In this week's episode of DPReview TV we take a look at three entry-level APS-C mirrorless models: the Canon EOS M50, Sony a6000 and Fujifilm X-T100. Which one rises to the top of the class? Chris and Jordan walk us through each camera's strengths and weaknesses in terms of key factors like autofocus, usability and JPEG image quality.
Useful ,informative review. Unfortunately is the same old song when it comes to IQ, in the first place ISO performance, then DR and color response by the river... sad cos this days the ISO hype should be over. Before NPZ 800 came out ,photography was already a beauty.
(1) Except with smart phones, I don't ever shoot with a screen. I use the viewfinder. So which of these smallish mirrorless cameras is the most useful for someone like me?
(2) I have an older Rebel (T2i) DSLR, and an SX50 superzoom (for canoeing and birding, though I don't like the camera), and am looking for a good travel option. A long zoom would be a nice feature (third-party?). Was thinking of a 1"-sensor pocketable, but these 'entry-level' mirrorless cameras are comparable in price, have larger sensors, and offer interchangeable lenses; better bet? Advice welcome.
I was tied to Sony so 4 years ago the A6000 was my only choice. At the time the NX1 was its competitor and dominated it in every way possible. Interestingly, the Samsung left the camera biz, and the NX1 maintained its value. I sold the a6000 for a big loss, which is what happens with cheap electronics...just not the NX1 which only recently started to depreciate. If Samsung stuck around I'd pick the NX1 over the a6000,a6300, and a6500 today.
Fuji and Canon have the best looking pictures straight from the camera. I spent 5 years struggling to get their look with my Sonys.
Sony no longer offer in camera apps in their new cameras. It was a buggy way to make more money. FW updates accomplish the same thing for free, but Sony found a bad way to charge users, though some apps were free.
1. It has a more advanced video codex 2. If you use Capture One editing software for RAW. You'll get way better images than either 3. You can get real Pro Audio in for this camera see XLR-K2M and XLR-K1M. Yes Sony's naming sucks 4. Back to Video Carl Zeiss CP3 if know you know. Fuji can't. Canon Can but there Video Codex isn't up to par 5. All the Native lenses are better and cheap. Give you an example. if you wants complete high end images using two primes and a zoom. 35mm f1.8 OSS $399, 50mm f1.8 OSS $249, E PZ 18-105mm F4 OSS. You can go straight to work and make money with that. 6. You can do commercial video work with this camera using Atomos Ninja, a camera cage, and points 3,4,&5. You're not going to be able to with this Canon or Fuji.
Yeah, it was fair. BTW if a 4 year old camera can do this. What do you think I can do with their current models.
The a6000 is still a great little camera. After nearly three years of shooting with it, I wouldn't trade it for either of these. The Canon seems like a nice body, but I don't get the lens system. Fuji has an enviable lens system, but this body seems flawed and this particular lens isn't necessarily an upgrade over the tiny Sony kit; which can be quite nice at it's sweet spots.
R we really doing a comparison..to a camera that was released in 2014? Cluck this..it is 2018..right! Talk about a true Bull Crap Site..DP u dipped to an all time low!
I think what they were trying to do is look around at the most popular cameras in the $700 price range. It might be a little unfair to Sony, since you can buy the A6000 with the kit lens for about $600.
In the "good old days", cameras changed very little from year to year. Even though Sony went through an odd phase where they released a new camera every few months, the A6000 is still in production.
Although the A6000 was originally the "high end" of their model line, it is now the middle, or low. The battery life is still weak, the menu system is still odd, and the touchscreen is still reserved for high-end cameras, but if you can live with that, the A6000 still holds its own against any other camera in the same price range.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. In my opinion, the Canon autofocus is better, and the Sony runs a close second. Although Fuji could have beat them both, this particular camera does not.
I think this is a fair and useful review but I do have a few comments: Aesthetics is very personal, I happen to find Fuji camera ands their retro styling unattractive and the Canon does nothing for me in terms of looks (but love their screen and its touch control) I like the simple and unobtrusive (also unintimidating) look of the a6000. They miss the feature of the Sony a6000 which is the one that finally triggered my decision to buy it 4 years ago, namely that as there are no controls on the top plate. I can slip the a6000 in and out of a jacket pocket without disturbing the controls. While I have not shot with the Xt-100 the top plate controls were a real hazard with the XT-1 & XT-2. I appreciate that they made it clear that the 4+ year old Sony is being pitted against new releases. I now also have the a6500 but still use (and love) my a6000 however it is starting to feel dated so I also hope that Sony takes note of their call for an updated a6000 :-)
All I can say is that tools are a very personal choice. Having used much better tools, I found the A6000 amazingly clunky. Multiple presses for any function, unreliable AF, tiny screen, EVF unusable in bright sun...
That takes care of the sensor part of the equation. The next part will be lenses. I don't see cellphones ever being able to match the optical zoom range of real cameras. It would be better to incorporate a smartphone in your camera than vice versa if your aiming for the best image quality.
The thing that most appealed to me about the A6000 is having a small collapsible zoom lens. The lack of that lens kept me from buying the Nex 7 and I waited for the Nex 6 then got the A6000. I would not consider these other models as they are not as compact although I'm sure I could enjoy them. I don't find the lower res VF to matter to me. (I have an A7RII) for comparison.)
This is a good point. However, while not as small as sony's the new canon and fuji kit zooms are "colapsible" and much smaller than the older models. It's close enough to sony that I'm not sure it's that much of a discriminator any more. I've found the power zoom "feature" a never ending source of frustration. The design has potential but I've always been disappointed how sony failed to capitalize on the advantages of the power zoom. The A6000 lost the on-body zoom controls available on other sony's (NEX-3N for example) and the camera lacked the ability to remember settings or set a default focal length. (I'm an A6000 owner).
I don't usually read Ken Rockwell but I followed your link and was quite pleasantly surprised. He highlighted the properties of the lens and provided a good range of samples to illustrate his conclusions. He actually seemed to understand the lens!
One thing he did not seem clear on though is that the 16-50mm, like most collapsible lenses, does require some software correction. If you only shoot jpegs you will not notice this, as the correction is done in camera, but if you shoot Raw then you will notice the distortions from the compromises used to get the lens that small when collapsed. These distortions are trivial to correct in Capture 1 or DxO Optics/PhotoLab but the Adobe profiles are, or at least were, disappointing...
Sometimes the barrel distortion at the wide end of Sony's 16-50 is useful and I do not correct it. (I use DXO) A good example would be a person's head near the corner of a frame. Or even a person's body at the edge of a frame. "Distortion free" lenses do not always produce the best representation of a subject.
Comparing these 3 doesn't make much sense. A6000 is mid-level, not entry-level. Price may have dropped to entry-level, but all in all, it's mid-level. M50 and XT100 are entry-level. They're built as entry-level in the first place, and are no match for a mid-level camera.
A6000 runs on outdated tech so what they are saying is that the Xt100's newer tech is about as good as dated tech from Sony. Which is about right given that Fuji isn't known for being state of the art.
The A6000 has always been cheap. I know this full well as when they brought it out the value of my Nex 6 dropped like a stone. You buy this Fuji as a cheap way to use the super new 15-45 lens. Sony makes good bodies but the aps-c kit lens is like using some old relic found in a dusty old box in the loft.
A6000 was always being entry level camera with an EVF, it's the NEX-6 successor.
Only way cheaper with a built-in handgrip, absymal EVF, but program dial and eMount - and also a good 20 MP APS-C Sensor & also good DR, the Sony Alpha 3000.
Sony A5100 is the same as the A6000, minus the cheap 1.44 MP EVF, and also entry level.
Would love to see that. But many sites do allow you to compare those with kitzoom.. If you ask me, the results would be very close to this shootout, alll sensors & software being equal, except Canon digic 8.
One thing to consider is that in the business world, you are never competing with a single generation. When you choose a price point to sell a product at, you also need to consider older gen hardware, for example, I have seen some router makers release new mid-range routers that are priced the same as the current retail price of older gen high end, though none of those routers can compete with the older gen stuff which was top of the line when it came out. If someone were buying a router today, they would get better performance with older but high end for the time hardware.
The same can happen with cameras. Overall, the customer is going to look for whatever can get them the best image quality (especially low light performance) for the least amount of money.
At the moment, the Sony A6000 sells for $590 with a kit lens, thus someone with a $600 budget will still look at that camera.
Compare Sony's 35mm lens to the ancient nikkor 35mm f/1.8 G that that has an MSRP of half the price of the sony lens. The Nikkor offers better overall quality for about half the price.
Indeed, which is worrying as the A6000 has unreliable AF, tiny screen, horrible EVF and clunky customization... Amazing that no review sites noted the multiple clicks needed for any shortcut button.
"They said it was the fastest camera you can buy but it takes horrible pictures"
(Actual quote from a friend that purchased the A6000)
"Always the #1". Thanks for the chuckle, but that list changes daily and is flawed because of Amazon's dorked up categories. (For example the A7 III is not listed as a mirrroless camera and is outselling the A6000). Plus what the sheeple are buying isn't necessarily and indication of the "best" camera.
"I hardly to see other brand Mirrorless "
It's amazing how little I actually see sony given the coverage here. I remember walking around a lake in the alps a few years ago and for the entire walk around the lake I saw one, just one, non canonnikon (this was in the fall when everyone was taking pictures.
@Mike FL: It also has been often discounted, and sales volume doesn't mean it's better than the competition, it might just be more popular, cheaper, benefit from Sony's image in electronics, etc... A camera that is 4 years old will probably outsell cameras that have been replaced in the meantime by a newer model, so it makes it difficult to compare too. I'm not saying it's a bad camera, but to me it has been a go-to camera for people who wanted to go mirrorless with a decent price. But I'd bet a lot of those customer would have bought entry-level DSLRs (which you see a lot in tourist places when they're not using cellphones) and stuck with the kit lens.
Excellent review, MEH conclusion. I think you did a dis-service when only judging the camera and kit lens and glossed over (in judging) ways to leverage your investment medium to long term. Fuji's high end cameras are APCs where as Sony's and Canon's need a change in lenses. IMHO that's not a good investment.
When I started year back in photography I started with a Nikkormat because all the glass that I bought would move along with me when I wanted to move up to a different (read I didn't say better in hindsight on purpose) camera. It's a decision that has served me well.
It's funny that the a6000 does so well considering how much older it is than the other two.
To me that shows that Canon are still delivering disappointing bodies and that Fuji cut the X-T100 capabilities down a little too much compared to the X-T20 and X-T2.
I don't see how the a6000 is long in the tooth when it still does most things better than both of these newer cameras, and the a6300 is only slightly more expensive and a considerable upgrade
if we were comparing cameras with fixed lenses I'd agree, but when we take the range of lenses into account, I don't see how we can praise Sony. They're not investing anything in APS-C anymore and the existing lenses are not all as good as Fuji's. I've bought a Sony E 10-18mm f4, thinking I'd save some weight compared to Fuji 10-24mm. It was a bit cheaper than the Fuji but a lot worse in IQ, seems that there is a lot of sample variation with the lens... it's a shame, on the A5100 it was a great combination. There are a few interesting lenses but not lenses that would make me buy into Sony's APS-C line (again).
"still does most things better than both of these newer cameras,"
But it doesn't. As the review states the interface is slow. I find it a real PITA to use in fast moving situations. Also the AF is easily confused by low light or back lights or just confusing lighting making it dificult to take advantage of the 11fps for sports etc.
I'm writing this as a A6000 owner/user since 2014, how long have you used i larkon?
lukecookphoto, totally agree on the APS-C lens situation. I went a different route, refused to play the "sony lens tax", and purchased the Canon 10-18 that I use on my sony with an adapter. AF is slow but gosh for the price t hat's a great lens.
I agree, Sony lens situation is not so good for E mount with doubts over the future. FE is fine, with lots of third party options and some reasonably priced first party, also adapting lenses with a 1x crop is great. Some killer legacy lenses for dirt cheap out there (50 f/1.4 Minolta MD...).
I wouldn't move to Fuji personally, I tried and found a lot of their lenses to be as expensive as full frame options (also I have issues with X-Trans). I had the 23 f/1.4 Fuji and found it very disappointing, it costs about the same as the Sigma 35 f/1.4 ART and is nowhere near the same level optically.
If I had to use APS-C mirrorless, I would probably put up with X-Trans and stick to using only the Fuji 23 f/2 or 35 f/2 lenses, those are quite nicely priced. I still think the a6000 holds up remarkably well and likely has the best sensor even now.
The main draw for Fuji system is their fantastic APS-C lens line up, especially their prime lens. Lens like 35mm F2 or 23mm F2 are superb and very affordable for new photographers. If you mainly focus on shooting still, Fuji XT100 is really a good starting point.
The main draws of Fuji are ergonomics, jpg colors, and the vintage look of the system.
Technically, Fuji's lenses are not that great. Their F2 primes are heavily corrected in camera, especially the 23 and 35 which makes the rendering very clinical. They are also 2.8 equivalent. Their faster primes have very weak AF and are quite loud.
If Sony would have focused on developing their APS-C lens and made them on par with the Touit 12 and Sonnar 24 then they would be far and away the best APS-C mirrorless on the market. With that being said, you can throw on any of the FE lenses and in doing so, they accomplish this if you don't mind the weight imbalance.
...and i'd like to mention that the Zeiss Touit 12mm F2.8 is a "meh", means so-so lens, not optically really good, or being proud owner of the Zeiss brand, review ages ago was here:
Note: This was tested onto the NEX-7 with 24 MP, 3 out of 5 Stars, optically, onto the 16 MP Fujifilm X-E1, which i do also own, it scored 3 1/2 out of 5 Stars.
So basically, this Lens isn't being good onto 24 MP APS-C sensors - which all current Fujifilm and Sony eMount APS-C Bodies, are - instead, it does make more sense onto the older Sony NEX-6, or Fujifilm X-E1, X-E2 and X-T1/T10 Bodies.
The Sony Zeiss 24mm 1.8 ZA is really nice, but -very- expensive, the Fujifilm equivalent 23mm F1.4 R costs only 50 EUR more, and is F1.4, for instance, and does have a superb built quality, being also optically way good! 3.5 to 4 out of 5 Stars! ;-)
In Germany, the EOS M50 with 15-45 STM Kitlens is currently 669 EUR, whileas the EOS M5 with the same 15-45 STM (also into black) is 699 EUR....so, 30 EUR just more, older digic, but the better Mirrorless after all. And 2 Dials. And absymal battery life.
And the X-T100 looks also great with Kitlens for 699 EUR - which does have the best IQ from the Trio here. And 3 customizable Dials.
Regarding the M50: For 81 euros more (current price is 781) you can get a canon bundle that includes the M50, kit 15-45, the EF to EF-M adapter, and the EF 50mm F1.8.
Not by Amazon, it was a daily based price via geizhals.de - you don't know much about price search engines? ;-) Buy your Canon then and be happy.
The EF to EF-M Adapter adds some bulk, and the 50 STM onto the M5/50 is via APS-C crop here then a ~81.5mm small Telephoto Lens for Portraits, but not a 50mm "NiftyFifty" for general Photography - because its a FF lens, and you do have the Canon APS-C Cropfactor, which is into reality more like 1.62~1.63.....
PS: EOS M5, with 15-45 STM Kitlens, 649.99 EUR, Time: 13:38h, so more than 200 EUR less than on Amazon, gear is too expensive here.
My bad. ;-) But as i said before, the M5 with the Kitlens goes usually for <700 EUR here, and with the newer M50, one saves even more 50 EUR, but i'd go for the X-T100 Fujifilm - because Fuji does have the *best* lens choice for APS-C, ever.
And way high quality lenses, XF is from built quality top. XC is using plastic barrels & even mount, but many others, incl. Canikon, do have plastic barrels, even into their L-Series. ;-)
Looking at the studio image comparisons between the a6000, the M50 and the Fuji. Sharpness, contrast and stills image quality my not be at the top of everyones list, but it is my #1 criteria, #2 is smallest/lightest possible package, #3 low light/high ISO performance. I'm willing to (and do) suffer all other deficiencies. Given that criterial, my choice today would be the Fuji.
Brand loyalty, 4k video, ergonomics (or something else?) are your top criteria - your choice may be different.
dpreview Studio image comparisons is basically a lens test and dpreview uses an ancient adapted, designed for full frame film camera lens on the canon but a relatively modern made-for-mirrorless lens on the fuji.
If it was apples to apples your comment would be relevant but it's not, you are comparing apples to grapes and declaring grapes taste better.
To make the studio test even less relevant, this review is all about "entry level" and the studio tests are not done with entry level glass.
For system camera, DPreview Studio image comparisons is for SENSOR performence such as Noise, DR, and Color depth.
For P&S such as lot of 1" from SONY, CANON, Panasonic, you can use DPreview Studio image comparisons for lens performance such as Sharpness, contrast as lenses are glued to the body,
Mike FL I'm not sure what you are trying to state but it appears that you think that the LENS has nothing to do with the image produced by the SENSOR in the studio test.
The fuji studio tests are shot on a $1000 state of the art, optimized for digital cameras Fujifilm XF 56mm f/1.2 R Lens released in 2014 while the canon M50 studio test is shot using a non-native, adapted $320 lens released a quarter of a century ago for film cameras. If you assert that the two lenses are equivalent than maybe the famed fuji lens system is not as good as I have been led to believe......
So you are basically saying the same thing as I am, "it's the lens" not the camera in response to the original post: "Looking at the studio image comparisons between the a6000, the M50 and the Fuji. Sharpness, contrast and stills image quality my not be at the top of everyones list, but it is my #1 criteria, "
Good to know that the Canon lens is so bad and that its the lens not the camera itself. What 50mm native M-mount native lens should they have used to make it apples and apples?
50mm F1.2 L would be the most comparable. Much closer in price and more modern. Then you would be comparing a $1300 lens to a $1000 lens instead of a $329 lens to a $1000 lens. Nothings perfect but the L would be much more "apples to apples.
"Good to know that the Canon lens is so bad" It is what it is. The canon is an affordable antique with a ton of bang for the buck and for the price delivers fantastic IQ. At only $329 it's probably the cheapest F1.4 prime from any manufacturer? It's also the cheapest lens used in any dpreview studio test. Kudos to canon for providing such value but don't think for $300 you are getting the equivalent of a $1000 lens from any manufacturer.
Love the video. As an A6000 user it gave a lot of info regarding what I would be getting if I upgraded to a Canon or Fuji.
However it's an odd mix. Comparing the actual entry level bottom of the line mirrorless for the 3 manufactureres perhaps would have been more in line with the title of the video. Perhaps do another version closer to xmas of "Low end Entry level" and include:
Sony A5100 $548 Canon M100 $449 Fuji A5 $599
(not sure on the fuji if A2/3 is current they may be more relevant)
Oh and wow. This is the first time that dpreview has stated the A6000 has a "slow interface". Gosh it's a pig compared to my other cameras and one of the things that really irked me that was not highlighted in the original review (along with how small the movie aspect ratio screen is for looking at pictures and the infamous sony lock up).
I understand the value of such comparison but can't help thinking that the best option for beginners on a budget is Micro Four Third. Especially when you think people are coming from Iphone, portability is the key. The lenses selection is also more developed and primes are smaller.
Despite the slight disadvantage on IQ (less resolution and 1/2 stop maybe), the M43 offering seems like better overall performer for less money.
Gx85 is the size of a6000. Oly em5 is almoast the size of ff A7. M43 has only size advantage with longer zoom lenses. If you compare fl and dof equivalents than FE primes are smaller and cheaper. M43 is so overpriced compared to other systems...
I have a GX85 and love it. It's inexpensive and very simple. The 15mm 1.7, 20mm pancake are compact and are highly rated (focus speed in the 20 is slow). The DOF isn't going to be as good, but if you're really going for that- FF is the route to go.
The m43 loses out on dynamic range and high iso pef to apsc. And not much of size/weight gap. And furtherr apsc loses to FF but then you gain weight, size and cost.
The lack of lenses for the Canon M had always been criticized. Until today... now suddenly it's sufficient and equal to the competitors, despite we still have the same 7 native lenses only. I smell Canon paying big bucks...
To really compare these cameras for someone just moving to MILC, it would really help to demonstate how the camera functions with the standard kit lens. Then you would be comparing the Fuji X-T100 with 15-45 lens at $700; the Canon M50 with 15-45 lens at $700; and the Sony a6000 with 16-50 lens at $600. (Or Sony a6300 with 16-50 lens at $900 - all Amazon prices; relative price differences with lens are similar to price differences for body only). As someone who is looking to get a smaller/lighter camera to back up my Pentax DSLR, price/performance with the kit lens is a strong factor. None of the kit lenses has a consistently great review, but the Fuji 15-45 appears (from what I can tell) to be a good step ahead of the others. For someone like me who won't have money to buy better lenses for a good while after buying the body, I'm likely to go with the Fujifilm even despite its other shortcomings.
"As someone who is looking to get a smaller/lighter camera", SONY body (a6000/6300/6500) is the smallest, so does SONY kit zoom is not only the smallest, but also more than decent in the REAL world. Take a look:
The first thing this anti-Canon reviewer does is create a table comparing the M50 with much more expensive cameras and has the cheek to say that the M50 is the more expensive entry-level option. Then he goes on to absolutely slate the M50 (time-and-time again) about it's 'poor' 4k video to such a point that I thought I should consider purchasing one of the others. BUT the a6000 doesn't even have 4k video, and the X-T100) has a stupid 4k at 15p! So what's your case, mr. reviewer?
Anti canon? More Anti Sony. You know? I like this guys and I still like. But, came on, I understand that putting the a6000 vs newer competitors, the a6000 may not be the "beast" that used to be. But still is a very good camera overall. yeah, Mr.reviewers, could you tell me what changed in the last 4 years? 4 years ago, a6000 was a terrific camera, now it isn't?
I quite agree, and I'm sick of these videographers slamming the M50 for it's quirky 4k -I just want a travel camera to use instead of my heavy 7DII and if I do ever want video the M50 seems to be very competent using 1080.
I think it depends on how much weight you give to each. For me, even for my work doing training films 4k is overkill, so video is pretty low on my list. On the other hand it is clearly at the top of the reviewer's list.
So the brand new Canon M50 (without kit lens) is right now $131 more than the four year old Sony A6000, and $169 less than the Sony A6300 ... seems like it could be just as well compared with either.
So ... if you setup the review this much in Canon's favour (comparing the new Canon with a four year old Sony, while ignoring the newer Sony that is arguably just as close to the price range of the Canon as the old Sony, just in the other direction) ..... then .... it shouldn't be a big surprise which camera wins. Thus I really would've liked to see the Sony A6300 mentioned there as well - does it at least come out ahead of the Canon as an option for those prepared to spend a tiny bit more, or is the Canon still ahead (which would be much more impressive than just beating a cheaper + much older Sony)?
Also it will be interesting to see whether Sony drops the price of the A6300 now to be a little closer to the M50 in order to better compete with the new competition ....
I can't wait for CaNikon to get going with their FF mirrorless systems. This will definitely up the ante and bring much needed competition to Sony's hegemony. I want body and lens prices to drop, fast. The status quo is simply unsustainable and in my opinion just ridiculous..
On the other hand you can still buy A7 mk1 with 28-70 for less than 1000$. Still quite capable camera and I guess that digital FF has never been cheaper.
I don't think Canon cares about making a mirrorless camera for photography. I think they would rather reserve that tech for their cinema line which is pretty amazing. Which I am glad they do. I would rather see a C100 Mark III than a mirrorless 5D.
It sounds like dual pixel AF of the Canon is the killer feature for winning this contest. I wonder if other manufacturers will adopt it or if they will leave the mirrorless market to Canon.
No Fuji or Sony or FF mirrorless can beat Canon's mirrorless sales numbers. This comparison motivates why: Canon wins due to better continuous AF and video (including AF). Other features are reasonable -- that seem to be just enough.
You know the a6000 was released more than 4 years ago? You're right about the sales number. But you suggest Sony should copy Canon's Mirorrless... Because of better continuous AF???
Bad canon pancake kitlens. And I thought the sony pancake kitlens was bad. The EF and EFS lenses were much better. But whats the point here? If I do not need this 4K (also a shame) even my old 100D Works better.
Tried 4 kitlenses on the Canon. The 15 45 that is. And they were all abysmal. Totally unusable in real day to day life. IQ was so bad, even the sony and Olympus pancake kitlenses completely thrashed it. AF was mediocre.
EVF? The canon looks so bad. Colors are way off. Contrast is crazy. Almost looks like my oly when set up to that spooky preset. Tried 2 bodies both the same. No way to correct this besides monochrome. And (almost) no review mentions this. Gets me totally disconnected from the scène! Yukk.
And this is coming from me, using Canon gear for 30 years. Now happely using the D80 and lots of glass. Selling the M50.
There is always a lottery with the quality of kitlens you get with a camera. I got a great copy of 15-45 with M50, while I got sh**ty sel1650 with nex6. And guess what - Fujinon 15-45 also gets mixed reviews from buyers.
Colors/contrast in EVF depends mostly on picture style, maybe you had some vivd preset? I find it quite ok. It's not top in the industry, but much better than what's in a6000 or old Panasonic evf's. I never chcecked Oly so can't comment that.
@BRD022. Tried all the settings possible, talked to many friends and users of the M50. NOTHING HELPS. Comparing to all my other EVFs this one is really bad. As I mentioned before only setting to monochrome helps a bit. But you know its 2018. Comparing to my Fuji X30 from 4 years ago, this M50 EVF is just poor. Comparing to my fuji XT10 it is bad. Comparing to my oly OMD EM10ii its bad. Maybe its me, but I dislike it so much the camera is up for sale. And I really, really wanted to like it. Wanted a fast "Canon jpeg" body with small pancake to join my canon DSLRs. Using a lot of gear later and having many lenses at hand to start with completed with the excellent canon adapter I hoped the Tiny M50 was all I needed for casual shooting day to day, NOT so.
Even comparing it to my 100D OVF the M50 loses big time.
If you're saying that 100D ovf is better than the EVF in M50 than we must have held different cameras. I've tried 200D and it's ovf was small and dark.
100D OVF is a joke, way small, being a pentamirror viewfinder, not 100% view, and noting comparable against a real good, bright, all-glass pentaprism, with full view (100%).
So I am not the only one who was shocked by the EVF?! I tried the M50 for some days and wanted to love it. But I realized the EVF is basically as small and bad as the one in my old GX85, which received a lot of criticism because of the bad EVF.
SiSander, my goodness! Shocked?!? Really? I think Canon does not care about EVF, at least not in a camera that is going to be used as a phone (by looking at the screen) or as cheap HD videocamera by YouTubers. Canon got that rightaway, I don't see what the trouble is with the DPR audience.
Thanks guys, but in the XT100 review comment section I had already said that the XT100 was the best advertisement for Canon M. Not that it takes a genius to see that! I think this is mostly Sony's fault for keeping this walking dead (a6000) around and for disregarding entry level pricing and ergonomics for far too long. This Sony kando-BS, and flying out online reviewers to exotic locations only sells cameras to Fro-nos-phottos. Meanwhile, every YouTuber I know that needs a good focusing HD camera is buying a Canon M.
My kingdom for a Nikon M5 or M50! I dearly want to be able to attach my long glass to it when I want to, but also be able to put a kit lens and kit zoom and a little prime (how about a 23 mm f/2?) when I want to go somewhere. Right now my a6300 + limited glass does that, but the lack of inexpensive 35 mm-e prime (that Zony is ridiculously priced) and inability to attach my good long lenses means I'm perpetually looking to switch.
Can't agree more. In the last 6(!) years Sony and the others were not capable of putting a swivel screen and mic input into at least one of their compact 1inch and APS-C /m43 bodies. Not surprisingly, the M50 now is the #1 choice for the non-pro vloggers. Actually after the release of the Olympus E-P1 I wrote a letter to Olympus, begging for a swivel screen and mic input... that was in 2009..
This video was a watershed moment for me, the first time it really hit home: yeah, actually, for a typical consumer wanting to buy an entry level ILC as their first "real" camera, the typical consumer who uses the kit zoom and is unlikely to ever buy a second lens, these APS-C mirrorless models are what they are looking to choose from.
And why wouldn't they? As small and convenient as MFT, with image quality of dSLR.
Winners: Canon, Sony, Fuji. Losers: Pentax, Nikon, Olympus, Panasonic, and ... Canon, again, but on balance Canon comes out the big winner here.
I'm rather uncomfortable with these balanced and fair reviews since these guys joined dpreview. It just doesn't sit well with the vibe of this place. Turning the apple cart over can't be good.
As long as the reviewer doesn't claim to be fair and balanced (everyone believes they are, just ask them) it seems fine to me. It is a little suprising to have a Canon camera come out on top and Sony pull in last but DPR has more than made up for that recently.
Except late Michael Reichmann. MR would just say right away that his review would be subjective, that he would evaluate the camera's fitness for his own shooting style, etc. And then everyone reading or watching his review would have to use their own brains to conclude what is and what isn't relevant to them.
And, if you think about it, that's the most (if not the only) "objective" way of doing a review. Because that mythical "statistically average" photographer just doesn't exist.
Other than the Sony a6000, can anyone think of any manufacturer's camera body that is still in production, after having twice been superseded with later models?
Sony's a6000, announced February 2014, is still in production, despite availability of the a6300 and a6500 (in February and October of 2016, respectively.)
The a6000 may not be the best solution, but it sure is popular - apparently, too popular to discontinue. The legion of a6000 owners might be onto something.
I really like mine, but surely its days are numbered. Sooner or later something will compete so strongly in the same price range and genre, people will stop buying the a6000.
I applaud Sony for keeping their earlier models in production and selling them cheaply after newer versions have been released. Often the older models are perfectly satisfactory, and enable people to buy into a brand at an affordable price.
I also applaud manufacturers such as Fujifilm, that release regular firmware updates that add features or improve functionality, although a lot of it is a cover up for bug fixes that should have been sorted out before the cameras were released.
@ entoman, I don't! The whole thing with the rx100 series and a6000 is just plain silly. Sony has taken a swing-for-the-fences approach and in the process priced itself out of a bunch of markets. I don't know, maybe they want to become the new Leica AND YET, they can get simple things like touchscreen and menus right. This has allowed Canon to move in and out-sell the sh*t out of Sony with decade old tech.
Sony doesn’t discontinue cameras, a6000 will still be in production in 2030 at top dollar pricing. If they genuinely want to make two levels of a6xxx cameras then do so just like they do with the A7x series. A6500 should be the a6000 replacement when the A6700 comes along and then the A6500 should get a 20% price cut. We all know A6700 will be priced within $200 of A73
"The whole thing with the rx100 series and a6000 is just plain silly"
There is huge point to rx100's existence and that point is its size. You may not get that point and it is alright. What RX100 offers in that size no one does.
@zxaar the issue is not about the RX100 existence, but the fact that Sony keeps all models current in their range - 6 of them now -, raising the price with every new model and not lowering much the price of older ones.
Sony can get away with that approach because no other camera offers the same combination of pocketability, speed, lens, EVF and sensor quality, even amongst 1" premium compacts.
Competition is a slightly tougher in the APS-C mirrorless world, it seems.
Mustafa - No I don't think it's because they have a warehouse full of old models that they need to shift. It's a long term sales strategy. It's very cheap for them to continue manufacturing old models because all the tooling etc is in already in existence, and there is a lot of demand for the early models because the prices are lower than for the latest "must have".
Lots of people are happy with older cameras because they can see they are a bargain and they don't want or need the latest specs.
Personally I usually wait until a camera has been on the market for about 6-12 months before buying a current model. By then the price has dropped to a more realistic level and most of the "first batch bugs" have been ironed out of the system.
entoman, that strategy would be awesome if Canon was not around. Unfortunately, Canon has a warehouse full of people which only job is to look for any weak links in the market, and guess what, 6yo cameras with ancient ergonomics are just that. I am surprised you don't get the argument that the stale apple makes all the other apples go bad as well. Sony just did an update with the Rx100VA, they should do the same with the Rx100III and the A6000 and keep 2 or 3 good versions for each model.
@photomedium you are not the only one reading comments here and i leave others to make up their mind about what comes naturally to me and what comes from school.
So far it is clear that you missed the size being main point of rx100 series. This one thing is beyond doubt now.
My first real camera was an a6000 (now I have an a6300 as my side kick to my D850) and even I agree. Fuji's hideous AF performance takes it out of the running so I'd recommend the M50 (and I have to a couple people!).
Yes, I mean this Fuji. I think it's a damned shame - the cute looks, fabulous jpgs (and raw for that matter), EVF, and the selfie screen mean it was a very appealing camera to replace my a6300 or recommend to others. But damned - that was a dumpster fire. I hope Fuji will improve it, because sheesh, what a mess.
I love my a6000 so much, nobody including Sony (with their evolution and increased prices to the camera) have yet been able to pry me away from it. A7III might have - except for the removal of the apps.
I have a lot of experience with the Sony A6000 and A6300, some experience with the M50..... I definitely think the M50 is an overall better camera than the A6000. But the A6000 is 4 years older and $1000 cheaper. Truthfully, the M50 is NOT Canon's entry level mirrorless -- Really, the M100 falls between the A5100 and the A6000. Not the M50 is closer to the A6300, especially at introductory pricing -- the M50 has just had it's price slashed more aggressively.
Now, sorry Sony fanboys -- but the M50 is a better camera than the A6300 even, in quite a few ways. Though the Sony is better in a list of ways as well.
But two things beyond the direct camera comparison: Sony overall has a better lens lineup, including E and FE lenses. Sony has ignored the aps-c lineup for 2 years -- Giving Canon plenty of time to catch up and even take a lead in some ways.
$1000 cheaper? where? especially considering you can get an M50 for under $1000, that means they pay you to take a A6000? makes sense actually because Sony would have to pay me to use a A6000 anyways ;)
For someone who only want to shoot zooms and JPGs the M50 is a better buy than an a6300. The Canon's DPAF is outstanding and with the 18-150 zoom its a very versatile camera.
Despite its odd colors, complicated menus, bad ergonomics, The a6000 is the most complete of the 3, if you shoot raw and do video, AND KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING the a6000 still have better dynamic range, video is WAYYY better than the canon, still it's lens line up is not best but still easier to buy fast primes for E mount than for fuji, and canon M line up is the most limited, yes i'm #TeamSony, now you can drop the poisonous comments :D :)
LKFX - Yes of course end result is what matters. But it's easier and more pleasurable to take good "end results" if you have a camera that is well designed and comfortable to use. The camera that feels good in your hands and operates fluidly is the one that will produce the best results, all else being equal.
For some “end result”, for others who are passionate about photography, the whole experience is what counts, otherwise, I will buy high resolution pictures from any place in the world and Han it on my wall.
Since article is aimed to beginners, really makes the sony look not capable of achieving what it really can do, i know better, not being a fanboy just what I've seen in practice not forum theory
Soul, huh? Maybe that's why I enjoy shooting my A6300s more than my old D750 or D7100. Their "souls" got in the way of shooting. Good thing they were exorcised via eBay.
@rrccad
"' if you shoot raw and do video, AND KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING the a6000'
yeah and if you ignore the title of this article / video entirely."
If that was true, no camera would qualify, as every beginner needs to learn how to use each camera from scratch, no matter the brand. After a while, then you "know what you're doing." On any camera. It's just easier to start with a blank slate (smartphone user) than changing systems, apparently. So in reality, the old "oh no, Sony has too many features for my tinybrain" excuse doesn't come into play, and all brands are on a level playing field for beginners.
actually they are not all on a equal playing field for beginners. I can hand any M to anyone that has used a smartphone, and with minimal fuss they are up and running using the touchscreen much as how they would use a smartphone. as they adjust a setting, they see the response instantaneously on the display. it's a very fluid and interactive way of learning.
You don't have that level of experience in the Sony at all.
Everyone knows you push the shutter button down half way for AF, and fully to shoot. Common to all modern real cameras. That's all you need to know as a beginner. And many people switch smartphones to use the volume or power keys for zooming and/or shooting, so touchscreen controls aren't perfect, even to the smartphone crowd.
Bluebomber - No, it's not that simple - I regularly get beginners who are completely flummoxed by things as simple as a zoom control. Many haven't got the vaguest idea how to work through a menu to set the camera up to correct under/over exposed images, and are totally bewildered if the default AF settings fail to get their subject in focus.
A camera that has good design, intuitive controls and feels comfortable to hold will produce good results much faster than an awkward fiddly camera in the same hands.
One of the values of these dpr videos is that the "feel" and ease of use is much more easily conveyed than in a lengthy written review that a novice wouldn't bother to read anyway.
@entoman is right. The end result is directly influenced by the tools we use. The Sonys are the least inspiring cameras regardless of how capable they are, not fun to use, no sense of ownership. Still, I might get an A7iii to use for work if Nikon won't come up with my dream digital F3HP next month.
@LKFX_House It's been trashed for it's poor 4k capabilities, but got good grades for other things. No one says it's the best camera ever, but as this comparison shows it's really good choice as entry level camera.
@Brd022 that's a fair comment i do own the EOS M1, love the colors and i'm sure the M50 is 6 yrs better than the M1, i see it being more practical with a even a better interface than the a6000, DPAF is the best AF especially for video, Now, i do believe the video codec on the A6000 is FAR SUPERIOR than any canon aps c, dynamic range and low light is better, despite being a 4 yrs older camera, that's my point
Indeed it could. I shoot a Sony and use EF-S lenses with it. That said they work better on a Canon. The Sony can't AF the lenses in as low of light (might be due to on sensor phase detection versus the 80D's dedicated phase sensor) and can't AF the lens in video at all. So there are limitations. Canon's mirrorless cameras work identically to a DSLR in live view using dual pixel autofocus will full compatibility with the DSLR lenses.
What adapter are you using? The Metabones IV and V can video AF any lens it can photo AF. All other adapters, except the Sigma MC-11 with Global Vision lenses, can't. And the AF isn't the best on that adapter (I have both). I haven't hit any odd snags in AF in low light that my native lenses wouldn't also get tripped up on. Hell, I can AF the Sigma 150-600 C + 1.4x TC + 2.0x TC indoors on the Metabones. That's roughly F/18 wide open at 1,680mm! XD Just for kicks, as you're better off just getting up close with a 50. ;)
I have a Metabones IV. For sure the low light difference is down to the fact that my 80D could focus in less light than my a6500. Native lenses have the same low light focus issues. Just pointing out the difference between using the Canon lenses on a Canon versus a Sony. For whatever reason with my 55-250 video AF doesn't work. I've never cared as I don't shoot video with that lens, but just though I'd mention it.
How do you like using the Sigma 150-600? It's an interesting super telephoto option for an a6500.
I believe the 80D's AF is 1EV more sensitive in low light, so it makes sense that it would work better in darker situations. When I run into any issues, I just aim at something in the general area that has contrast.
You need to switch to Advanced Mode for video AF. Twist the adapter off just enough to disengage the contacts, hold the button on the side, and reconnect. You'll be in Advanced Mode (CDAF), and will be able to video AF any lens. Quality of the AF depends on the lens, of course. Dismount and remount the lens again to go back to Green Mode (PDAF). Also, Advanced Mode will give you Eye AF and the missing AF modes that aren't available in Green Mode, with the tradeoff that AF acquisition is a bit slower.
The 150-600 C is probably my favorite lens, right next to the Sigma 8-16. It's VERY sharp for a consumer lens (especially at 150!), the image stabilization is decent, and the bokeh is nice. AF can be slow at the long end if you don't have a good contrast subject. The focus limiter helps a ton by reducing the hunting duration (lens focuses towards first, then away), as does prefocusing by hand to a close enough point. Also, grab the USB dock to unlock fast AF and better OS stabilization. You can also set custom focus limiter positions, and two custom presets for each of those settings.
Sadly, sadly Sony killed the innovative R1. An updated version with 4K video, 20MP sensor and that same, amazing 24-120mm F2.8-4.8 equiv. Zeiss lens with 1mm between rear lens element and sensor. No shutter. No mirror. Just a butterfly-wing quiet chk when the aperture closes. Top mounted just-like-ancient pro cams LCD viewer in addition to standard design lcd viewfinder. Flash sync to 1/2000 sec. Excellent for candid camera. Never updated because it would have killed the Sony interchangeable-lens camera strategy, presumably. 28-page review in DPR!!! https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscr1
An APS-C version could be built (and might be built, and sold for $2000, for all we know). Not with the original R1 lens, though, that won't handle 20MP.
Hasa, i still shoot my R1. It also give some 3D Pop. 10 MP, but the Sensor was way close to the D2X, back into 2005. ISO 100-400 really okay, but i shoot 90% of it only @160-200 ISO, RAW only. Still working & looking fine, 13 years later almost. ;) It's all about the Lens - and the R1 T* 24-120/2.8-4.8 Zoom really is a gem. 14-bit uncompressed RAW Files.
Hi Marc, Yes I was quite happy with my images from Antelope Canyon. I did exposure bracketing and HDR. It was easy to get a stable footing: push the bottom of the camera firmly against a sandstone ledge and frame using the top-mounted LCD. It was very convenient.
There is a "proper peer-aps-c mirrorless comparison" here: https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-m50 The A6300 is the clear winner, assuming people have 4K TV sets. Assuming no interest in video or mirrorless then any Nikon entry-level dslr is same price range w. 18-140mm f 3.5-5.6 if you want just 1 quality lens that is seriously portrait capable at family gatherings. Size and weight and no-mirror-advantage is moot at a family gathering. Best portrait always wins - in my family :-)
If COMPACTNESS and low weight is a must combined with just a kit lens and 4K video, then none of the APS-C cut it. Then there is only the Sony RX100 V. (edited from dpr): It shoots 4K and has class-leading features like S-Log2 for massive dynamic range capture, focus peaking, and zebras, and most notably, 4K video is oversampled from 5K footage. (me: and seriously bests the Canon EOS M50 in 1080p AND 4K video.) ref.: https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-cybershot-dsc-rx100-v-review/7
I think this is another great video from the guys in Calgary.
I will repeat a comment I made once before: I don't think "only beginners shoot JPEGs, before they advance to RAW". I think it's a choice that photographers at all levels make. I have been shooting for over 50 years, and personally want to spend my imaging time using a camera, not sitting in front of a computer, so I shoot JPEG and want a camera that has configurable options for that.
I had quite a large Fuji system, as well as an EOS M5. A couple of months back I used my XT-20 side by side with the M5, with the intent to keep one or the other. Fuji of course has great (if expensive) lenses, and the EF-M system is very limited unless you use the converter with relatively large heavy EF lenses. BUT the in-hand shooting comparison experience was all EOS. The EOS has a great touch-screen setup. Fuji's touch screen was awful. I kept the M5.
So FWIW, ranking EOS ahead of Fuji fits with my own comparison.
I go back and forth between RAW and JPEG, depending on whether I'm planning to edit the photos later. If I'm shooting for pleasure and beauty, I shoot RAW and edit in post. If I'm just shooting to document an experience or to give my family members some nice photos of their kids, I shoot JPEG with the camera set up to give a pleasing result with no or minimal editing. Both have their place.
I’m a a7r3 and a6300 shooter. I think sony should rest a6000 in to its peace, Make the a6300A bottom of the APS-C line as a 4K with AF update to kill Canon and Fuji. Keep A6500 where it is. And Bring out the full touch screen a6700 with Z battery and new AF and swivel screen with new kit lens.
It's in there right at the start as in every other video... Not quite sure that really says anything about M4/3 in the context of this roundup tho, if that's what shadowz is suggesting.
This year, plenty of amazing cameras, lenses, accessories and other products came through our doors. As 2018 winds down, we're highlighting some of our standout products of the year. Check out the winners of the 2018 DPReview Awards!
The Fujifilm X-T100 is the company's least expensive X-series camera to include an electronic viewfinder. It shares most of its guts with the entry-level X-A5, including its hybrid AF system and 24MP sensor and, unfortunately, its 4K/15p video mode.
The Fujifilm X-T100 sits between the entry-level X-A5 and midrange X-T20 and features a 24MP APS-C sensor, eye-catching design and a unique articulating LCD. Our sample gallery was shot with a number of lenses, including the 15-45mm equiv. kit lens and a number of primes.
The new Fujifilm X-T100 includes some impressive features at a budget-friendly price. So, how does this Bayer sensor camera stack up? Chris and Jordan have been shooting it since launch day, and it won't surprise you to find out they have an opinion on the matter. Tune in to this week's episode to find out what they think.
Fujifilm's new X-T100 is an SLR-style mirrorless camera that takes the internals of the X-A5, including phase-detect AF, and adds a fully articulating LCD and high-res OLED viewfinder. The X-T100 is priced at a very reasonable $599/€599 body-only and $699/€699/£619 with a 15-45mm lens.
The Sony a7CR is a high-resolution addition to the company's compact full-frame a7C series. So what did we make of it and where does it leave the a7 IV that it sits just above?
Lomography's LomoChrome '92 is designed to mimic the look of classic drugstore film that used to fill family photo albums. As we discovered, to shoot with it is to embrace the unexpected, from strange color shifts to odd textures and oversized grain.
The LowePro PhotoSport Outdoor is a camera pack for photographers who also need a well-designed daypack for hiking and other outdoor use. If that sounds like you, the PhotoSport Outdoor may be a great choice, but as with any hybrid product, there are a few tradeoffs.
The Sony a7C II refreshes the compact full-frame with a 33MP sensor, the addition of a front control dial, a dedicated 'AI' processor, 10-bit 4K/60p video and more. It's a definite improvement, but it helps if you value its compact form.
Why is the Peak Design Everyday Backpack so widely used? A snazzy design? Exceptional utility? A combination of both? After testing one, it's clear why this bag deserves every accolade it's received.
If you want a compact camera that produces great quality photos without the hassle of changing lenses, there are plenty of choices available for every budget. Read on to find out which portable enthusiast compacts are our favorites.
What's the best camera for travel? Good travel cameras should be small, versatile, and offer good image quality. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for travel and recommended the best.
What’s the best camera for around $2000? This price point gives you access to some of the most all-round capable cameras available. Excellent image quality, powerful autofocus and great looking video are the least you can expect. We've picked the models that really stand out.
Above $2500 cameras tend to become increasingly specialized, making it difficult to select a 'best' option. We case our eye over the options costing more than $2500 but less than $4000, to find the best all-rounder.
Plenty of amazing cameras, lenses, accessories and other products came through our doors in 2023. After careful consideration, healthy debate, and a few heated arguments, we're proud to announce the winners of the 2023 DPReview Awards!
The Sony a7CR is a high-resolution addition to the company's compact full-frame a7C series. So what did we make of it and where does it leave the a7 IV that it sits just above?
Lomography's LomoChrome '92 is designed to mimic the look of classic drugstore film that used to fill family photo albums. As we discovered, to shoot with it is to embrace the unexpected, from strange color shifts to odd textures and oversized grain.
Sony's gridline update adds up to four customizable grids to which users can add color codes and apply transparency masks. It also raises questions about the future of cameras and what it means for feature updates.
At last, people who don’t want to pay a premium for Apple’s Pro models can capture high-resolution 24MP and 48MP photos using the iPhone 15 and iPhone 15 Plus. Is the lack of a dedicated telephoto lens or the ability to capture Raw images worth the savings for photographers?
Kodak's Super 8 Camera is a hybrid of old and new: it shoots movies using Super 8 motion picture film but incorporates digital elements like a flip-out LCD screen and audio capture. Eight years after we first saw the camera at CES 2016, Kodak is finally bringing it to market.
In this supplement to his recently completed 10-part series on landscape photography, photographer Erez Marom explores how the compositional skills developed for capturing landscapes can be extended to other areas of photography.
If you want a compact camera that produces great quality photos without the hassle of changing lenses, there are plenty of choices available for every budget. Read on to find out which portable enthusiast compacts are our favorites.
Sony, the Associated Press and 'Photo Mechanic' maker Camera Bits have run a month-long field-test to evaluate capture authentication and a subsequent workflow.
A color-accurate monitor is an essential piece of the digital creator's toolkit. In this guide, we'll go over everything you need to know about how color calibration actually works so you can understand the process and improve your workflow.
What's the best camera for travel? Good travel cameras should be small, versatile, and offer good image quality. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for travel and recommended the best.
It's that time of year again: When people get up way too early to rush out to big box stores and climb over each other to buy $99 TVs. We've saved you the trip, highlighting the best photo-related deals that can be ordered from the comfort of your own home.
The LowePro PhotoSport Outdoor is a camera pack for photographers who also need a well-designed daypack for hiking and other outdoor use. If that sounds like you, the PhotoSport Outdoor may be a great choice, but as with any hybrid product, there are a few tradeoffs.
Sigma's latest 70-200mm F2.8 offering promises to blend solid build, reasonably light weight and impressive image quality into a relatively affordable package. See how it stacks up in our initial impressions.
The Sony a9 III is heralded as a revolutionary camera, but is all the hype warranted? DPReview's Richard Butler and Dale Baskin break down what's actually new and worth paying attention to.
What’s the best camera for around $2000? This price point gives you access to some of the most all-round capable cameras available. Excellent image quality, powerful autofocus and great looking video are the least you can expect. We've picked the models that really stand out.
DJI's Air 3 and Mini 4 Pro are two of the most popular drones on the market, but there are important differences between the two. In this article, we'll help figure out which of these two popular drones is right for you.
The Sony a7C II refreshes the compact full-frame with a 33MP sensor, the addition of a front control dial, a dedicated 'AI' processor, 10-bit 4K/60p video and more. It's a definite improvement, but it helps if you value its compact form.
Above $2500 cameras tend to become increasingly specialized, making it difficult to select a 'best' option. We case our eye over the options costing more than $2500 but less than $4000, to find the best all-rounder.
The iPhone 15 Pro allows users to capture 48MP photos in HEIF or JPEG format in addition to Raw files, while new lens coatings claim to cut down lens flare. How do the cameras in Apple's latest flagship look in everyday circumstances? Check out our gallery to find out.
Global shutters, that can read all their pixels at exactly the same moment have been the valued by videographers for some time, but this approach has benefits for photographers, too.
We had an opportunity to shoot a pre-production a9 III camera with global shutter following Sony's announcement this week. This gallery includes images captured with the new 300mm F2.8 GM OSS telephoto lens and some high-speed flash photos.
The Sony a9 III is a ground-breaking full-frame mirrorless camera that brings global shutter to deliver unforeseen high-speed capture, flash sync and capabilities not seen before. We delve a little further into the a9III to find out what makes it tick.
The "Big Four" Fashion Weeks – New York, London, Milan and Paris - have wrapped for 2023 but it's never too early to start planning for next season. If shooting Fashion Week is on your bucket list, read on. We'll tell you what opportunities are available for photographers and provide some tips to get you started.
Sony has announced the a9 III: the first full-frame camera to use a global shutter sensor. This gives it the ability to shoot at up to 120 fps with flash sync up to 1/80,000 sec and zero rolling shutter.
Comments