Since Chris and Jordan last compared entry-level full-frame mirrorless cameras head-to-head-to-head, Nikon and Canon have offered significant updates to the Z6 and EOS R via firmware. Take a look as they revisit their previous rankings to see how these cameras now compare to the class-leader – the mighty Sony a7 III.
Here I am, a Nikon owner, looking to buy a Z6 to replace my DSLR because Nikon has issued a number of firmware updates to improve their AF performance.
Than I check out this video to see how the Nikon performs today.
A devastating statement that Canon and Nikon cameras have not even reached the autofocus precision and speed the Sony had 2 years ago. Not even with all their promises and firmware updates. Ouch.
I dis miss quantifiable evidence for such devastating and in many ways counterproductive verdict.
Anyway it does absolutely not motivate to spend that amount of money on a mirror system when is reviewed, or even worse, should the verdict be true performing that bad.
Wonder why Nikon and Canon are not selling anymore, these reviews are very unattractive for enthousiasts to keep spending an ever increasing pile of money on their camera systems.
And because I am no pro or a millionaire, I hang on for longer to my old DSLR.
Nothing to be sad about... the difference between these cameras AF performance is minuscule in real world applications. Unless you are a sports photographer who demands 18 out 20 shots be all in focus. These differences between amature photopraphers is irrelevent. So my suggest is, if your already invested in Nikon glass and your familiar with Nikon menu system. The expense plus the learning curve is NOT AT ALL WORTH IT.
It is a post relevant mostly to spec chasing amateurs. A lot of pros are using the Canon R. The Camera you buy, should depend on what type of photography you do.
I use my D750 and Z6 for my wedding shoots side by side and I'm always impressed by the Z6 performance. Chris and Jordan's review pointed out some shortcomings but in real-world use, I've never had a serious problem with the Z6 at all! And its video quality is amazing. I didn't expect such a great video quality from this camera so it was a big pleasant surprise.
I also appreciate that Nikon continues to give us firmware updates for the first generation camera and I feel that they are really taking good care of their customers. I bought a good used Z6 and its used price is getting lower so I may get another one.
When Nikon releases new Z6iii/Z7 iii or Z80 in the future, that's when I will upgrade the cameras or buy a good used Z6ii/Z7ii.
Great and informative review - thanks! I like the pace and the tone of these videos. You can spend 15 minutes and learn a lot. The production quality is so much higher than all the DIY gear reviewers out there - glad DP Review landed you guys.
-200 points to Canon for a crappy flippy screen. As a photographer not videographer, I want inaxis tilt screen.
So clear winner is the system actually being used. The Panasonic S camera line. The S1 is excellent camera that beats out all 3 in all categories but sports AF. Best handling, best lens selection with Sigma and EF lenses used with Sigma adapter and best in market Leica glass. Best inaxis tilt screen and best EVF. Also only camera with 2 card slots, something some people want.
Yep I am wrong the Sony A7mk3 has 2 SD slots. Wasn't indicated in the dpreview specifications page.
But best Displays are on Panasonic. Best lens selection is Panasonic with L-mount alliance. Best handling on Panasonic Best video on Panasonic. Best image quality is on Panasonic , as it doesn't have on sensor phase detect pixels that cause many problems. Only negative is due to best image quality, AF little slower.
Don't know how a discussion on entry level FF MILC led to a discussion on high end flagship sports/wildlife cameras...but hey...
There's no doubt that the stacked sensor in the a9/a9II is something really special and enables some really neat tricks. I describe the AF in the a9/a9II as being "magnetic" in that it almost cannot miss.
That being said, the 1DXIII comes close enough that for almost all real world situations, you will not notice a difference. The pro's who used the 1DXIII at the Super Bowl, for instance, were not complaining.
The 1DXIII also offers its own advantages: far superior video capabilities, far superior battery, far superior buffer, far superior build quality in that it's built like a tank.
And I will say that in the videos with AF test tracking, I did prefer the Canon colors again! That is important for sports shooters because at high profile events you are instantly uploading and those photos are going out to the world with no time for post processing.
The fact that ethan is even comparing a mirroless camera with a DSLR is an amazing accomplishment period. Canon design this camera as a tank, weather proof and for people who are going to be in the wilderness for several days and need something they can rely on and not a device made in Thailand like the A9ii. Ever wonder why Sony's professional equipment is NEVER made in Thailand. I arrest my case.
@Magnar: We all know that the 1DXIII will hold up better under severe environmental conditions than the a9II. The fact that one is a dslr and one a mirrorless has no impact.
Drop both cameras on the ground...which would you bet on to survive? Take the both in severe environments...rain forest with rain and humidity, desert with sand blowing, drop in mud a few times, maybe have bang up against a tree while climbing to a bluff, severe cold and snow...or how about just sports journalism...running down the sideline, having two cameras bang up against each other, maybe a fast and heavy player run into you.
There was a video Canon put out showing a pro using the 1DXIII photographing surfers...obviously exposing the camera to a lot of water, heat, etc...no problem.
Which would you bet on? Well, the pro's choose Canon overwhelmingly. There is a reason why so few pro's use the a9II in spite of its marvelous AF. They don't trust it to come through for them in tough situations.
David, thanks for that video. Again the tracking AF for the 1DXIII and a9/a9II are going to be very similar in most situations.
The Sony has the faster readout sensor due to it being a stacked sensor. My guess is that the Canon Digic X is faster and more powerful than the Sony Bionz processor.
But one factor really in favor of the Canon: the virtually unlimited buffer. With the Sony if the buffer fills up, and it most definitely can, then the camera is kind of unusable while the buffer clears...you can't do anything with it. That's the way it is on all Sony's. So imagine doing mission critical work, and you miss the shot because the buffer is clearing. That won't happen on the Canon but it can happen on the Sony.
Sony has a way with all of their product lines of coming up with some really great innovations but then making some mind boggling decisions to kind of subtract from it.
Well it's always the profit margin with all these Camera companies or with any company for that matter. And unfortunately production cost and profit by cutting corners is at the heart of it.
You don’t miss shots “while the buffer is clearing.” You can miss shots if the buffer is full. When the camera has written 20 shots, you can take 20 more with the same performance as when the buffer is empty.
The issue is that with Sony cameras if you fire off a series of shots and then need to make a quick change in the menu, you cannot make any menu changes until the buffer has finished clearing and all images written to the card.
That can be very inconvenient in certain situations. and may result in some missed shots or shots.
For a properly setup camera menu operations are VERY rare. Most stuff is put on the quick-access function menu which is available while the buffer is clearing. The camera is so customizable that it’s rare that some function you would need isn’t available on a button you programmed or in one of those 12 fn menu spots.
Thoughts R Us: Such long series that the buffer is filled, is cslled video, which both cameras can do well enough to cover some news events if jelly effect is not a concern. And yes, the A9II will outlast the 1DxIII, since it is almost solid state construction. Less mass = less internal damage after hard hits.
Actually the battery life of the 1DXIII is only better than the A9/II when shooting through the viewfinder.
When you use live view (which you need to get the 20fps and full AF coverage) the battery life is worse according to CIPA. 610 for the Canon compared to 650 for the Sony.
The Canon battery (EP19) is also more than double the weight of the Sony battery and can't be charged over USB.
Magnar: 1dxIII is so superior to a9 that it’s shocking to suggest otherwise. Canon can do 5.5k RAW video internal, 4k60, 10 bit, etc. Sony is stuck on 8 bit video which is like being able to shoot only jpeg.
RubberDials: guess what? Most users of 1dxIII prefer to use the OVF.
Thoughts R Us: Close to solid state construction should be much more durable than a camera with a complex mirror box, an autofocus module that is so much off that every lens need to be calibrated, a coarse ground glass which goes dark early in the afternoon and that can be pushed out of alignment, and a heavy glass prism on top. Remove all this, replace the fragile mechanical shutter with electronic shutter, and then you can start talking about "durable" and "built like a tank" ... simply, skip the noisy mirror that obscures the view between each frame, and also replace that lack-of-high-tech jelly effect sensor. Then you get a modern professional cameras. :-)
Honestly you could give Donald Trump a run for his money. You seem to think if you believe something it becomes true.
//a small car with a thin fiberglass shell is more durable than an M1 Abrams tank.//
The A9II and the 1DXIII are both made from the SAME material - injection moulded magnesium alloy. Why are you talking about a fibreglass car and a tank?
The IDXIII also contains two mirrors and a separate focussing module that have to be in exact alignment. I'm sure the Canon is very difficult to damage if it gets knocked but it stands to reason that it is innately more fragile than the A9/II, which has no secondary viewing or focussing systems that have to be aligned.
//everyone knows the Sony bodies are flimsy. That's why pro's don't trust them.//
No, everyone doesn't know this - You just made it up. Where is this collective statement from pros that they don't trust Sony bodies?
//a camera that is still consistently sold out and that will be used by far more working pro's than the Sony.//
I hate to break it to you but Canon has invested the 1DXIII with cinema video features for a reason. Pro sports cameras do not sell in large numbers. Canon has changed their mount and the 1DXIII is a harder sell than usual this time around. Why would any working pro put down £7K on a DSLR that offers him 2fps improvement over the MKII (already a very capable camera) when he knows that he is shortly going to have to upgrade to the RF system, at huge expense? More Mark IIIs will sell to film makers than sports shooters and Canon is well aware of this.
And the Mark II didn't outsell the A9 either. Take a look at the usage on DPR: 308 people own the Mark II and 62 people had it.
The A9 which has been on the market for a year less: 481 own it and 81 had it.
And there are many more Canon users on here than Sony users.
//There was a video Canon put out showing a pro using the 1DXIII photographing surfers...obviously exposing the camera to a lot of water, heat, etc...no problem.//
I know there was a video, you linked to it four times in the same thread.
You realise that the Canon camera was in an underwater housing, don't you?
Here's article by Fstoppers as to why the A9ii was a disappointment. Key issues were CFexpress cards and weather sealing. So please Sony fanboys go back to playing with your PS4 Playstations and don't worry at least Sony will have the PS5 later this year... ; )
David so many of us have used the A9 in the rain with no problem and have no trouble with buffering via SD cards. So if those are the two reasons, then the A9 is perfectly suited for many many people..
Oh and who are you calling fan-boy? Look in the mirror... your whining comment about PlayStation makes you look like a child who feels threatened.
So please go enjoy your A9 and stop comparing it Canon. I mean if your A9 is so great and your having so much fun with it, why would you waste your time talking about inferior cameras... So please keep replying so as to show you'd rather talk about your camera than use it. (Let me guess the menus suck)
//Key issues were CFexpress cards and weather sealing.//
The FStoppers article is a short opinion piece worked up from a press release, not a test, but you misrepresent it anyway. They don't knock the weather sealing at all, they actually just point out that Sony says it's been improved. He does complain that the camera hasn't had an increase in resolution to 30mp or in the EVF, revealing that he doesn't understand the market for the camera or the technology underlining it. CFExpress cards are not needed in any stills camera - they were designed for video. Wait till DPR publishes their A9II test - you'll see how good the camera is. Here's the link you forgot to include:
//So please Sony fanboys go back to playing with your PS4 Playstations //
Canon makes more money from sales of office equipment than cameras but we don't talk about the 'photocopier company' because we're not stupid and petty.
YES, Rubber dial please keep talking about your Sony camera and pretend that it's not gathering dust... Please keep comparing it with other Cameras so that you'll never pick it up, or take it out of the camera bag and be reminded why you really rather be talking about other cameras. LOL Would you like to know why my Canon camera never goes into my camera bag? That's because i'm always using it. Over 100,000 thousand shots... When will you say that? Yeah let me guess NEVER...
Rubberdial you almost have 5000 comments on DPReview... Do you even have time for anything else?? Do you ever even wonder why you’d rather talk about your camera than to use it? It’s kind of sad.
Of course, this needs a separate discussion (might go looking), but it does raise an interesting point about the R5: If there is a rolling shutter problem with video, I won't be too fussed as I don't do a lot of video, or at least none to the standards where rolling shutter makes or breaks the footage. However, as a stills photographer, it is going to be annoying to see the R5 priced out of my reach because of some very impressive video specs, that MAY not live up to expectation, for those that rely on them. Too soon to know...
Canon appears to be targeting the cinema crowd with their latest cameras. This fact seems to have passed a lot of users by for some reason.
8K and RAW video are not hybrid videographer or youtuber features, they far outstrip the needs and resources of even most amateur film-makers. And they are certainly not the 'next big thing' in consumer video. RAW video and 8K will likely never enter mainstream use - they are CINEMA specifications. Canon has clearly decided to shift more of their focus to this market, which is wealthy, to make up for the lost sales in the stills arena.
This will have an obvious effect on their milc range. The cameras aren't going to be cheap. Their probably won't be too many cheap lenses either. Canon is a tough competitor, but I think they will accept some long-tern loss of their stills base in making this sideways move. Whether Canon stills shooters will accept it is another matter.
@RubberDials: Agree with what you are saying. Canon might frustrate us but they aren't mugs. The digital imaging market has changed and Canon are targeting what works for them best. My comment was regarding whether those specialized video specs don't live up to the expectations of specialized video users that do want RAW, 8K etc (and no rolling shutter. It simply may not be possible at the present time). Personally, I just want a Canon 40+ Mpix stills orientated camera. Canon have been very slow to develop a camera similar to the A7R, S1R, Z7 etc. Quite possible too many players occupying a relatively niche spot. At this stage, the R5 looks like too much of a camera for me (as in too much money!) Still, very interested to see how it performs.
Canon likes to go its own way. It is the last manufacturer to add IBIS and I don't think they would have made the R5 45mp if it wasn't for the 8K spec (assuming it is 45mp). This is amazingly the first prosumer camera they've made without a fixed rear screen!
That said I can't see how it would disappoint prospective purchasers, there isn't really anywhere they can fail.
I think a few people might find the body too small, and a few people might dislike the top plate controls (that would put me off). I do think it will be expensive though, but that isn't going to be because of the 8K spec. Mirrorless cameras are video cameras essentially, so video features come for free.
@RubberDials; Aye. There may be a few disappointments, but the specs are impressive, so what Canon decides it is worth is about the most interesting thing to me. I've mentioned this a few times but have had little feedback: The R5 (on paper at least) out specs the 1DX3 in several areas. That camera is $6.5K!!
[Regardless of the potential for some issues, the 1DX3 seems to indicate that Canon have upped their game with processing speeds so there is reason for some optimism.]
Nikon is my favorite. Does so much. Coming from mostly Nikons, learning curve is easy. Ergos are awesome. I had this camera in my hands and just loved it. Controls, menus and more, this camera is the one! But Sony in my hands, less happy, but the response is so nice. Telepathic for me even. Focus is sublime. Canon minus that dumb bar is a winner too. Though Nikon feels still better in my hands. The excellent articulating touch screen and also familiarity with the menus, yeah I have Canon too, just is the most intuitive of the bunch but the Nikon so close. One thing keeps me from buying the Nikon. XQD memory. I am going to have a systems approach here and nothing else is going to run XQD memory. My digital recorders, other cameras etc. The one thing Canon and Sony get right for me. XQD is also expensive and not easy to find in a pinch. So it is going to be Sony or Canon for me anyway. Right now enjoying for my stuff a Sony a7 variant. Yeah makes no sense, but I'm enjoying this camera.
It is better. Still not everywhere unlike SD and that memory does not fit into my system either. If Nikon introduced a battery grip with SD ability I would change my mind. Biggest bust for the Z6, uncommon memory. Otherwise Z6 is my choice.
You realize that Canon is going XQD or better said they are going CFEXPRESS which is the same form factor as XQD, it’s kinda like how SD cards have UHSI and UHSII SD cards. In fact Nikon cameras use both.
Cfexpress is going to be the pro standard of the future. The reason is that contrary to XQD which was Sony proprietary, it is an open format and you already can see some competition.
Missing good old times when one just could read a review, check Comparison Studio or just jump and read the conclusion. No jokes about the weather or Chris's hair style. If anything I go to Dustin Abbot's video reviews these days, they tend to have less marketing pitch, more technical details and he actually knows how to take good photos. Plus you can read them on his website.
Anyone feels similar or am I just too old for these 15 min long Tik Tok videos?
Thank you, Richard. I do understand that there is another review but it is a different review. It is structured differently, does not consider the same aspects (Display, lens line up sections are missing in your review) and even the AF is rated differently. You put Nikon AF second, while Chris puts it third. So now we have one review to watch, one to read only to be puzzled by the inconsistencies in some of the conclusions.
My point is that we still publish the reviews you were saying you wanted, and more, even if you chose to ignore the videos we publish.
Our written comparison article doesn't compare the cameras by feature, so there's no point at which it puts 'Nikon's AF second.'
We work pretty closely with Chris and Jordan to make sure what we write reflects as much of our collected experience as possible, and vice versa. But obviously Chris and Jordan don't just read out our reviews.
Actually, I like the fact that Chris and Jordan, gives their opinions off the testing charts and studios. This way I could both read and watch two different contents and make my mind, according to the need. Most of my cameras, that I bought recently, were bought without seeing the final score or wordict, so it doesn't matter who is rating what feature slightly higher. Also with the passage of time, these features improves with firmware updates. So really not much point to follow it too obsessively.
Chris & Jordan bring a slightly different perspective than what you get in the regular articles here, and that's fine. They're never way off base compared to the rest of DPR, but they bring a just a tiny bit more of their personal opinions to their videos and I enjoy that. I wouldn'f want it to be the norm, but it's a nice change of pace.
I would buy one of those cameras to use Leica M lenses, and it seems one can consider the Nikon Z a mini SL and that the Nikons do better than the Sonys. The Canon RF lenses seem to be very good, but given their size and weight, one would wonder if you want to use them outside of a studio.
The RF lenses are not *that* big...I've carried around the 28-70 and the 50 f1.2 and it wasn't bad at all. I think some people overreact and overhype how large they are. But YMMV.
And the Rf 70-200 f2.8 is actually the smallest/lightest of its type around for any FF system. That gem of a lens is a game changer if you value that focal length.
very good compariso, would like to see a similar one on cropped sensor front, including xt4, em1-iii, sony a6600 and gh5(s)/g9, if possible! I still believe future is in cropped sensor cameras, with all that computation photography advantages and advancements.
Crop sensors cost less and use less energy, and have fewer overheating issues. This is why for years crop sensors have been able to shoot 60FPS RAW files and FF hasn’t.
For the best CP, it helps to have a sensor that can take phones fast and continuously. Smartphones start shooing the second you open the app. Some M43 cameras buffer images before you press the shutter.
Sure, if you have $4K - $5K to spend on photo gear. As a non-pro, I can't justify the cost of these. The cost of photography as a hobby continues to creep beyond reason, IMO.
I already seeing a lot of Sony owners wish the A7iii could be better. Wishing it had better video like the Canon and Nikon, wishing it has a better VF, etc. But most of allI see a lot of threads on how can one get Canon/Nikon colors on a Sony.
If you search for Canon colors on a Sony of course you can find bits. But I really don’t think this is a big deal. I see many people perfectly happy with their Sony colors. It’s a preference thing.
So you don’t mind all the threads and discussions started by Sony owners complaining about Sony colors and wishing for Canon colors, you don’t like anyone else to mention it, Is that what you are whining about?
This is a very common comment in the Sony forum (a real quote) “ I think most can agree certain brands are a bit better to work with.” And while most agree, a vocal minority always attack those posters and whine about them.
//So you don’t mind all the threads and discussions started by Sony owners complaining about Sony colors and wishing for Canon colors.//
Many of these people are not Sony users they are users of other brands like yourself posing as Sony users.
//Wishing it had better video like the Canon and Nikon//
The EOS R doesn't have better video than the A7III. The A7III 4K is downsampled from 6K. The R video is a 1.8 crop from the centre of the sensor. From the DPR EOS R review:
"Although the big story on the EOS R is usable autofocus while shooting 4K, we must note that the camera's 4K capture is fairly soft. In full-frame shooting, Nikon's Z7 isn't much better, showing plenty of stair-stepping artifacts, but switching that camera into its APS-C mode improves things quite a bit. But the EOS R simply can't match the level of detail that the Sony a7 III and Fujifilm X-T3 exhibit, both of which capture oversampled footage before downsizing to 4K output."
@Rubberdials Are you confused or purposefully misleading. The quote you referred to is on the Z7 NOT the Z6 which was the camera that was compared to in this review. The Z6 outperformed and was given the top billing in this review against the A7III, so please do not try to convolute the conversation by bringing in cameras not in question.
I think the different between Sony color and Canon color is getting less. I watched a side by side comparison review between A6600 and M6 Mark II. The different is very small.
I doubt people are stupid enough for fall for your new lie that there is a great conspiracy where all those posts from Sony owners who want Canon colors were written by people “ posing as Sony users.”
The truth matters. When Rubberdials lies and says 27 Sony APSC cameras can stabilize the new Tamrin lens , it is important to point out he is lying. When he says all the posts from Sony owners asking how to get Canon colors are faked by non-Sony owners, he is lying. The truth matters. Unless you are a Sony fan.
Do you want links to all the posts from Sony uses complaining about terrible Sony colors? Or do you want a link to where Rubberdials lies about the 27 Sony APSC cameras? You can see above where he lied and said it non-Sony owners faking all the posts about awful Sony colors (even though this site and others sites have listed Sony colors as a “con” in their reviews)
//When he says all the posts from Sony owners asking how to get Canon colors are faked by non-Sony owners, he is lying.//
I didn't say ALL I said MANY.
Most people don't post endless comments trashing their own gear that they paid good money for. They find a way to make it work for them or sell up.
Go through the comments under any Sony article and you'll find a lot of unhappy Sony users. Many of them complain about the same thing over and over - literally - Sony's abandonment of A-mount, low bit rate of the video, colours.
Nothing wrong with that, right?
Except many have a few defining characteristics in common. They all joined recently. They disappear equally quickly, sometimes into 'unknown user' and they post in the Micro43 forums. There's not much crossover between Sony FF and M43. Not many users with both. But weirdly nearly all the posters bashing Sony in the comments section are very knowledgeable about M43 and post sometimes exclusively in the M43 forum.
//When Rubberdials lies and says 27 Sony APSC cameras can stabilize the new Tamrin lens , it is important to point out he is lying.//
I didn't say that either. You didn't post in the Tamron 70-180 comment thread, but 'Kyle Style' did and he also accused me of 'lying' several times like you.
Lying is not a word that is used much on here. There's actually a cultural prohibition in the West about accusing others of lying, even when you know that they are. It's so rare on here that you can google it and get a good result.
Most of the time people are talking about 'lying on the ground' to get a shot or 'jpegs lying'. When it comes to posters accusing others of lying it brings up a post from Oskar P and a post from an 'unknown user' There are more examples in the comments.
Unfortunately for you your history will always follow you around on here. And so it should.
In the thread I read there were four or five people who replied and pointed out you got busted for telling a lie. I bet there are many others where you were busted. Just like you said 27 Sony APSC cameras can stabilize the Tamron lens and just like here where you accuse many honest Sony owners who want better colors.
Did you ever admit you were wrong about the 27 cameras, or did you make up more fake cr@p?
Just saw Rubberdials was caught again by some one else Today! “@Rubberdials Are you confused or purposefully misleading. The quote you referred to is on the Z7 NOT the Z6 which was the camera that was compared to in this review. ”
It seems like ever post of his is purposely misleading.
So Rubberdials was bust 3 times in the past day or so for “lying” and “deliberately misleading”.
Now says anyone busting him is a Sony basher and he is to be trusted... just like when he said 27 Sony APSC cameras stabilize the new Tamron lens or when he dishonestly tried to pass off Z7 results for Z6 results in this comments section. Or here where he tried to imply all the Sony users (and reviewers)who complain about Sony colors are part of a vast conspiracy against Sony. All in a days work for Rubberdials.
A7iii in 2018 at $2000 was an incredible camera and still is as evidence by the fact that it's priced has held up and even on the used market it's not discounted that much. I dunno....seems difficult to want and get any of these cameras now in 2020. I feel like the Sony system has the better long term play. If Sony comes out with an update that does the 3 following things they aren't going to be able to keep these cameras in stock they will be so in demand;
1.) Update the video codec to 10 bit. If they can get the video codec similar to the Panasonic S1 then this thing is going to be a hit. 2.) Self articulating screen. 3.) Update EVF and LCD.
Sure there are other things they can improve on like ergonomics but if they can hit on these three things without charging $4000 like Canon will be doing for the R5 then forget about it.
Sure Sony could come up with those things for a Sony a7 IV. But they would charge more a lot more for it than $2000.
I'm glad you know the price of the R5...care to share sources?
Also, they would undermine the case for buying the a7RIV. In essence they would be positioning the a7IV as the more advanced model overall, but at a lower price point. The only reason to then buy the a7RIV would be the higher megapixels. I don't think Sony wants to do that from a business perspective.
But we will see. As for the long term, who knows if Sony will even want to stay in the dedicated camera business.
$4000 does seem to be the consensus for the R5. Pretty much no one is suggesting it will cost less than $3500. Not sure why that comment made you so angry.
@Thoughts R Us Yes obviously it's not coming in at $2000 for 10 bit, articulating screen and new EVF/LCD. I never said it would, it just has to be reasonable price increase. Thats the leading consensus given it's market segment and specs. 5D Mark IV was $3500 4 years ago($3800 with inflation today) . a7R IV is $3500. Z7 MSRP was $3400.
"Also, they would undermine the case for buying the a7RIV"
Sort of like how the A7III had a much better autofocus, and better FF video mode at $1200 cheaper over the A7RIII? My point isn't predicting that Sony makes the camera exactly how I described...I am simply stating those three things would really make Sony standout as an all around camera from the pack and all three things I mentioned are all overdue to be updated.
"who knows if Sony will even want to stay in the dedicated camera business."
Sounds like everyone. Didn't Canon just announce Imaging Profits Down 80% in Q1 and that their Office business was most lucrative division?
Second, you stated a definite price as if it were the real thing...most people would have said, well, it will be in this price range, or about...but the way you worded it was definitive. That's what I thought was funny.
My point about Sony maybe abandoning the camera biz is one that many have made, and even a big time investor was advocating it. Sony has innovated and then gotten out of businesses before, when they don't find them big enough. Sony invented the walkman and CD player, yet they are not much of a presence in the audio world any longer. They had the VAIO computer line...no longer. They had A mount...no longer. Their CEO has said their priorities are services, entertainment and video games. It's a logical question to ask.
@ TRU - ”.. is one that many have made ...” - please point to someone who talked about Sony abandoning camera business more times than you have. Remember it has to be at least 3 digits in the number of times.
The A7IV is likely already finalised and ready to go into production. It's fairly easy to guess what it will offer. You might be disappointed.
Sony is on the record as saying that they don't believe the needs of both videographers and still photographers can be served in the same camera. I think it's extremely unlikely that the A7IV will have 10bit video.
There is also zero chance that the camera will have a side articulating screen. Sony has been putting articulating screens on their cameras since 2008 and they have never implemented it in this way. They prioritise the articulation for stills shooting, by tilting it on the lens axis.
The camera will have a higher res EVF and possibly a better rear screen. It will also get the larger body of the A7rIV and real time tracking. There may be a new sensor but there may not, keep in mind this is their 'basic' camera and they don't have to do much to keep it ahead of the competition and selling like hot cakes.
I have been shooting the A7III for almost 2 years, and the Tamron 28-75 RXD since a bit after it came out. With a 15mm Voigtlander on a TechArt Pro AF adapter, I’ve shot all kinds of travel locations in Europe and the U.S. In addition tp those 2 lenses, I carried a Canon FD 200mm f4 as a bridge to the Tamron 70-180/2.8, but used it so rarely that I decided not to buy the 70-180.
Tens of thousands of images later, I find that the more I’ve shot the A7III, the less I’ve visited DPReview forums, and the less interested I am in new gear reviews.
At B&H, I’ve handled the new Sony, Nikon and Canon gear. It’s all very nice.
But the older I get, the more rewarding and stimulating I find new locations and subjects vs new gear. I’m sure any Nikon, Canon or Panasonic shooter could get to the same spot without buying anything new.
The pandemic will force me to limiting where I travel in 2020-2021. But I’ll be spending my money on getting there, not new gear to carry.
Actually, sometimes screen articulation is important, especially if you don't have a dedicated camera operator. It is not that important, of course, but still a nice feature to have. On my Z6, though, I never moved the display even once, because we use external monitors ;)
The key is what is important to the individual. Everyone has their own preferences and priorities. The articulating screen is very useful to some, while others may not care.
Ultimately it is up to each of us to decide for ourselves based on what we value.
@what_i_saw These aren't $$$ professional cinema cameras aimed at crews. These are affordable mirrorless cameras aimed at photo/video many times with single operators. Articulating screens are the future.
A fully-articulated screen is critical to my workflow, which involves a lot of portrait-oriented shots, ground-level shots, and odd-angle macro shots, so I *absolutely* judge cameras in *every* league by whether or not they have a fully articulated screen. It has always been a mystery to me why not even a single Sony Alpha body has ever been given a fully-articulated screen - it's been the single most important "missing link" that has kept me from buying Sony so far.
Every camera I have owned in the last 20 years has had an articulating screen. They are not new, or revolutionary, but they allow significantly greater usability.
Ive never had one fail, and there are no credible reasons to exclude one from an already expensive modern camera.
Buyers like me will never purchase a fixed screen camera.
Sony does a great job pushing canon and nikon out of their conform zones. Competitions always benefit customers. As fuji user, i can sense that xt4 will quickly drop in price.
Legend has it, if you type the word "Sony" on a camera website a Canon owner will miraculously appear and tell you about their colour science.
Colour varies based on lenses too, but that seems to be forgotten. It's also easy to adjust how your RAW files look with an import profile, but no, please do continue droning on about your colours for the 10000th time.
Colors are one of the most important ways that an image makes an impression. Painters have known this for centuries. It's an important part of visual art. Videographers know this as well.
Canon and Nikon have spent a long time figuring out color science because they understand it is so essential. Arri has the same reputation as Canon in the video market.
So yes, colors matter, and Canon and Nikon make it easier to get pleasing colors. One can try to downplay that based on brand bias but that doesn't make it any less true.
Thought R Us: Your "theory" on "color science" here is at best questionable, or more precise, laughable, I would say. Do you always make up arguments like this? Empty claims?
Magnar, would you care to actually discuss the issue or just make insults?
zxaar: what blind tests? I've only seen the pseudo scientific one by the Northrups. That's the problem: to conduct a truly scientific "blind test" one has to observe more rigors in the procedure than what Youtubers may have done.
The same thing about superior colors is said about Arri in the video space; are those film makers also wrong?
You may not like to hear it, but yes Canon and Nikon have superior colors. That's why so many discuss it.
Thought R Us: Read your post a few times again, and compare your claims to general facts. Not just your extremely selective "facts", picked carefully to "prove" your point.
Hey Magnar, how do u feel about processing colors in video? Is that as simple as fixing a raw photo? People forget, ML are hybrids now, thats a huge selling point for ML, video is big now too. And people also forget color science isn't just about jpegs, it's baked into video files too.
Anybody care to explain how fixing color is soooo easy for video and therefore it doesn't matter?
Max iso: For video work you either want pretty realistic color for more reportage style stuff, or you apply color to trigger emotions, to strengthen the content, the story told. With color within the ball park, everything works fine, since perception is pretty forgiving when it comer to color, and major focus should be on the story that is told, and audio.
//I've only seen the pseudo scientific one by the Northrups.//
There's nothing pseudo scientific about Tony's test, you just don't like the results of it.
And it's clear from what most people write about it that they haven't actually watched the whole video. I bet you haven't either.
Tony's test is actually excellent and it completely smashes the colour science BS.
Firstly he asked people which brand they thought had the best colour. The majority had no view but of those that did most said Canon followed by Fuji. He then showed people four photos and asked them to pick the one with the best colour.
He then showed people the same photos in a different order with a brand name underneath them. Only 8% chose the same photo as having the best colour. 92% of people chose a different photo as best and worst when the camera name was printed on it – showing that for most people their brand loyalty far outweighs any perception of colour.
Sony was chosen as having the best colour by the most people, followed by Fuji. Canon and Nikon scored negatively despite being nominated as having the best colour at the beginning of the test.
So most people who think colour is important believe that Canon has the best colour science but when they chose pictures based on colour they prefer Sony and actually dislike Canon.
I don't care about brands, I care about bang for the buck and performance. If Canon or Nikon start pulling back ahead in these areas, I would consider using their systems again. I preferred shooting with my D810 (magenta banding aside) overall to my A7R but I am not going back to a DSLR for other reasons.
It's also funny you are trying to call other people biased, when you've been all over this comments section repeating the same voodoo about Canon and Nikon colours. I have thousands of images in my library from both Nikon and Sony and it makes zero difference to my workflow as the colour differences are minute. The biggest difference is in AWB which is even easier to alter.
You downplay the results of the Northrup test, yet all he did was provide photos from different cameras and then let people pick. Sony won the test and you don't like that, so you lash out at the Northrups. It's a bit sad.
I'm not going to go around in circles. Enjoy your mythical colours.
I am a Sony user, including the A7iii, which I devote entirely to video. I wish it were 10 bit, but have learned to live within the limits of 8-bit color. In practice it works very well provided you don't need extensive corrections and grading. Get the exposure and color right up front, and it works as well as 8-bit JPEG deliverables v RAW in the still photography world.
I'd switch in a moment if it weren't for my investment in Sony lenses. Sony even has two pro-grade video lenses, PZ 28-135 and PX 18-115, which are almost affordable. Canon has very fine EF-mount video lenses, including a 50-150 which is yours for only $29,500. Nikon has ... crickets.
It’s just dynamic range. The canon guys have been claiming dynamic range isn’t important for a decade. I agree except for a few special cases 8 bit is plenty.
Stoned? Not exactly. I've been editing video 10 hours a day since the beginning of April for online streaming. If I can make hundreds of cell phone videos look good, I can certainly deal with 8-bit Sony footage. I even have some 12-bit footage from my FS5 for comparison. That's RAW delivered the way God intended - SDI.
So we want a camera with Nikon video features and ergonomics, but with Canon's touchscreen & dp af for video but with Sony eye af and 3rd party lens support.
Every camera manufacturer has the ability to create the exact same camera's these days. Luckely there not allowed to do so. It's not that they couldn't create the same colors, why would they in the first place?
It's all about inovation and building your own customer needs. We should be thankfull for what all the brands are doing for there customers. Whitout loosing there main goal out of sight wich is making profit out of there business.
When I first moved to Sony from Canon I did notice the colour. I now have a preset which I use on import to light-room and find it to be just as good as canon. If money was no object I would look at the canon R5 once out but money is a factor especially with no work coming in.
If your knowledge of color and grading is limited to what comes right out of the camera, you are in the Kodak Brownie stage of digital photography. That's okay if you don't have the time or knowledge to take charge of your results.
Even with post processing, it can be difficult to make a Sony image look as pleasing as one from Canon or Nikon. It's not always trivial as some would like us to believe.
Also there is nothing wrong with wanting a great image with great colors SOOC. Many people don't have the time to always fix in post. Maybe some would rather be out shooting and perfecting their photography techniques rather than sitting in front of a computer for a while.
It's also ironic that many pro's need to have great SOOC jpegs to deliver to clients in a very fast fashion for certain types of work. The head of photography for Getty Images remarked that Getty makes a promise to customers to deliver the image in 1 minute or less; that SOOC jpeg had better look great. In fact he had tested the Nikon D6 and remarked that one of the things most important to him about it was the great SOOC jpegs.
So let's not be condescending and pretend that everyone who wants great SOOC colors is some noob.
When you look at the best photos and award winning photos you learn real IQ is about beautiful colors and not DR and noise. Content and color are what matters (content and contrast with B&W). A great photo can have a little noise or a little less DR and it won’t matter. But if the have Sony SOOC colors it does and many instantly find them displeasing. We notice colors first, and that’s why so many Sony owners complain about Sony colors not looking as good as Canon, Fujifilm, Olympus, Nikon, or most film.
Sony concentrates on accurate color, and accuracy is not always what makes the best impression. We want to see ourselves as we look in a mirror, not under fluorescent lights in a dressing room.
When a Sony camera is used to copy slides, the results come out looking like film, very true to the original.
Sony colors are close to accurate but usually off in an unpleasant way, instead of slightly off in a complementary way. And colors when a shade of a color is unpleasant it is hard to fix it without changing similar shades.
Whether shooting portraits or landscapes, I’ll ask the client, do you want accurate or the best looking (most pleasing), and no one ever answers “accurate “. So we soften faces, remove blemishes, improve colors, and so on. And if you end up with a portrait with accurate colors and the best DR, but don’t improve colors and don’t remove blemishes, etc. you’ll most like be told your did a terrible job.
First a disclaimer. I like Canon colours, in the same way that I preferred Kodak over Fuji or Agfa....but I have a theory on this. When digital cameras first made an impact the vast majority of people shot jpegs and Canon / Nikon dominated the market. So what most people saw was Canon or Nikon jpegs and they associated those colours with how photos were supposed to look. Along comes Sony, they have a different (not, better, not worse) colour cast, cue the complaints that Sonys colours are not as good as Canon or Nikon, because that is what we expect photos to look like because we have been conditioned to see them that way. This of course doesn't really affect people shooting raw because its easy to set up profiles and adjust colours to our individual tastes.
So your gear choice is decided by the inspiration and/or lens selection of the DPReview staff member taking test shots with each camera on a given day? Weird.
It is true that generally the Canon and Nikon galleries look the best. And one major reason why is their color science. Some will try to downplay that but it really makes an impression, and Canon and Nikon have perfected their color science through the years.
The only reason Canon and nikon camera galleries look better is that the people using them are experienced and have been in photography for a long time. Specially they have long association with Canon or nikon.
The same people will do same with any other brand. Cameras now are pretty good.
First of all thanks it is a nice re-comparison! However I might getting old but please please please before you take a footage remove that huge garbage from the scene (2:16-3:59) ! It ruins that beautiful landscape and it is a very bad message that you don't care. It annoys the hack out of me and as a photographer it just ruins the scene for me I was just can't stop looking at it!
Om thinkking About going mirrorless and the choiice btw Canon r, nikon z6 of the sot Would be....no one of then
For me i rather stick with my 5d3 and wait until eos r5 comes out . Yes we dont know how good the camera can be and its not for the 8k video cause i just shoot stills . I just love the 70-200 and 85mm 1.2 lens , sure i can use them on eos R but I need 2 card slots and I love the joystick to much and ibis is a bonus. It will be fast and I’m pretty sure the af will be classleading. Canon has steppen up their game with better processors and sensors etc they even now have a dslr that rivals with Sony a9iis autofocus and that is in liveview mode so i Will keep my 5d3 fof awile. Om pretty sure the R5 Will be worth the waiting
The only issue with the R5 will be the price, plus that of suitable lenses, otherwise, we probably all want one. I suspect it could be out of reach for a lot of people who are set on it. You might be able to get a Sony A73 plus two, or even three of the Tamron 2.8 zooms for the price of the R5 body alone.
@David Ramos: If the R5 lives up to its specifications, it could actually be worth 'a lot of money'. In a lot of ways the R5 out specs the $6.5K 1DXMkIII. The R5 could be $5K, and still be a 'fair' deal. If it comes in much less, hardly anyone will want a 1DX3, but Canon may account for this. I see a lot of internet chatter about people wanting / waiting for an R5. Don't freak out if it is around $5K at release. The camera is 'next level'.
My hunch is that Canon wants to kill competition and at 5K it won't accomplish that. But then again price is relative...I own very expensive cars and 5K would just be another monthly payment so I definitely won't freak out.
Anytime you give creators more tools, some will find creative ways to use them to good effect. Same as it ever was.
It's like when the 5DII hit; all of a sudden you saw a lot of very creative indie creators, with small budgets, release some great stuff. You also saw more established video creators find creative ways to use the small hybrid camera in their productions as b-roll stuff on movies and TV shows.
Now sure, in the grand scheme of things the most important factor is still the creativity of the person making the video. But the tools can expand what they can do with their creativity.
One can make the argument that no new tech is needed going back decades; hey, why not go back to the old black and white film era in the 1930s/40s?
It's in the human condition that we always seek to create better tools.
I mean, we're likely to see a wider variety of independent content and better small film production values as the video capabilities of a given mirrorless camera improves and the price of the same goes down.
But I'm guessing you're making some quip about Hollywood blockbusters, which just seems silly.
Canon R is at the best it will be, they will never improve the firmware further forcing you to buy new bodies. I'd rather buy an old Sony with metabones adapter, fix colors in post.
yeah but we are lucky the r5 is on the horizont. To be serious im pretty sure the z6 and esp a7 is as good as they get and Will not do any more major upgades so they ”force” you to biy a new body to soon. But they to Will get replacements so keep your lenses etc cause its expensive to jump from one to Another everytimw a ”better” camera from Another company is released .
Firmware updates IMO is a huge deciding factor with the R bodies. Sony and Nikon have shown this and Canon is just lazy. I'm a Canon shooter, but the R family doesn't interest me at this point, but these older A7 bodies have more than enough capability as an option. The forgotten child is the 5ds, more than enough resolution at decent prices and going down.
Post processing tools eg. Topaz are changing the results at a much faster pace and less expensive than bodies like the R5 will help. People need to spend more time learning these skills.
For every one of the videos Panasonic is always the winner. I was surprised Chis said he shots with the GH5 recently. So either that or the S1H always win.
Of course the S1H is a more expensive model; this video is about a lower price tier for FF.
But it is very revealing that Panasonic has been chosen to be the camera of choice for these videos. There is what people say and what people spend their money on. What people spend their money on is the big tell.
At this point one would have to say that in the hybrid FF space Panasonic leads. That may change with the EOS R5, but for now it's Panasonic.
So Chris bought this S1 camera with his own money? And the lenses. And he can't use it on AF for video. Even though it's more likely that DPreview office paid for it? Even when it's more likely that Panasonic provided this review camera?
Yes, everything comes out of Chris' wallet...all expenses for DPR :)
I would say that DPR bought the camera; it was not given to them. And yes, that means that someone or some group of people at DPR decided it was the best camera for them to use for their video work. But it still means that someone (or some group) with experience and knowledge in video work decided on the S1H. That says a lot.
Panasonic GH5 was chosen for filming because 1. Chris has established workflow (Luts, effects, color, card readers or USB transfer software all tooled for GH5 files) 2. It has more than 30 min of continuous shooting. When you watch Chris and Jordan it all seems seamless, but each take takes time and preparations, so that no limit is good. 3. GH5 is an actually more of a video camera, not a still one, so he uses the right tool. 4. He could use each of compared cameras, but the aim of the video is not video specs, just filming, so it is perfectly understandable. One thing of Panasonics that they are really good for video, even with their AF, which is below Nikon or Sony in 4k. However, with PZ lens AF is much faster so actually not that bad at all.
The only thing that would give me pause about Panasonic for video is their AF system. AF flutter may be a forgivable annoyance for stills, but it ruins video. Also, it's still not clear that any L-mount lenses other than Panasonic's own are compatible with their AF system, defeating the entire point of having a shared lens mount.
I know that AF is irrelevant for many types of videography, but for others it's super important. Me personally, I don't ever see myself with a follow-focus or focus puller, shooting choreographed scenes. I would be shooting documentary-style nature photography, where subjects move unpredictably. For that, a tenacious AF tracking system would be extremely valuable.
@Halftrack I agree, I mean I am AF person myself. However, for video documentary type of Chris' videos, manual focusing is not a problem at all. I would myself surely use AF-S focusing in center with face tracking, but each has its own trick.
SOOD images whether JPEG or RAW (using any profile from the major editors) are noticeably better with the Canon and next the Nikon. You’ll have to work hard to get the Sony images to be competitive. The vast majority of viewers notice colors, not DR or noise. They want good looking photos, and DR adds less to content than color.
Therefore the Sony is a distant 3rd for IQ.
It you want to take the best looking pictures with the least amount of hassle, the Canon and Nikon win. Even Chris mentioned the beautiful Canon colors. Sony might be closer to accurate but overall ugly.
The internal color science does matter, and still there is something about Canon and Nikon that set their colors apart. They really know how to get it right.
Who conducted those "blind tests?" The only one I know of is by the Northrups and they aren't exactly the best source.
The problem is also that anyone claiming to do a "blind test" is not necessarily following the strict scientific protocols for doing so. So any "blind test" out there by a Youtuber, blogger, etc is probably still suffering from flaws but appearing pseudo-scientific.
Almost every link it finds is about trying to get Canon colors on Sony, but not the other way around. All those of Sony owners are if anything biased towards Sony, and yet they all say Canon colors are better. That is irrefutable evidence.
Accurate colors are not always the most pleasing colors.
I've seen quite a few pro's teach a class and say that. Heck, there was even a video from a guy who created many of the major film formulas for fujifilm back in the day and he said the same thing.
There is the accuracy of the color and there is the desirability of the color. Not the same.
In a bad way. Somehow Sony finds a way to be close but unpleasant , rather than not quite as close, but very pleasing. Sony colors are very difficult to fix also because shifting one color tends to affect similar colors. Think of skin tones, they are actually made p of thousands of hues/colors. Also, when you fix a color you often are limited in which direction you can change the color. This is why Sony colors have their deserved bad reputation.
That's precisely why Photoshop exists. If you have accurate colours you can tweak them however you want. Those who keep complaining about Sony colours can't reliably tell them apart from blind tests anyways.
More of this "best color" nonsense. I am pretty sure those claiming loudly that a certain brand is best would fail on any blindfold test.
Acting like there is a universal standard for "best color", which is of cause matches their own brand and personal taste, doesn't make such a claim worth a cent.
Perception is way more than measured color. Color response vary from person to person (some are even color blind), how we experience color do not only depend on the subject, but also environment, color temperature, reflected light from colored surfaces, creating color cast, etc. Those working with graphic design know well how simultaneous effect can also play a significant role. Color perception also has also a lot with experience and expectations to do.
So this "I know what is best color" is just a claim without arguments.
Oh look, Thoughts R Us is in the comments again posting multiple times, and they all have the same theme: anti-Sony.
You wouldn't be able to pick out Canon from Sony or Nikon colours in a blind test with photos taken in the same place. And you definitely wouldn't be able to choose a Sony shot from a Canon shot of different subjects.
This colour nonsense really has got to just stop. It's irritating. Next are you going to tell me how one camera filled with microchips has more soul than another camera filled with microchips?
The issue of colors and "best color" keeps coming up because it is a real thing. And while it is subjective, there are certain patterns of consensus that are true.
It's like with music. Very subjective, but there are chord progressions that most find more pleasing. There are also discordant sounds that most would find displeasing.
One cannot hide behind the subjectivity of an aesthetic quality to claim that all are equal or that there are no clear cut preferences among people.
Thought R Us: When photographers fail on blindfold tests about color, there isn't that much of a difference, and for sure nothing that really matters.
You can also adjust color with in-camera profiles for jpg, and software profiles for raw. Or are you one of those who think default settings should please all?
There are just too many Sony owners complaining about Sony colors and asking how to fix them or make them look like Canon colors for anyone to fall for the “Sony colors are not bad” argument.
You really need to go after the Sony camera users who complain all the time about Sony colors.
Raynaud: Repeating the "best color" myths doesn't make color worse or better. But many find vague arguments fine for brand wars, like you are doing here.
//Next are you going to tell me how one camera filled with microchips has more soul than another camera filled with microchips?//
Thoughts has already been there Luke, several times:
"Sony's are kind of machines without a soul. I imagine most Sony's are bought due to specs, but are used far less because no one really likes using them." https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61610775
With other brands, Canon, Nikon, Fuji, Leica, etc...you read about how much people enjoy them, how they have that certain something special... If it's about heart and soul, then it's not about Sony." https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61718220
There are many more examples in the comments sections.
I use two camera systems (FujiX and Nikon F DX/FX and Z) simultaneously for about 6 years now. Color science is something that exists and is real in my opinion. I really like sooc output of both Fuji and Nikon almost equally in most situations when light conditions are not complicated. Fuji (I prefer provia profile) and Nikon (standard is preffered) colours are sometimes almost identical and sometimes each has its unique characteristics and sometimes I can, sometimes I can not decide which is better. But there is one difference between Fuji and Nikon. While Fuji's output is very consistent across variable lightning conditions, Nikon tends to strugle to give me consistent Nikon colours I like under some circumstances (mixed light sources, under trees in woods, after sunset,...).
...continue... To be precise, all my Fuji bodies (X-E1, T10, T2) did great job colour-wise always, my Nikon bodies were not so good before (D70 was less consistent than D80, D7000) and are much better recently (D750 was very good but not great and Z6 is almost perfectly consistent). Thus, while brand-specific colours is a real thing (and subject of personal preference), brands are not equal in their ability to make cameras with consistently pleasing colours. For that reason blind tests with several photos on the web are useless. The only relevant comparison between camera brands can be done by long-term user. Almost all artistically oriented Sony photographers that jumped from/to Canon, Nikon, Fuji... say that Sony colours are not so well refined as other brands and need more fidling in post-process, especially in some circumstances. Sony is better with every new generation, but is not there yet.
You forgot to summarise the ranking. A7III wins with an average of 1.7, closely followed by Z6 with 1.8 and last one being EOS R with 2.5: ................... A7III R Z6 Display....... 3 2 1 Lenses........ 1 2 3 Autofocus.. 1 2 3 Handling.... 2 3 1 Video.......... 2 3 1 Image Qual. 1 3 2
Your math assumes all equal ratings. See. That’s the thing. What’s important for one person isn’t necessarily important for someone else. So everyone has to decide for themselves what right for them.
I added the individual rankings to my comment as well. Feel free to introduce your weights and recalculate. The overall message of A7III and Z6 being on par and R falling behind will hardly change. It becomes obvious that the R5 is overdue, maybe R6 in this category :-)
@Ruekon Weights are fine but what if you disagree with the scoring in the first place? Take lenses: I probably prefer the Nikon lens choices over the Canons. I don’t need hard-to-focus f/1.2 primes or heavy and expensive f/2 zooms. In fact if they add a 24-105/4 and something like a 70-300 I’d be served.
It's nice noticing that things have settled down a bit. It may just be my perception (or hope) but when Sony came out with the A7 III, that camera was hyped into heaven. Then the Canon and Nikon rumours started building up and people were saying "these are real camera companies, they'll blow Sony out of the water". So much so that the Nikon offering in particular felt like a bit of a letdown in comparison (though they themselves added to that in how they raised expectations). Now, the hypes are a bit over, and it's more about what each system brings to the table.
Judging from this video, I probably made the right choice to upgrade to a D750 from my D7100. I'm not really into video and investing in a completely new system would be costly. I'm looking forward to more improvements in the Z series and maybe I'll buy into it at that point in time. Some of the lenses are already where I want to be. I just hope that Nikon will be able to come out of the current crisis relatively unscathed.
One Achilles heel of Sony is its usability, handling, ergonomics. This is actually fairly typical of a lot of Sony equipment through the years: very advanced tech inside, but not so easy or fun to use.
A lot of their products have had confusing, overly complicated menu's and external buttons and controls that are too small and poorly placed.
What good is advanced tech if consumers cannot or do not want to use it due to poor UI? How many Sony cams will be remembered like the D700, where even to this day you have people praising it and enjoying it as a classic?
Sales figures show more buy Canon overall than Sony. The market is not just FF. And far more use Canon than Sony; past cameras sold don't just disappear but many stay in use. And the vast majority of pro's use Canon and not Sony.
And even then, sales show more than anything else a severely contracting market, so Sony is maybe a head right now in a small niche of a small and ever shrinking market. And I bet that given time that Canon becomes top seller in FF MILC. Heck, they may be now because it's so hard to get accurate sales data.
But overall Canon is still king. And everyone talks about Canon colors and how desirable they are, even Sony users.
Thoughts R Us - I agree with your wider statement about Sony.
I have other Sony gear as well and not just cameras and lenses. For example, a 50 inch Sony TV. Great picture quality, and its been completely reliable for the several years Ive owned it. I recently added another new 4k unit to the household too.
In both cases the picture quality is great, but the UI sucks. I forgave the older Sony TV for a poor UI but I'm a bit disappointed to learn they have not really improved it.
Sony IMO has the worlds best engineers, but the company does not seem to value user interface. Sony in this respect are the opposite of Apple.
Apple care more about the user experience than having the best bench test results.
Currently using A7R3 and A7III and when the other day i was holding D810 again in my hands i was blown away how great it felt. Finally to hold camera again not some ugly toy brick :) That say im not going back D810 and will keep using Sony. I will have to live with crap ergonomics but will have Eye AF, nearly perfect AF, smaller, lighter body, usable video etc etc.
For me (and only me), I was impatiently waiting for Nikon to come out with ML cameras that would take advantage of my F mount glass. I wanted the WYSIWYG EVF, and I couldn't be happier. Are the Z6/7 perfect? No, but what camera is perfect?
Anyway, I'm loving my Z6 & Z7 and I'm using the FTZ on lenses I don't have an equivalent Z mount lens at this time and I'm quite pleased. Thanks DP for your Review :)
Enjoyed watching the casual review/opinions. For me personally, I'm holding onto my current camera(s). I get excited with each new release/update, thinking I might want to sell something and purchase a new GEE WHIZ camera... well, it's fortunate that I leave my wallet/credit cards on the other side of the house... by the time I get there, I forget what I wanted to do :( My trusty 5DII still serves me well and I save money!
Thanks Chris & Jordon for these videos! It's one of the reasons I continue to watch & read DPR. Everyone HAGD!
in 2007 Sony released the first commercial oled TV, the Sony XEL-1. Still in 2020, "old-style" LED TV is still the dominant sales of TV's.
What does that has to do with cameras?
Well, when a company invest in R&D and then build factories to produce the product, they are not going to let a newer technology surface from the same company until they have maximised their income from "the last generation of technology".
We (gear nerds) sometimes forget that camera-makers are foremost, and highest about anything else, a business venture, all about maximizing the profit.
So your "old" cameras are really not that different fro the latest and greatest from any manufacturer - They move as slowly as possible, upgrade as little as possible, just enogh to sell the latest version with marketing and hype.
We still have no global shutter, no 12 bit video, no 802.11ax wifi on any camera.
So do not feel stressed about "new gear", its often just the same old pig with new lipstick :-) , HAGD
In the review it says the price of the Canon R is now the lowest, but here in Europe you get the Z6 for about 3/4 of the Canon R or the Sony. It seems like in the US the Z6 is notably cheaper as well. Taking into account saving several 100s on the Z6, that should make it more desirable. Did I get something wrong? Same is true for some of the Nikon lenses like 24-70 4.0 and 35/50. You can regularly find them at pretty affordable prices, especially when buying a kit. Z6+24-70 4.0 can be had cheaper than a naked Canon R here in Germany. You have to put another grand on top for a good (!) Canon kit lens (24-105L) - Not speaking of 7.0 lenses...
The Canon R is the only Camera of these three that I can hold comfortably, but with an entry level interface and some performance limitations I cannot justify 3 grand for the kit. It’s a pity, but currently the R plus base lens is simply too expensive (IMHO), compared with what you get elsewhere. The 24-105L is a nice lens though. ;-))
Chris's pricing also threw me off. The Canon R and the Nikon Z6 bodies are at the same price in the US. There must be some kind of sale happening in Canada right now.
Price wise in the US the Z6 is on sale which puts it at the same price as the EOS R which has been reduced. (It was initially overpriced.). The Sony A7III was also recently on sale for $1799 in the US market but has since returned to its regular price.
Basically at this point these cameras are all close enough price wise that price is not the likely deciding factor.
@MikeRan The Z6 is priced at $1800 USD. I know that many websites, including Nikon USA, have it "on sale" but, the price drop at Best Buy happened months ago and was labeled as such. It's $1800.
@MikeRan Because it really isn't. It's just $1800. The "sale" vendors keep showing, from $2000 going down to $1800, is a bit dishonest because that sale has been happening for months now. Customers are not getting a deal here. The price drop already happened, the vendors should reflect it as such.
You even said it. The NIKON website calls it a SALE. In the United States that usually means a price which is less than the normal retail price. If you want to fool yourself that this is a permanent price reduction feel free. For the others I suggest you do your own research instead of trusting a comment on an Internet article.
If you’re interested in buying the Z6, and the price is an important consideration you may wish to investigate whether you think the price will go up at some point and don’t get caught by surprise if it does.
@MikeRan The A7III never had a price drop. And I'm not fooling anyone. Like I've stated before, Best Buy signage and labeling officially marked the Nikon Z6 at $1800 Body only as a price drop months ago. Why would Nikon fool with one of its largest vendors on pricing? You can even go on bestbuy.com and look at the Z6. Flat $1800. No sale or instant rebate.
Shocker. You are misinformed. A7III was reduced $200 for the holiday season on or around November 6th of last year. The price drop remained in effect at least through January 31 when my brother purchased one. I don’t know the exact date it went back to $2000.
I don’t know why this is so important to you that you decide to make up your own facts. Anyway as I said in my last comment. Readers are advised to do their own pricing research.
@MikeRan For the A7III that was a sale, not a price drop. Come on, you should know the difference if you're going to dare challenge me on this.
And sure, readers are responsible for their own research. I've just stated the facts that the "sale" you keep alluding to is not a sale. It's just the base price from here-on-out whether you like it or not. They're not getting a deal. If you don't like straight facts, I guess there's no way I can convince you.
The folks at DPR keep repeating that Sony has many more native lenses than Canikon. However, most of the Sony lenses in their lineup are just average. Only the latest ones come close to Canon and Nikon.
This really isn’t true. Especially if you’re considering this review is for 24-30MP cameras. Sony has quite a good lens lineup with only a few lenses that people consider mediocre.
Also with sony you get a much bigger choice of non native glass. As these cameras are not top of the line price must be a factor. look at the cost of the Tamron 28-70 f2.8 compared to any similar lens for Nikon mount and Canon mount.
@Niko Vita - "However, most of the Sony lenses in their lineup are just average."
I see that the Nikon forum is the only place you post, so it's understandable that you aren't familiar with sony.
sony users however know that the e-mount lens lineup has overall far better glass than the competition, including practical lenses like the 20fps-capable fe200-600; canikon has never made any 600mm superzoom, despite the fact that it's an overwhelmingly popular zoom length... in fact canikon doesn't have any lenses at any focal length, that are rated at 20fps af-c.
canikon also doesn't have any ff powered video zooms.
@Niko Vita - "Only the latest ones come close to Canon and Nikon."
one example proving that wrong is the fe90, that came out back in 2015, long before canikon was even thinking about ff milc… the fe90 is the second-sharpest lens that dxo has ever tested, and it does an honest 15fps af-c on the a9, so it doubles as a sports lens: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/60889046
I don't understand why you all ignore the fact Canikon has adapters that work flawlessly with their EF,F mounts. Even most of 3rd party lens for those mounts work as well adapted. Maybe Sony has a lot of choice now, but even now, five or so years later still no tilt shift lenses, so you either gotta mount Nikkors or Canon's L lenses. But yeah, not everyone shoots interiors, architecture. Just wanted to remind you that adapters work quite well, especially Canon's. Sadly Nikon didn't put in af motor in adapter so only G lens work.
@Alannn123 - "I don't understand why you all ignore the fact Canikon has adapters that work flawlessly with their EF,F mounts."
a number of people have indicated otherwise, including dprtv in this video, and in the eos-r review video that they also did: "Despite confirming subject tracking on Chris, the video is quite front-focused" https://youtu.be/D9GGeFROlN8?t=309
getting 3fps af-c or less with adapted ef-mount glass on eos-r is not how I would define "flawless", but to each his own, we all have different needs.
Who exactly is ignoring that fact? I’m simply refuting a statement that the majority of Sony lenses are just “average” compared to the new nikon and canon lenses. This is simply false.
Oh and there are a few great options to marry all of those Canon EF lenses with your Sony cameras as well. (In fact I regularly shoot a Canon 200/2 on my Sony.). So that argument is also mostly negated.
Adapters work when they are from the same company that builds the camera and lenses. The Canon EF to RF adapter works great. The Nikon FTZ adapter works great.
But sure, when one company builds the camera, another company builds the lens, and yet another makes the adapter, you have compromises.
I have used OEM adapters. You have to switch adapters between lenses, awkward. You can leave it on the body, but where do you put it when you mount native lenses? It's a hassle. Even so, DSLR lenses are not up to the same standards as mirrorless lenses are. So at most, you are getting DSLR experience. That means no good AF during video, noisy AF, back and front focus, mediocre resolution depending on the lens, heavy weight, oversized DSLR optics, no CDAF. Lenses that are more than 10 years old are not up to par on state-of-the-art mirrorless cameras. 10 years ago 10 MP was the bomb. Today I want my lens to resolve 100 MP and more (it's not like I'm going to use it today only, it has to stand the test of time). Obviously you never tried using an adapter. Hence you are quoting Canon and Nikon marketing department. Professionals hate adapters, I can tell you that.
I think you would have to be working pretty hard to NOT find a good enough lens for any of these cameras. Sony? Fine, no problem. Nikon? The native Z mount glass is very nice, and adapted F mount works just fine (and hey, you can get the Zeiss Otus in F mount!). Canon? Exciting native glass, and damned good compatibility with EF mount stuff.
We need more than one good lens Bob. We need an extensive mirrorless lens line-up and Sony is the only one to offer that right now. That's your problem.
@Alannn123 I am not ignoring the adapters but on of the things people love about mirrorless is the weight adding an adapter and large SLR lens defects the object. The Nikon one also only works well with newer glass and if using your camera for work you would need two adaptors because if one breaks you cant use any of your lenses.
All 3 great cameras. I chose Canon (I had some EF lenses, but was willing to re-kit this time to having had great experience with Sony DMC-RX100).
However, coming from OVF to EVF just couldn't see myself getting used to the low res sony EVF...thats a BIG issue for me. Also having the sensor shuttered when you remove a lens (as there's no mirror) is a plus. Nikon offered no + which would tear me away from my lenses (in Sony it was the sensor DR).
No regrets for me so far (one year in) but then I couldn't give a hoot about video and I'm the one person on the planet who likes the swipe bar (set to change focus zone).
I bought the RF24-105L with it (great). Also great with the EF 16-24 F4, and has HUGELY improved performance from my EF100mm 2.8 macro and even EF70-300 as compared to my 70D). I wish there were a couple more RF non-L primes (RF 35mm 1.8 is fantastic). Could do with a 85mm.
I'm sure they're all great...Buy the one best for you and crack on taking pics!
It's interesting because not that long ago Nikon would have been considered the laggard in video. And I know it's not part of the comparison, but the same could be said about Fuji as well.
Just goes to show you how with technology any company if they really want to can make up ground fast, and in some cases leap ahead of the competition.
Any company that wants to maintain leadership needs to really keep pressing forward, because if you let your foot off of the gas, so to speak, someone else will pass you by quickly.
"Any company that wants to maintain leadership needs to really keep pressing forward, because if you let your foot off of the gas, so to speak, someone else will pass you by quickly" Well, the Sony is with some distance the oldest (and all round still best) camera off the 3, let's see what the A7IV brings to the table.
The Sony a7III is the "oldest" of the 3 but not by much...it was released in April 2018, the EOS R in Oct 2018 and Z6 in Nov 2018. It's not like they were separated by years in terms of release.
The really new tech will be showcased by Canon in the EOS R5, and by all accounts it too is going to leapfrog the competition. We will see what Nikon brings in any new higher end FF Z.
Sony has of late been a bit slower in advancement, and most expect the a7 IV to be basically an incremental upgrade, same sensor, tweaked image processor like the a7R4 and a9II, the slightly bigger gripped body of the a7R4.
The R5 will probably also adopt the QA issues of the 1Dx3. Canon is rushing their cameras to market because they have to. But no one is leapfrogging Sony, they are still the best (mirrorless) cameras on the market. Wishful thinking is not going to get them ahead of the others.
Leitz, you mean like every camera manufacturer uses the terms "up to" in their promo materials, as they cannot guarantee same performance across the board with every lens with every possible setting?
For instance, on the Sony website, they list the a9II as having "High-speed continuous shooting at up to 20fps" and have a footnote next to that. And the footnote reads "Hi” continuous shooting mode. At shutter speeds of 1/125 sec or higher. In AF-C mode the maximum continuous frame rate will depend on the shooting mode and lens used."
That same promo page for the a9II has 29 such footnotes and qualifications for the specs claimed.
My A7III is already so much more of a camera than I really need. I'm quite confident whichever system you choose, you can be sure the next generation will be mind-blowing.
So pick the brand you like the most, buy the lenses you need, and keep shooting! Whatever you choose, it's a good decision.
And all 3 have extensive lenses available. Sony has a lot of FE lenses, along with third parties. Canon has RF plus their EF stable of lenses, with the Canon adaptor. Also third party lenses for EF with adaptor. Nikon has their Z lenses plus their F mount lenses with adaptor and again, third party F mount lenses w/ adaptor.
No one owning any system is particularly lacking in choice. And again, the key is that the lenses you want are available for that system.
Well I want a reasonably priced portrait lens and Canon/Nikon are not offering that for mirrorless. It's not my job to save Nikon and Canon from going bankrupt. They pretend to be Leica and sell their lenses at ludicrous prices. I want decent lenses for fair price.
Agreed S_Connor. Thoughts, adapted lenses will work (on any of the systems) but are cumbersome once you bought your first native lenses, don't ask me how I know...
Adapters are not as elegant as having a native lens, but using OEM adapters is not that hard either. Please, don't pretend it's this herculean task.
Also, if using OEM adapters is hard on Canon/Nikon, what does that say about all of the people using non-OEM adapters with Sony cams? I guess all of those poor souls are really lost, and need to switch brands.
@tru Chasing you around you may have noticed a brand new brand warrior - joined dpr 3 weeks ago and just about ALL posts so far are in the style of some of your old ‘friends’ - wonder why .....❓
We were revisiting the initial comparison from 2018. We've found that comparing any more than three cameras in video form gets quite long or confusing.
Richard wrote a great article comparing all four:
https://www.dpreview.com/articles/8695762793/full-frame-mirrorless-compared-z6-vs-s1-vs-eos-r-vs-a7-iii
Mirrorlesslessons studied AF extensively and found the Z7 was better than the A7RIV and A7RIII. The A7iii and Z6 were better than those 3 probably due to lower res sensor.
For those who don't have the time to watch the full video, the competition was close and every camera was great but the overall winner was Chris's hair.
The two cameras are not identical in performance from what I have read. Different sensors which affects iso performance (may favor Z6)and resolution (favors Z7). From what I have read, the video performance of the Z6 is better than that of the Z7. Much higher in price than all three so not comparable for that reason alone. And, it was not tested in this fashion so comparative grading would be speculative. Last, this was an update to the previous video so the title is simply a mistake. Curious that the mistake carried over to the link below.
Hi Brev well the title has been corrected, so now we know! I'm still busy taking photos each week. Posting mainly in the m43 forum recently. Hope you're fine too. I am thinking about getting the Z7 for its better resolution. Not interested in video and the iso performance would certainly be better than my OMD EM1 ii. Just have to work out if I really want to carry the extra weight of the heavier lenses.
Actually, both Z6 and Z7 are great in video, but obviously Z7 is more also photography-inclined due to more pixels in its sensor. However, in video both act similarly. I saw a music video shot on Z7 - it would look identical to Z6, and Z6 would be better for video because its files are not that large and a number of other reasons.
@fireplace33 If you like lightweight lenses, you better switch to Sony because they offer both lightweight and heavy lenses. For example Zeiss 35mm f/2.8 is only 120 g.
Nice video review. Hard for me to argue with any of it. I appreciate the Sony a7 III for what it brought to the industry and I'm very curious when the IV will be released with the real-time tracking and presumably superior video specs, and then how that will influence the Z6 II and R... 2? Whatever it'll be called.
Anyway, it's a great time to be a photographer when even the low-end models (except for the RP, but ya'll know that) are so incredibly capable.
Two more years will make this an even better race.
The four firmware updates bring improved autofocus performance in a number of different shooting modes, as well as support for Nikon's new FTZ II mount adapter and Nikkor Z 24-120mm F4 S lens.
Chris and Jordan are taking a well deserved break, so we're bringing you a classic rerun: DPReview TV episode #1. Take a trip in the wayback machine and watch our review of the Sony a7 III.
The Sony a7 III and Fujifilm X-T4 aren't cameras we would normally compare head-to-head. Yet, they're two of the most popular enthusiast models available today. Watch Chris and Jordan duke it out over which one is best.
Just for fun, we dusted off an old Nikon Micro-Nikkor 55mm F2.8 AI-S lens and slapped it on a Nikon Z7 and Z7 II to see what it's simple optical formula can do on a thoroughly modern full-frame camera.
We've taken a look back at our year of Instagram posts to the @DPReview account and compiled the 10 most popular cameras of 2020, based on most 'likes' to a single post.
Canon's EOS R7 is a 33MP APS-C enthusiast mirrorless camera built around the RF mount. It brings advanced autofocus and in-body stabilization to the part of the market currently served by the EOS 90D.
The Canon EOS R10 is a 24MP APS-C mirrorless camera built around Canon's RF mount. It's released alongside a collapsible 18-45mm F4.5-6.3 IS STM zoom to give a usefully compact, remarkably 'Rebel'-like camera.
Chris and Jordan took a trip to sweltering Florida to test out Canon's new RF-Mount APS-C cameras. Give it a watch to find out our initial impressions.
It says Olympus on the front, but the OM System OM-1 is about the future, not the past. It may still produce 20MP files, but a quad-pixel AF Stacked CMOS sensor, 50 fps shooting with full AF and genuine, IP rated, weather sealing show OM Digital Solutions' ambition. See what we thought.
What's the best camera for shooting landscapes? High resolution, weather-sealed bodies and wide dynamic range are all important. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for shooting landscapes, and recommended the best.
What’s the best camera for around $2000? These capable cameras should be solid and well-built, have both speed and focus for capturing fast action and offer professional-level image quality. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing around $2000 and recommended the best.
Most modern cameras will shoot video to one degree or another, but these are the ones we’d look at if you plan to shoot some video alongside your photos. We’ve chosen cameras that can take great photos and make it easy to get great looking video, rather than being the ones you’d choose as a committed videographer.
Although a lot of people only upload images to Instagram from their smartphones, the app is much more than just a mobile photography platform. In this guide we've chosen a selection of cameras that make it easy to shoot compelling lifestyle images, ideal for sharing on social media.
Canon's EOS R10 and R7 share a lot of their spec, including an impressive AF system, but the closer you look, the more differences emerge. We look at how the two models compare.
The SmartSoft Box allows the degree of its diffusion to be controlled electronically and varied in 100 increments from clear to heavily frosted via the main control panel of the Rotolight AEOS 2 light. Changes in electrical charge alter the diffusion and the angle of coverage of the light
Camera accessory company Nine Volt now offers a camera body cap that includes a secret compartment designed to hold an Apple AirTag tracking device, giving victims of camera theft hope for recovering a lost camera.
The R7's 32.5 megapixel APS-C sensor is an interesting prospect for sports and wildlife shooters. Check out our shots from sunny (and scorching) Florida to see how it performs.
Canon just launched an entry level camera using the RF Mount! You should probably take a look at some photos it (and Chris Niccolls) captured in Florida.
Canon's EOS R7 is a 33MP APS-C enthusiast mirrorless camera built around the RF mount. It brings advanced autofocus and in-body stabilization to the part of the market currently served by the EOS 90D.
The Canon EOS R10 is a 24MP APS-C mirrorless camera built around Canon's RF mount. It's released alongside a collapsible 18-45mm F4.5-6.3 IS STM zoom to give a usefully compact, remarkably 'Rebel'-like camera.
Chris and Jordan took a trip to sweltering Florida to test out Canon's new RF-Mount APS-C cameras. Give it a watch to find out our initial impressions.
The Canon EOS R7 brings a 32.5MP APS-C CMOS sensor to the RF mount. In addition to stills at up to 15 fps (30 fps with e-shutter), the camera offers IBIS and 4K/60p video.
While its lineage is clearly inspired by Canon's line of Rebel DSLRs, this 24MP APS-C mirrorless camera takes plenty of inspiration from Canon's more capable full-frame mirrorless cameras.
These two RF-mount lenses are designed to be paired with Canon's new APS-C mirrorless cameras, the EOS R7 and EOS R10. Both lenses offer seven stops of image stabilization and use Canon's stepping motor technology to drive their internal AF systems.
Late last week, DJI quietly released a firmware update for the Mini 3 Pro drone that adds, amongst other improvements, 10-bit video recording in the D-Cinelike video profile.
The patent explains how the auto-zoom feature could use a combination of digital and optical zoom to better frame subjects within a composition with little to no input from the camera operator.
360-degree action cam manufacturer Insta360 has shared a teaser video for a new product set to be announced tomorrow. And based on the visuals provided, it appears as though it might involve some kind of drone.
The Ricoh GR IIIx is a popular camera among photo enthusiasts thanks to its small size and 40mm (equivalent) F2.8 lens. Ricoh's GT-2 tele conversion lens is a 1.5X converter that extends this focal length, though it comes with some compromises. Learn more about it and check out our sample gallery shot with the GT-2 on the camera.
This 'Mark III' lens offers a few improvements over its predecessors to get even better image quality out of its ultra-fast design. The lens is available for Canon EOS R, Fujifilm X, Leica L, Micro Four Thirds, Nikon Z and Sony E-mount APS-C camera systems.
Chris and Jordan are out of the office this week, so we're taking a trip in the wayback machine to feature a classic episode of DPRTV: a review of the EOS R, Canon's first full-frame mirrorless camera.
Last week, we featured Markus Hofstätter's scanner rebuild, which saw him spend three months bringing back to life a massive scanner to better digitize his collection of large format photographs. This week, we're taking a look at the results, kicked off by a beautifully detailed 30cm x 40cm collodion wet plate portrait.
The lenses lack autofocus and image stabilization, but offer a fast maximum aperture in an all-metal body that provides a roughly 50mm full-frame equivalent focal length on Fujifilm and Sony APS-C cameras.
Apple has responded to an open letter published last month, wherein more than 100 individuals in the entertainment industry asked Apple to improve the development and promotion of Final Cut Pro.
Venus Optics has launched its Indiegogo campaign for its new Nanomorph lenses, revealing additional details about the world’s smallest anamorphic lenses.
Most smartphones these days offer great-looking video and make vlogging very easy, but there are always accessories that can help to make your footage, and you, look even better
The WG-80 remains largely unchanged from the WG-70, but it now has a front LED ring light that's twice as bright as its predecessor. Aside from that, the 16MP CMOS sensor and 28-140mm full-frame equivalent lens stays the same.
Comments