Jorginho: In the Leica part..It is not "Lecia" but "Leica". Typo...
Thanks for pointing that out. It should now be corrected.
Ktrphoto: Is dpreview sponsored by Sony.
Mirrorless is NOT taking over ... at least not in the short term ... although that seems to be what bloggers and reviewers all over the Internet would like you to think, judging by the noise they make about it.
Instead of looking at % increase/decrease in sales look at the actual numbers of DSLRs and Mirrorless sales.
I also don't think we've said that Mirrorless is taking over.
Mirrorless is where the interesting things are going on: advances in areas such as video that DSLRs aren't great at and improvements in areas such as C-AF that DSLRs have traditionally dominated. However, we're not blind to some of the shortcomings that some/many models have, and try to make those clear in our reviews.
However, while you're right that current sales trends don't tell the whole story (because you can't assume those trends will continue forever - it seems likely that DSLR and Mirrorless will co-exist at some level for the foreseeable future, rather than one replacing the other), absolute sales volumes tell you almost nothing useful beyond the fact that DSLRs are pretty entrenched.
No, DPReview is not sponsored by Sony. Let's get that out of the way immediately.
vett93: I agree that Sony Alpha A7II is the best in the group. But why did DPR give it a lower score than Nikon D610 and Canon EOS 6D earlier this year? That review was a bit negative too. What made DPR change its mind?
Scores are based on a point in time, since we can't know what the future will bring. Expectations of what's possible can change, so newer cameras end up being held to higher standards than older ones.
I'd need to go back and look through all the underlying sub-scores to find out where the difference is but, for instance, it's become much harder to get a good score for video in the past year and a half, as newer cameras have raised the bar.
Alpha Photo: ".... Just imagine if you had continued to shoot in standard definition up until the moment that everyone finally had an HD television. Who would want to watch that crunchy, mushy low-resolution content today? ...."
That's where I stopped reading. ALL MOVIES PRIOR TO 2000 where shot on film at much lower resolution. And yes, I (and many other people) love watching that "mushy stuff" - cause it is CONTENT THAT COUNTS, not resolution.
There is nothing worse than un-editied, unstabilized amateur video. I shudder at the thought to watch my friends un-edited, un-shortened, shaky family vacation videos in full 4k, hahahahaha :)
Are you suggesting that pre-2000 movies were shot at less than HD, because that simply isn't the case.
I recently bought a Blu Ray of a movie from 1943 (restored and digitized at 4K) and there's clearly at least 1080's worth of detail there.
mmcfine: I don't understand why the Canon 6D is always underestimated. Maybe it's not feature rich like the Sony but it's sensor is still one of the best.
Before arguing too much about whether it's the best or worst FF sensor, it's probably worth considering how big (or small) the difference is between the best and worst.
PerL: Apparently the system does not mean much or anything in these comparisons. How can the system camera Sony A7 II be considered a better choice than the system cameras Nikon D610 or Canon 6D?And "best overall" when DPReviews user report showed how much the Sony EVF/AF system lags traditional DSLRs in the field for action shooting?
What can I say? It's been a long week.
In fairness, the D610 and 6D aren't great sports cameras either. And there are areas (fast lenses and moving people) where the a7R II will outperform most (all?) DSLRs.
Equally, the limitations imposed by not having an optical viewfinder might be seen as a benefit by anyone wanting to shoot video, since the a7R II doesn't have to abandon its primary AF system (and shoots MUCH better footage, too).
That said, your point about systems as a whole is a fair one. The very nature of systems is that they offer a wide range of possibilities for different people and different types of shooter, so it's impossible for us to decide whether one system provides the lenses or accessories that people might want.
One system having the most lenses isn't necessarily an advantage if all systems offer the lens *you* want. Nor does a large lens lineup help if it's missing the one thing you want, etc.
Hence we leave a lot of decisions about systems to the reader.
Mach Schnell: Where is the Nikon D7200 in this roundup?
I'll have a stern word with the person responsible.
3Bild: Bought a 32GB card that will not let me use 100 MBit codecs/formats. How can one tell what is working or not. I am really confused.What IS working, Sandisk SDSDXPB-032G-A46 or other models?
I will not buy a new card unless I am absolutely sure it will work and be able to us all of the cameras features.
The card needs to be SDXC with speed rating of U3.
The one you suggested is marked SDHC, so won't work (it's about file system, not speed).
wus: It is certainly not by chance that comments directly in the article are not possible. Otherwise, lots reasons what else "you need to know" about 4K Video would quickly reveal that this whole article is more industry marketing talk than any seriously balanced content. Sorry Barney, it lacks several fundamentals that one should know about 4K.
Let's have a look at what the abbreviation "HD" stands for: High Definition. In the past 5 years or so, when 1080p became the de facto standard for video shooting, we have learned that for any content with movements, it is better to shoot at 50 or 60p ("HFR", or high frame rate), because at 24, 25 or 30p, movements will look either blurred, or flicker (if shot with short exposure times).
When viewing 4K content on 4K displays, from the short distances where you actually have an advantage from the higher pixel count, this blurring or flickering becomes even much more visible, and very annoying.
@wus - Let me try to condense your posts down a little: our article must be industry marketing because it doesn't include an at-length discussion of your own opinions about frame rate?
There are plenty of people who [don't prefer HFR](http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2012/12/19/the-hobbit-an-unexpected-masterclass-in-why-hfr-fails-and-a-reaffirmation-of-what-makes-cinema-magical/), so I think we can be excused not wading-in on that debate in a primer.
I also think accusations of pushing a marketing agenda would have been stronger if we had included much about 3D, since I've always heard more interest in the subject from manufacturers of TVs than I have from end users.
Yes. It's an indicator of the manufacturer's ambitions for the model and where it sits, relative to its peers.
Whatever basis you select and wherever you draw the lines, you always have one more camera that you could have included/excluded.
electrophoto: @DPreviewHow can you "forget" the D750?Can be found for approx. 1600$ (new) these days - even on Amazon for under 2000$.It's an DSLR, it's full frame, has an excellent feature set, semi-pro body and high IQ... would compete lovely with Sony's offering or Canons..why include the D610 - when for not much more you can get something better?
electrophoto: We could have moved the X-T1, E-M1 into a lower category, for instance, but I'd comfortably put money that there would then be complaints that the NX1 wasn't also moved down. Wherever you draw the lines, there's always another camera that you've just included/excluded.
We haven't forgotten the D750 and it will be covered. You should be able to read the page about the D750 and learn just as much about it as if it'd been included here. And look at it this way: is there a difference between calling out a camera for being the bargain in an expensive category, vs. highlighting it being the best specified but most expensive in the one below?
A stand-out camera should still stand out.
Bjrn SWE: Intresting that a camera rated 82% is considered better than a cam at 87.
@Bill Ferris - that's a good gag but, given that review is nearly two years old, it shouldn't be surprising to find that the world has moved on.
Review scores (and awards) are based on a point in time. Until we get our TARDIS working again, they have to be.
In previous years we considered MSRP, current street price and feature set and still got told that everything we were doing was wrong.
Street prices vary significantly over time and between countries, which makes them rather too slippery to use as the primary means of separating these classes, especially as these roundups are designed to be useful for several months. MSRP is merely used as a proxy to roughly work out where the manufacturers believe they fit into the market.
No matter how you do it, the cameras at edges of any group will be contentious.
Stephen787: how is it possible that leica 28mm lens can trash sony 35mm lens with 42 Mpixels. Either the Leica lens is fantastic or this zeiss lens is not sharp enough for the sensor. did the new variable LPF killed the sharpness. This is a great disappointment. I have zero interest in this camera now.
@Chris Crevasse - Rishi didn't suggest focusing and recomposing: he suggested composing and then selecting and off-centre focus point. This would force the camera to find optimal focus for the off-centre position.
And yes, manually selecting off-centre points can be a a bit annoying with the RX1. We'll be looking at whether then RX1R II's lock-on focus and AF-C will allow you to specify the focus subject, recompose **and** have the camera re-focus on a now off-centre point.
Ultimately, you're only likely to see this curvature of field if you shoot flat subjects at relatively close distances with high-contrast detail in the corners. Most real-world situations are less demanding and the level of detail being argued over is irrelevant.
Raist3d: Some people (including dpreview I believe) are saying the Leica Q has in raw lens corrections and the Sony doesn't. But I can't see how those lens correction can make up for this differences. Lens correction are more about barrel distortion/vignette/ca's and not usually sharpness anyway. And not to this different degree.
That said the imaging resource shots sure look much better.
We're not saying that Leica is correcting curvature of field with digital corrections. It's far more likely that the added complexity (and size) of the Leica's optical design is helping offer better correction of curvature of field.
However, bear in mind that an RX1 shot focused off-centre is likely to yield much better off-centre sharpness (with slightly improved corners and a slight drop in central sharpness, assuming a [simple field curvature](https://photographylife.com/what-is-field-curvature)).
With an MSRP of $1199.95, [it was in this roundup](http://www.dpreview.com/articles/4086489629/2015-roundup-interchangeable-lens-cameras-800-1200/11).
Herp Photos: Fuji is killing themselves by having a body only MSRP of 1299 on the X-T1 yet they never sell it for that much due to Manufacturer rebates. The X-T1 belongs in this category from a pricing perspective as does the E-M1. Their steep MSRP and then discount often strategy is hurting them in these comparisons which only look at MSRP.
There will always be some edge cases. In previous years we've considered feature-set and rough street price, as well as MSRP but there were some outraged responses on some of the borderline calls we made.
Ultimately, it should be possible to read the individual pages for those cameras, [now we've published that roundup](http://www.dpreview.com/articles/0625966972/), to help you understand where they fit in.
Skinnerrr: Why on earth would you not include Fujifilm here?!
The X-T1's MSRP is $1299, so it's in the next roundup.