much in the photos he chooses, and he could have chosen any number of emulations. I've noticed Sony exclusive users do LIKE their images with emphasised browns and greens. That's fine, but it does seem to be a thing. (I currently shoot with Canon, Sony, Fujifilm, and Panasonic GH5, so am very used to seeing with my own specific images, the colour differences . And I trust my own samples.
@Shiranai Actual professional photographers know how make color profile that apply on import and get the look that they want. Amateurs on the other hand, just b!tch and wh!ne ;)
I've shot so many weddings with my A7III for studio that uses only Canon equipment, and I've not received one complaint about color or skin tone or color matching, and I still get hired by the same studio and make good money ;)
"Actual professional photographers know how make color profile that apply on import and get the look that they want."
+1
That's what I do. I have a base preset and profile for use on all cameras to get the look I want, no matter what I shoot. All that really needs tweaking here and there is WB, exposure, and shadow/highlight. Colors are fine under all lighting.
@GrapeJam: Actual professional photographers know that you can't just slam a color profile on each photo and call it a day, cause every photo has a different light situation, especially on a wedding.
That's why you make custom profiles. Haven't found any software yet with included profiles that can handle all lighting situations like a good handmade profile can.
@Shiranai: 'You mean like wedding photographers who don't have time to deal with the skin colors of each of their 1000+ photos.'
Yeah, like you don't need to postprocess flash shots. Almost all flash shots have WB off because you never know the wall color on which the light will bounce. If you're a wedding photographer and you're not postprocessing these shots I'd be interested to see the face of your clients when you present them your work.
Different cameras have different sensors and different CFA filters, processors and profiles. This may (or may not) have a huge impact on how the scene is captured from a spectrum perspective.
A custom profile is a good start but it only tells the RAW converter that the captured hue shoule be moved in a certain direction to be accurate. But what if the captured hue itself is wrong or "less pleasing" to begin with? This is where the CFA plays a big role.
Most people do not care about this and just dismiss it with a profile thing or "RAW converter"
Having this said, the key question is if this matters to you or not. It depends on your scene, location, light, shooting style, post process and a million other parameters. But do NOT reject color science as BS. Or that it is only a JPEG thing...
@henrikbengtsson: Dxo measures the CFA filter strength and transmission matrix for camera sensors and guess what - since the 5DIV the Canon sensor color properties have converged with those of Sony sensors. So no, there is no CFA filter magic. If there ever was, it was Canon cheating on color metamerism back then in 2008 where they wanted better high iso than their competitors, hence they went with weaker color separation. The data is all on Dxomark's web site, tab 'color response'.
@Henrikbengtsson " But what if the captured hue itself is wrong or "less pleasing" to begin with? This is where the CFA plays a big role."
Maybe you should look up the definition of "RAW". Yeah, RAW capture the whole color spectrum. There's a reason why experienced post processor never have any problem matching color from different camera brands.
And yes, Color science thing is snake oil BS:
What's pleasing is completely subjective. I've never had clients complaining about SOOC color and unless the color is completely off the brain does a good job white balancing our perceptible color.
In friendly social photoshoot between different brands I've had alot of people, from both models or Canon shooters who prefer the SOOC output from my Sony A7III over Canon, my own boss prefer Sony colors over Canon colors. Seems that that they didn't get the pre notice that Sony colors are terrible that affect the opinion of many people here ;)
Henrik: No need to 'believe', because we have data and therefore we 'know'. Please take the time to look at this data, which will answer your question. There is nothing magical in it really.
As I said above, there are color matrix data on Dxomark ('color response' tab). If you go there you'll see that the matrix structure for the 5DIV/R sensor and that of the 42MP Sony sensor are very similar, as are their color metamerism index (an integral measure of color separation properties). If you rewind back in time, You'll see that the current Sony transmission properties have been carried over since the first Exmors (A700,A900). Canon, OTOH, has changed paradigm in the meanwhile (look for instance for the 5DII). They started with weak separation for high iso performance but now they have adopted a stronger CFA that is similar to Sony's.
jay-A: Yes, and what I am saying is that these changes in CFA design can have an impact on the final image. And in some scenes a very big impact if the filter is not doing its job properly. There is a reason Fujifilm has spent so much time designing their CFAs and matching profiles to get that "Fujilook". There is also a reason Phase One has spent a lot of time and probably millions of dollars designing their new TriChromatic Sensor.
Were they all wrong? Did they waste all this time and money because on DPR all you need is a colorchecker passport?
I am not saying what is right or wrong here. Nor am I comparing Sony vs Canon or that anyone is "better or worse". I am just saying that color science also comes from the hardware.
Sensor CFAs being different only comes into play in profiling when you hit the CFAs' limits. The same way sensor DR and ISO only come into play when you reach their limits. In general, you can get any sensor that outputs RAW files to have the same color under normal use. No brand has colors so outlandish that the manufacturer needed to create a CFA far enough from the norm that it would affect profiling.
Color science matters way less then it used to since the digital darkroom gives you full control.
I also bet to differ that Canon has the best color science. They have one that is very pleasing and liked by a lot of people, but it isn't the most accurate. I personally prefer Nikon's skin tones and color rendering but nowadays I use the Adobe color profiles which are very good and allow me to get all my cameras on the same profile (= color science).
People cry about color science while they mash up all their photos through presets... goodbye (Canon) color science!
All any of these manufacturers really have to do is make sure their MILC products are prominently placed in the next Bond film. And somehow their color science or auto focus technology or battery life figures heavily into stopping the Special Executive for Counterintelligence, Terrorism, Revenge and Extortion organization (SPECTRE) from taking over the world. And the evil leader Ernst Stavros Blofeld who is of course ultimately defeated should be saddled with the would-be inferior brand. Public favor will follow.
I beg to differ. The evil ones have the large budget and the cool tech. Space shuttles in abundance, Lasers to threaten the world.. star destroyers. The good win with gear thats good enough ( james uses sony smartphones.. the rebellion uses repurposed cruise ships..).
Yet, Some heroes wear cool watches. ;-)
The watches seem to outsell the Sony Mobile Phones. Sadly.
In Japan is important to show respect even to your competition. Sony would be disrespectful if they position the A7III an entry body while it’s so much better than Canikons flagship FF MILC.
Oh and Jordan: I, too, really value your opinion a lot. If you would use more b-roll when you point out specific video features.. you wouldnt need to be on screen all the time if you dont want to :)
The Z6 is easily the camera of the year 2018 and could be for 2019 too.
Nikon really nailed it with superior ergonomics, video, IBIS, lens compatibility (sony cripples adapted lenses), and so much more. IQ on ALL cameras is superb (Jordan says worrying about it is overrated, totally agree)
The Nikon has more accessories, better global support, and can share lenses with the best professional DSLRs on the planet without compromise. D500 and D5 (the best AF tracking cameras period) owners can add mirrorless now for the best system possible. Simply put, Nikon does more.
The Sony is OK, but poor ergonomics, past overheating issues, poor IBIS, slower operation, lesser video, lack of weather resistance, crippled support of DSLR lenses, etc. put in the middle tier.
I said the Sony was a good camera. It is not my fault if the complete Nikon system is better. And it was DPR who said the D500 and D5 are best for AF tracking. Don't shoot the messenger.
Where in this review you see D5 and D500? Nikon MILC system is more complete than Sony? How come? This review is about those three cameras/systems, right?
You didn't read again. If magic lantern comes through, the Canon will be that camera for video. And I like the thumb sensor thing. I hope they do more with it.
If is if, and if is yes, you lose your warranty with putting it into your camera. I like 5d4 controls/buttons/layout, thumb thing is the stupidest thing Canon made for ages. They should stop inventing wheel or hot water again.
"There is no such thing as “voiding” the Canon warranty, there are simply repairs that are covered, and those that are not. ... So damage caused by Magic Lantern wouldn't be covered, but any covered damage, whether or not you've ever installed ML before, will still be taken care of pro bono during the warranty period."
Exactly the points why I will chose nikon. Simply, I love how does it feel in hand and how you enjoy using it. I don't need camera that has bad ergonomics. Concerning specs, regular user will never notice the difference between tjese 3 cameras. Just buy what you love. To add smtn regarding lenses availability - for regular people with limited finances, canon and nikon can offer more concerning lenses. You can buy so much great used lenses foe really low price. As sony lenses are relatively new, they are more expensive and not offering more. Go to ebay and check it. Even for the new users, this will be best for their wallet... Type canon or nikkor lens on ebay and compare prices with sony... You can not beat history, for my budget this is very important fact. These things makes difference but in general cameras are the same for 99,9% of users, still photography depends on shooter not on camera.
@Aleksa T - "Type canon or nikkor lens on ebay and compare prices with sony... You can not beat history, for my budget this is very important fact."
Canon and Nikon lenses can be used on Sony bodies as well. I am a Canon user who has a collection of Canon EF lenses that I use on my Sony A7II body ($898) with a Sigma MC-11adapter ($149). Autofocus, IBIS, face AF all work fine. Right now I don't think there is a Nikon F adapter that works as well as the MC-11 does for Canon EF lenses. But I'm hoping that some third-party manufacturer will dissect and reverse engineer the Nikon FTZ (F-to-Z) adapter and make it an FTE (F-to-E) adapter for Sony E-mount. I think it's only a matter of time before that happens.
In the age of mirrorless cameras and smart adapters, we are moving towards an era where camera bodies can become universal bodies capable of using just about any DSLR or legacy lens, with the appropriate adapter. That's great for consumers. We are no longer isolated within a system.
Should we listen to some random wanna be name Oskar P? Or the findings of Chris, Jordan and DPR? Tough call guys I think I’m going to stray from the mainstream and vote for Oskar P! Make DPR great again!
@T3: you saw it in reviews that its not working same with an adapter! And nobody likes when these great features that you see on review like autofocus are not working, especially in low light situations. So this compatibility that you're talking about is not FULL. Only canon adapter for Canon works flawlessly. Z mount has brightest future because it has shortest flange distance on market, if you look in that direction.
Oskar P, how good is that nikon for video? I'm not asking about how good a 500$ external recorder is. I'm asking about the camera... How is that Log profile? Oh wait....
@Aleksa T - "Only canon adapter for Canon works flawlessly."
The problem is that the EOS R's focus system is far from flawless! So you're still getting impaired performance. The difference is that Canon EOS R has impaired performance even with their native mirrorless lenses. So my EF lenses are doing no worse on my A7II body than they would on an EOS R. But at least they get IBIS on my A7II! As for the Z-mount, it's quite ridiculous that people think it has the "brightest future" just because it has the shortest flange distance. People seem to forget that the Nikon F mount had the smallest lens mount (44mm compared to Canon EF's 54mm) and the longest flange distance (46.5mm compared to Canon EF's 44mm), and yet it seemed to survive just fine. Back in the early 1990's, plenty of Canon EOS users claimed that Nikon F had no future because of how small the lens mount was! In the end, such arguments are just red herrings and nonsense.
@T3 and A7ii is known as capable autofocus camera? Not... I mean, saying that EF lenses are working crap even on Canon, man, these lenses are best in business. Best lenses. Full stop. And beside that I don't consider A7ii as serious camera... A7III is different story...
I've quickly come to realise everyone who hates Sony gave never used one.. Everyone who loves Sony used to shoot Canon. And nikon. But tried Sony and realised its just Better in everyway
Have you tried the AF with the adaptor for F lens? It’s a big joke...slower than reflex AF is the more important think in a camera. Bye bye Nikon, see you next year (ex D500 owner, happy A7 III owner)
@OZkar P(oor) soul - I never wrote that DPR didn't pick D5 and D500 for action sports camera. I specifically ask you, since you talking about these cameras, WHERE IN THIS REVIEW, Chis and Jordan mentioned D5/D500? I know, you have tough job running like mad trough this site and wrote your usual BS, but please be more careful, you compromise your job.
Great and balanced video (as always) with BRILLIANT grading. No news here.
A few notes from an actual hybrid shooter about Z6 though. While external 10-bit is a good thing, Z6 is still not mature enough to be a capable video-machine: - No peaking with Zebra at the same time - Internal recording options are very limited and big Atomos external recorder cannot be used in multiple scenarios. - Almost nonexistent video lens ecosystem even with F-mount thrown into the mix. And no native power-zoom options and zero info about this type of glass in the current roadmap. This is a huge show-stopper for any hybrid shooter, IMO. Proprietary mount is a big problem too, because there will be no lenses like Tamron, Sigma or Samyang to fill the void.
I'd say Z6 is a great step forward for Nikon, hampered by the slow internal CPU and lack of any video focus from Nikon in the past. Unlike overpriced Z7, I think Z6 will find it's audience.
I’m still trying to digest that. It may be the most idiotic comment ever in a camera review. Its like saying the same about a TV review, or speed is least important in a performance car review. So if image quality is least important, why are DR, resolution and noise factors? Addionally, he goes on to say resolution isn’t important to people for a camera in this price range. Yet a 6-stop shadow push is? Just laughable.
If you can't make a decent photo with any of these, find another job or hobby. Pete Sousa, for example, was the official White House shooter for 8 years and, God forbid, shot those "horrible" Canon sensors. Well, him, along with countless other pros. I do agree that the Canon needs improvement, and IBIS, though.
With all due respect, I’m not buying it. The only end purpose of a camera is to produce pictures - and videos more recently. In that regard, image quality is paramount. If it weren’t, he wouldnt completely contradict himself talking about softness in video, DR, resolution and noise. A toaster should toast, right? Lawn mowers mow, correct? Or perhaps if the toaster merely heats up you’d be satisfied. My point is image quality is fundamentally the most important thing a camera must provide. And if Chris Made that statement because all produce great images, which he did earlier in the review, then all those other things directly connected to image quality (DR, noise, resolution) would be moot, not part of the review and given their own damn category. You can’t logically state all are important, when they’re sub-categories of the overall image quality.
I think the point was that unless your really pushing your image files then you're not going to notice one way or another the minor differences in IQ because they all do a great job. Look at the sample galleries and the studio comparison tool. It's only when the images are pushed to the extreem that the differences are noticable. You don't need a Farrari if 90% of your driving is to work or the shops. Top speed of 360kph is irrelevent in that situation. Feul economy, driver comfort etc... become much more important factors. Even with your own analogies, ...how many times do you turn the toaster dial right up to the max? Do you need a ride on mower if you only have 10x10m lawn?
You’re using my analogy incorrectly. If a toaster heated up, but wouldnt toast, what good is it? That’s it’s only function. If a mower cut grass horribly, but had a real comfortable handle, is it really a good mower? That is it’s only function.
And I do understand. But it’s a contradiction to state image quality doesn’t matter, while at the same time rating image quality. And it’s fundamentally incorrect to state it doesn’t matter when its the ONLY job of a camera: producing images.
we're not taking about canon 300D here where IQ at and above iso800 was unusable and pushing beyond 1 stops was not recommended. All the camera's in the above review can take decent pictures (all the toasters can toast). It's only in extreme situations that some perform better than others.
Never have I looked at a powerful photo that moved me and thought to myself, "How many megapixels!?", what's the DR in stops?!, is that Full Frame!?". I have often looked at photos and thought to myself, "That's a difficult shot,the photog must have been skilled with their camera", or so much more importantly than anything camera related, "what is the story behind that photographer finding that light!?", or "how did they feel when they took that photo, and what did they want me the viewer to see from that experience?!".
With our chosen method of image sharing being screen based, all the sensors and lenses are good today. Far more important is whether the camera meshes well with the photog, as are tools such as IBIS, or AF performance allowing that photographer better opportunities at great images. I appreciate sharpness, and lens quality, and megapixels too, I just think there are more important things to consider first.
These mirrorless cameras really show the differences among users. Some want mostly to shoot video, some want drones, some want take pictures in the pouring rain. And some want the camera that got the gold award. There's some overlap, sure, but mostly these are different things. It's almost like the old days where one guy shot 80 rolls in an hour while another photographer spent the hour shooting one side of an 8x10 holder.
For now, the Sony seems the obvious choice to leave your options open. But the second best choice might be to keep the camera you have if it does the job. Sony can be counted on to release new models continuously, and Canon obviously has something better than their first try as well.
Nothing about built quality and weather sealing, important to many. A non-functioning camera, no matter how good it is in all aspects, is not good for anything.
That said, it looks to me, as a relatively longtime user of Nikon that the Z6 looks Iike an excellent camera in all aspects. Re the banding issue, the most I ever used in practice in all these years re shadow recovery has been 2 EV push, with awesome results even with the now ancient D7000. The Z6 is much better in that regard, shadows are incredibly clean at that pushing level, so I will be happy with it. Cheers!
"A non-functioning camera, no matter how good it is in all aspects, is not good for anything."
Today's cameras can take quite a lot of abuse before they become "non-functioning cameras." Several years ago, DigitalRev TV put two low-end, entry-level, plastic DSLRs through same ridiculous abuses. They hammered nails with them, flung them onto concrete, dropped PC towers on then, poured hot tea on them, took a torch to them, etc. In they end, they still worked! And in spite of their bodies sustaining considerable damage, they still took these cameras out shooting on a rainy day! And they worked fine.
@Aleksa T - Sure, if you plan on taking your camera into the shower with you, you might want to get the Nikon. Neither the EOS R or A7III are sealed as well as the Nikons. But I don't think that many people are too concerned about taking a camera into the shower with them, at least based on Amazon sales:
Here are the rankings for all FF bodies on Amazon's "Best Sellers in Mirrorless" list lists the top 100 best selling mirrorless cameras on Amazon: #1. Sony A7II kit #8. Sony A7III body #13. Sony A7R II body #23. Sony A7II body #26. Sony A7RIII body #27. Sony A7III kit #41. Sony A7III kit #50. Sony A7 kit #60. Canon EOS R body #72. Nikon Z6 kit #74. Sony A7II kit #76. Sony A7II kit #77. Sony A7III kit #79. Sony A9 body #83. Sony A7RIII body #85. Canon EOS R kit #90. Nikon Z7 kit
Wow - lolol . top selling is just a farce. It has nothing to do with quality - it is simply quantity influenced by price(cheap) and brand name (Sears is where I go to buy cameras - haha). Give me a break.
I require AF. Same reason I switched from a D750 to A6300. Don't mind losing a stop or two of IQ as long as all of my photos are in focus. I edit enough photos from other photographers (mostly) shooting Canon to know how important good AF is.
A careful examination of the studio test widget does not appear to support the image quality conclusions. At best the Sony and Nikon are equal. In some instances the Z6 is ahead even. Here's a comparo with D750, A73, EOSr and Z6:
I hate these reviews on image quality. For past few years on every review canon is behind nikon and sony... I'm nikon user but I really think that canon images are simply looking better and I cannot explain. And this is what matters. When you print or upload your image, nobody will zoom in to look for details. Au contraire, they will just scroll down. Nobody todays is looking at image more than 5 sec... Its because everybody is making images. Thank you smart phones for that.
Again more spec sniffing from DPR! In reality the folks with the EOS R are enjoying their cameras and have shelf their Sony or Nikon. Canon couldn’t have been more successful with their EOS R, it’s plugging the leak to Sony. This will leave Sony with leftovers to pick up. Canon understands their user base best, slow feed advancements for easy digestion. Keep laughing at Canon while they laugh all the way to the bank!
So you are saying that if Canon had given the EOS R better AF, faster frame rate, IBIS, and dual card slots, that would have been too much for their users to digest? That's rather insulting to their user base. "Slow feed advancements for easy digestion"? Are Canon's user base a bunch of disabled, impaired invalids?
I can respect the argument that most users don't care about many features, but then why is the Canon more expensive than both Sony and Nikon?
This is what I don't understand with Canon fans. You can be satisfied with less features, but still admit that it's overpriced, but so many Canon fans seem to be completely blind to this.
Im enjoying mine, but a shop today was already selling it for $500 less than I bought it for a few weeks ago. So thats some fairly strong evidence that it was a overpriced.
@TORN - Shame on CanonSharpShooter for implying that the Canon user base needs to be "slow fed advancements for easy digestion." I was implying that users are perfectly capable of handling the best in specs and features that current technology can offer. That's nothing to be ashamed of.
The EOS R helps Canon persuade its existing users not to switch to a different brand. For new photographers or those buying their first full frame camera and don't already have lenses, they will likely choose the Sony. I did.
Got to give Nikon credit for coming out with something which is competitive with the A7III in their first generation of mirrorless. Shame about the banding and that the tracking and low light AF isn't quite there yet, but I'm sure they will address these in the next model (or maybe even with firmware?) I also think they made a good choice for the first lens releases - sensibly sized for the current bodies and moderately priced. Canon on the other hand...
It's not that hard when you copy Sonys product. Is it? Nikon uses Sony Sensor, Sony Processor, Sony EVF and then copies the basic layout of the A7 cameras...
haha.. I've been on life support for almost a decade with Canon someone please switch me off or help me with funds for a D850 or a Sony A9 I can sell you all my Canon gear for a reasonable price.. Joking aside Chris and Jordan was spot on in that review good job guys!
People really need to accept the fact that the EOS R is terrible ergonomically and get over it. Ergonomics is more than size. The Canon has terrible button placement, no joystick, mushy buttons, on/off issues, bad and inconvenient m'fn slider. Definitely the worst of the three.
There is a small but loud minority on here that cries "size, size, size, size"
Ignoring all other aspects of ergonomics. For example how ****** is it to make the on/off switch a two handed operation, on a mirrorless camera that you constantly turn on and off? And how important customization is for speed. For example features like "recall custom hold" which can map not only one feature but a complete set of features to a single button are incredible usefull.
But those are probably also the people who want less menu options "for an easier menu" ignoring the fact that they can customize their own menu on all these cameras.
Ahhh, I miss the times, when you could simply say the A7s were not professional, because they miss the AF joystick......
Torn if I need to accept the fact people have differing opinions, Canon defenders need to accept the fact the majority of people think the ergonomics suck.
Most people are reluctant to switch systems and take big losses. The fact is Canon has by far the most users and that's due to other reasons than their digital technology, reasons like their nice film cameras, great marketing and intelligent use of the power of the huge user base they have built up (in earlier years before digital technology became more important). They have been able to continue to sell due to this inertia of their users, until now.
I believe Sony has changed the game and the smarter enthusiasts are beginning to switch out. Canon obviously will sell a lot of this EOS R, only to confirm its inferiority to the more knowledgeable photog who buy it. Once Sony brings out the A9 II, the A7r III later, and then the A7R IV and A7 IV in 2020, when nearly everybody every family will change to mirrorless, I believe Canon's dominant position will end. As soon as we reach the tipping point for mirrorless, I can see Canon in serious trouble.
Clearly the Nikon Z will be the Lens King soon. With all of the current F mount lenses performing like native glass with the adapter and the Z mount glass coming. Plus the shortest flange distance making it possible to adapt every other lens. The Nikon is killing it. Nikon Z already has more native Nikon glass than Sony has native Sony glass when adapting their F mount. Also I prefer the way Nikons lens road map over the Canon. Not many can afford a $2500 Canon camera and a $2500 lens right out of the gate. The Nikon system Pro lenses are coming but right now it is much more affordable to get a kit built.
no, because Nikon doesn't have squat for video glass, it's a major fail, that dpr has once again not mentioned in any review.
chris and Jordan need to learn how to do basic camera moves, like a slow crawl shot... these fixed focal length videos only serve to mask the real issues.
sony and canon both have parfocal powered zooms, and both of those companies have been making video gear for many decades now... Nikon is a joke when it comes to video.
@MILC man - How is Nikon a joke for video when they just scored best in video performance of the current 24-30mp cameras? Also mirrorless just reset the game, you can adapt whatever you please on the Nikon Z especially with it's large 55mm diameter lens mount.
of course you don't know what a powered parfocal zoom lens is, or why it matters, so you ignored the point that I made.
dpr needs to be schooling people like you on how to shoot video.
and no, mirrorless didn't "just" reset anything, sony already did that years ago, back when canikon had nothing, and no, that doesn't have anything to do with the size of the Nikon lens mount.
@MILC man - You mean like the Sony 28-135mm f/4? That's one lens. The lens mount does matter for still photographers though in conjunction with things like sensor stack glass. Nikon did a very good informational video for photographic lay persons like you:
Isn’t there an error in the video? Chris says the Z6 has slow frame rate but it seems very good to me. 12fps with tracking focus but locked exposure is good enough for me. Exposure rarely changes that much over a couple seconds burst.
I'm really not finding AF issues with my Z6. I use it with the 24-70 f/4 S, a Sigma 35 ART and a Nikon 70-200 VR II, and all of them work great in stills and video, AF-S or AF-C. It is a very nice camera.
The biggest flaw with it IMO is that the grip still isn't tall enough, and I've gotta get a base plate that'll extend the grip so that I can get a solid hold on the camera when using some of the larger & heavier lenses.
I am using a Really Right Stuff base plate for my Sony. They have one in development for the Z6. It form fits to the base of the camera. It include an Arca Swiss compatible mount. On the Sony it allows re-placement of the battery door.
Technically, the A7III is not really Sony's "entry-level" FF mirrorless body because Sony has lower points of entry in their FF mirrorless line. The Sony A7 and A7II are Sony's real "entry-level" FF mirrorless cameras. The A7II is only $898 now (body only), or $998 as a kit.
"Entry level full frame mirrorless" as it clearly states. For Nikon and Canon, these are the cheapest ff mirrorless cameras they offer, and for Sony the cheapest of the latest gen. So they are technically entry level. It's not "entry level camera" obviously.
@Och: by your reasoning a Hasselblad X1 is an entry level medium format, at $9,000 (thereabouts ... get my point) because that is their least-expensive camera.
“Entry level” means “targeted at beginners.” A $2,000 camera with the feature set in any of these is not entry level. It may represent the least-expensive MILC that either Nikon or Canon offer, but that doesn’t automatically make it “entry level.”
@PLShutterbug: That's not my reasoning, that's the reasoning of this article/video that you are taking issue with by cherry picking language. Entry level doesn't exist in a vacuum, the article clearly states it means entry level full frame mirrorless cameras.
@Och Elo - "the article clearly states it means entry level full frame mirrorless cameras."
Actually, they specifically said it only applies to cameras of this "current generation", ie. only models released this year.
"This week, Chris and Jordan compare the *current generation* of entry-level full frame mirrorless models from each company..."
But of course, there are models that were released prior to this year that also qualify as "entry level", that are still in the market, and that actually offer a lower point of entry. So it would probably be a lot more accurate to simply say that DPReview is comparing the FF MILCs at the ~$2K price point from each company.
....I wish I had kept my Canon.... the Canon lenses do not work that great on the Sony no matter which adapter you use. Forget about AF during video, or tracking AF with anything but a Sony lens.
The Sony takes better photos, but everyone says it's slower to change settings and that is really the biggest issue for me. I want to take pics and be able to adjust settings quickly. The wheels are too stiff, the change on the back of the screen is delayed by about 1 sec which makes me think it didn't work....
The Sony 70-200 f2.8 is no where near as sharp as the Canon's. So if i give in and buy one, would I be better off with the Sony or Canon? IDK.....
I'm not going to go back and buy a Canon 5D4, so I'm keeping the Sony for now, but I'm also not buying any Sony lenses anytime soon.
I went to a local store try EOS R today. It feels like a real solid camera. My A7 III feels also solid but ergonomics of Sony is much worse than EOS R. EVF and LCD are also really better. AF was almost instantaneous with adapter and 24-70mm f2.8 L II and 24mm f2.8 IS USM. I had a 5D IV and I was quite happy with its sensor so I think EOS R sensor will be good to me.
You need to set all buttons and FN menu and Custom menu to functions you are using frequently so you do not need to go to standard menu. If you compare Canon 70-200/2.8 II and Sony 70-200/2.8 GM and you get the result that one is significantly better than the other you have really bad copy or bad methodology of comparison - I have both and Sony wins just a bit because it can be safely used wide open and still get the Eye AF to make the job which any DLSR can not do without LV in which is AF terrible slower.
If you're going to keep your old lenses but switch to a different camera brand you've pretty much wasted your time and money, you can't realise a lot of the advantages of the new system when you're only adapting lenses.
You'd be much better off either getting a Canon body again or replacing your lenses so you can fully benefit from the new system, to sit in the middle guarantees a middling experience.
@PavelR2 so before the so called "holy EYE-AF", taking portrait was so much a mess nobody never made any properly... Or AF has never been fast enough on dSLR but is now because MILC are the all in one wonder photocamera system ?
Seriously guys, you should re read yourself, sou may then notice how some over praised arguments are not so huge...
@PavelR2 Tried 2 days long A7rII, had used EYE-AF for a few wife & kids shots, but portrait and human faces are not my usual subjects. It was nothing I have been awed by. So what ?
Did that EYE-AF or all other AF mode work better than the D810 3D af tracking for me ? Nope. So what ?
EVF was still an ugly experience for me. And I still wonder how many could praise it still nowadays. Maybe you should use a Z6/Z7 or A7rIII and switch back to the A7rII to see the evolution, and notice how much effort SONY and all other still have to make on EVF experience.
Of course, the day my dSLR have to be replaced, I will look again at MILC and what they bring at that era. But for the moment, it is not serious to drop a whole system just for the hype and features that fullfill pride needs but not photographic ones.
So many are amazed by sensor shifting pics, where you can see per photosite real RGB accutance. But that crap do not work on moving subject. This will be a revolution, not an EVF.
I had to stop viewing at 03:35 when the lenses line-up top position went to Sony.
The level of alienation going on the net over Sony products is simply absurd.
With the help of no less than 3 types of own-brand adapters (...1 standard and 2 very innovative ones...) we can mount not only the four R lenses already presented during the launch of the R system on R cameras but also the full line of EF and EF-S lenses, some of them quite singular, while staying on-brand.
What a complete disconnect from reality...
(...And, for those who inevitably will reply that you can also mount such specialized Canon optics as TS lenses or f/4 super-long teles with the help of a 3rd party adapter on Sony camera, good luck with the "It's-the-adapter-no-it's-the-camera-no-it's-the-lens" game you'll be playing over Service Centers counters when a problem arises...).
It is fairly consistent. If you look back at the early a7 reviews, one big down on the system was that there was a limited number of native lenses available - despite the existence of two adapters which allowed the full line of Alpha mount lenses (APS-C and full-frame) to be used - some of those lenses being quite singular, while staying on brand...
...but does it make Sony the top FF mirrorless brand in what relates to glass offer?...because it can cannibalize from other brands?...How does that work, in fair, evaluative terms?
As for the '"It's-the-adapter-no-it's-the-camera-no-it's-the-lens" game' - if the adapter maker has signed up to the non-disclosure agreement, they will have access to the full spec for the mount, so there should be no incompatibility problems - same goes for Zeiss, Sigma, Tokina, Tamron and Samyang lenses - all should work perfectly with the cameras.
Canon could do this almost overnight. If they shared the protocol a whole bunch of lenses could be available in no time and they would all be 100% compatible - and then they would have no problem about being critisised for the lack of native lenses and they would still sell lots of their own lenses because the reputation of those lenses is good.
In the current climate Canon (and Nikon) really would benefit from working with third parties rather than regarding them as competitors to be outflanked.
@PhotoKhan: The alpha system featured the only STF of its time, and the only Autofocus 500 reflex, plus a 600, although I will grant - no 800 or Tilt-shift (as yet).
A mount adapters never worked for anyone serious. Completely different situation from Canon/Nikon native support. That's why the A7 was so critisized for little glass.
@Ebrahim - My 70-300 SSM G works rather well with my LA-EA3 and a7ii (but I confess I'm sometimes rather flippant, so maybe don't fill the 'serious' categorization...?)
"we can mount not only the four R lenses already presented during the launch of the R system on R cameras but also the full line of EF and EF-S lenses, some of them quite singular, while staying on-brand.
Sony bodies can use Canon EF and EF-S lenses. I'm doing it right now with the Sony A7II and Sigma MC-11 adapter. I'm a Canon DSLR user with lots of EF glass. So I have access to the full range of Canon EF and EF-S glass, plus the full range of Sony FE and E glass. For example, my favorite Canon lens is the 35/1.4L. I don't see the need to go out and buy an E-mount version of it just yet because it works just fine on my Sony body. And no top of that, the 35/1.4L is now a stabilized lens thanks to Sony IBIS! The 35/1.4L would still be a non-stabilized lens on an EOS R.
Fair comment, but the point of the video was to compare these systems primarily for people with little or no investment in FF lenses. Also, Canon went on and on and on... And ONNNNN about their mount and how it would allow for amazing lenses. But, adapting EF lenses doesn't take advantage of the mount at all (ie, back focus distance, mount width, 12 pin communication). Kind of ironic, huh? So, if someone were looking for their first FF ILC or they're very minimally invested in lenses, the assessment makes sense. Would it make a ton of sense for someone who owns no equipment to go buy a bunch of EF glass just so they could use the R? Instead, they could go with the E Mount and start with native mount glass. Also, at least once, Chris said something about preferences matter, implying they're speaking in general terms.
Can someone tell me since when, using non native mount lens, has become the standard. I mean if anyone has been shooting photos for some time, using some kind of adapter from another mount to your body is kind of alien. I mean if people expect the likes of Canon or Nikon giving everyone access to their mount freely, so that Chinese adapters makers try to make other brand lens work... or mainly not, and get reprimanded from that, are just naive. And before you start to claim Sony are some kind of super ethical company, that open their lens mount etc, it was just out of despair, because they needed lens for their new bodies.
@Ebrahim Saadawi - I'm using the Sony A7II + Sigma MC-11 + Canon EF lenses right now. It works fine. Sigma have really done a great job with the MC-11 adapter. It's definitely the one to get!
@Jean - I've been shooting for longer than I care to admit... but without an adapter how will I ever manage to use some of this lovely manual focus glass I have laying around from the days of film (other than by shooting on film :-)? The Zeiss Contax G 90, is rather nice, as are some of those old Takumars.. and one of my favourite lenses on digital is the m42 mount Zenitar 16mm... sure I miss autofocus, but it isn't such a loss on a fisheye.
..and I stress I don't think Sony are 'super ethical' - I think they are quite canny and have used that licence to get themselves a big range of available lenses that they can sell bodies for...
I am not saying that adapter are bad, but you cannot weight it on the available lens when most are clunky to use as best. Yes, if someone wants to use some specific lens in manual mode because it is fun for him, but 99% are not buying todays camera to use in manual and sometime no meetering etc. We just have to look at the slack Nikon received because Tamron lens where not working with the Z camera. So I guess 99% expect their lens to meter and focus fast on their bodies.
@Jean Daniel Villiers - Not having to use an adapter is always better. Definitely. Plus, lenses specifically designed for mirrorless will (or should) have focus motors specifically tailored to the on-sensor focus systems of mirrorless cameras. For example, Sony designed all-new focus motors-- linear drive motors-- for their latest mirrorless lenses:
Those tilt shifts are manual focus so they work just fine on any system that can adapt them.
You're correct about those long primes but do you think someone who requires them is the target audience for a video comparing between the budget full frame mirrorless cameras?
They're not wrong to point out having the largest native line up while also being able to adapt lenses from several different systems is a viable benefit. If you take that as meaning it's absolutely the best in all circumstances than yes of course that's wrong but if you have specific specialist requirements then you don't need to watch a video comparing them, you should already have a good idea of what lenses better suit your needs.
Sony, Nikon and Panasonic all now make 24MP full frame mirrorless cameras, but each has its specific strengths. The best choice for you depends what you're planning to shoot (and which lenses you need).
We've re-scored the Nikon Z6 and Z7 to reflect the improved performance and usability offered by the latest firmware updates. We'll be doing more of this in the coming months.
Nikon has made available a firmware update that brings significant improvements to autofocus. But it's continuous Eye AF that's the big headline. Science Editor Rishi Sanyal has given it a go, and finds its performance to be remarkably good... but with some snags.
The Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark III is a 20MP Micro Four Thirds camera aimed at enthusiast photographers. It shares the same sensor, AF system and 4K-video capture as the flagship E-M1 II and E-M1 X, in a considerably smaller and lighter package.
The a7R IV is Sony's latest high-resolution interchangeable lens camera, but that doesn't mean it's just for landscape photographers. Get all the details about this 60.2MP full-framer in our full review.
The Osmo Mobile 3 is DJI's third generation gimbal for smartphones, arriving with updated controls and a new foldable design. If you want a stabilizer for your phone it's worthy of consideration.
The Live Planet VR system may look like something out of a science fiction movie, but this stereoscopic, 16-lens camera and its associated cloud platform may be one of the best tools out there for live-streaming events in 360 degrees.
If you want a camera that you can pick up and use without having to page through the manual first, then this guide is for you. We've selected seven cameras ranging from compacts to full-frame, all of which are easy to operate.
What's the best camera for travel? Good travel cameras should be small, versatile, and offer good image quality. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for travel, 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.
Long-zoom compacts fill the gap between pocketable cameras and interchangeable lens models with expensive lenses, offering a great combination of lens reach and portability. Read on to learn about our favorite enthusiast long zoom cameras.
If you want a compact camera that produces great quality photos without the hassle of changing lenses, there are plenty of choices available for every budget. Read on to find out which portable enthusiast compacts are our favorites.
Olympus just announced the E-M5 III, the newest in its E-M5 line of enthusiast Micro Four Thirds cameras. In this hands-on preview, Chris and Jordan ask, "Who's it for?"
It's smaller and less costly than the flagship RF 28-70mm F2, but the RF 24-70mm F2.8L IS USM will appeal to many EOS R-series photographers with its handy range, fast, constant aperture, image stabilization and weather-sealing.
Despite all of their incredible advantages, there are some situations in which a drone simply can't get the job done. Here are the limitations to consider if you're thinking about getting into drone photography.
Ricoh teamed up with the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) to develop a specialized Theta camera capable of withstanding the harsh conditions of space. The resulting images and videos have now been published.
Comparing these three compact camera lenses head-to-head-to-head reveals the Sony to be more consistently sharp – at the cost of a lot of aperture offered by the Canons.
The CS2740 monitor is a successor to Eizo's ColorEdge CS2730 that increases the resolution, adds new connectivity options and now offers 10-bit input. Pricing information isn't yet available, but Eizo says it will officially launch on October 24.
Datacolor is offering the 64-bit update as a free software update to ensure the Spyder5 calibration sensor works with Apple's latest desktop operating system macOS Catalina.
Instagram is rolling out a number of new privacy-centric features that will make it easier to see and edit what third-party applications have access to your Instagram data.
We've got our hands on the Olympus E-M5 III and it is is, on the outside, a refinement of its predecessor. But we'll go a bit deeper and talk about what's also changed on the inside in our hands-on slideshow.
The Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark III is a 20MP Micro Four Thirds camera aimed at enthusiast photographers. It shares the same sensor, AF system and 4K-video capture as the flagship E-M1 II and E-M1 X, in a considerably smaller and lighter package.
We spent 48 hours exploring the deserts of southern Utah with the E-M5 III, Olympus smallest, lightest 20MP camera. Click through to read about our experience shooting with the camera and to see what kind of photos it's capable of taking.
We recently joined Olympus in Moab, Utah for some preliminary shooting with the OM-D E-M5 III. See how the photos look in our extensive sample gallery.
Olympus has announced the OM-D E-M5 Mark III - a more compact camera than its predecessor, which incorporates a lot of technology found previously in the higher-end E-M1 Mark II.
DPReview Science Editor Rishi Sanyal had an opportunity to sit down with Marc Levoy and Isaac Reynolds of Google to dive deep into the most important camera updates on the new Pixel 4.
Google has confirmed it's ending its free 'original quality' image backups with its Pixel 4 and Pixel 4 XL smartphones. This marks the first time the popular perk isn't offered since the launch of the original Pixel smartphone.
In a story shared on 35mmc, photographer Steve Boykin tells how he stumbled upon a Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R lens he had lost four months prior during a trek in the wilderness and discovered it still works fine.
Our testing of the Canon G7 X III continues, which means we've brought along on plenty of day trips and adventures to get a feel for its performance in a number of situations. Take a look at some of the resulting images.
Shimoda Designs has launched a Kickstarter campaign to fund its new 'ultra-aggressive' lineup of camera bags that includes three backpacks, two rollers and a handful of new and improved accessories.
Comments