Nikon DSLR cameras dominate four out of five “Best for any budget” buying guides at Dpreview

The "dying" Nikon DSLR cameras dominate the top spots at four out of five "Best for any budget" buying guides at Dpreview. 12 different cameras were considered for each category. The only exception where Nikon did not get the top spot was the under $500 category where the Nikon 1 J5 was #6 and the Nikon D3400 was #7:

  • Best camera under $1,000: Nikon D5600 ($646.95 after $50 off)
  • Best camera under $1,500: Nikon D7500 ($1,246.95)
  • Best camera under $2,000: Nikon D750 ($1,496.95 with free grip)
  • Best camera over $2,000: Nikon D850 ($3,296.95, tie with Sony A7RIII)

Via Dpreview

Many of the Black Friday deals are still live
This entry was posted in Nikon D5600, Nikon D750, Nikon D7500, Nikon D850 and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • Davidvictormeldrew Idontbeliev

    Excellent one Nikon….

  • Nikkor300f4VR

    As expected..

    • Yes, I wonder why not a single mirrorless camera made it to the top spot. I think they are waiting for Nikon to release one 🙂

      • RC Jenkins

        Mirrorless cameras did make it to 2 (out of 5) top spots:
        ::Canon EOS M100 = under $500
        ::Sony A7RIII = over $2000 (tied with D850)

        • If mirrorless is the future and if mirrorless will be killing DSLRs, I expect them to do much better. Mirrorless has been around for almost 10 years, how long more do we have to wait?

          • Luca Motz

            About 1 to 2 years

            • I’ve been hearing this for the past 10 years.

            • Luca Motz

              Well the people who said that are dumb. But with the A9 and the A7R2/3 we now have cameras that are mostly on par with the corresponding DSLRs from Canon and Nikon. Better at some stuff worse at other. Nikon and Canon will come out with high end mirrorless cameras in the next 1-2 years

            • Nikon should definitely have a high-end mirrorless solution, there is no discussion here. I just don’t see how they will kill their DSLR lines and replace them all with mirrorless. In 10-15 years, maybe bit not sooner. Especially if they come out with a new mirrorless mount. I am not going to spend 1,000s of dollars to buy new mirrorless lenses and I am not using an adapter. Trust me, a lot of people are in the same situation. I do have a small mirrorless system (Leica) that I use to traveling and vacations and I am all set for a very long time. If Nikon comes up with a F-mount mirrorless – I will consider it, but if it is a new mount, I am not interested – the $$$ numbers just don’t add up for me.

            • A. F.O.

              You have just spoken for thousands of us…and this sentence it is not a rumor 🙂
              For me will be DSLR for more 6 years at least.

            • I agree Peter. I have the following that are in my “currently in use” collection (not retired):

              NIKKOR 15mm f/3.5 AIS
              NIKKOR 20mm f/2.8 AIS
              NIKKOR 24mm f/2.8 AIS
              PC-E NIKKOR 24mm f/3.5D ED
              NIKKOR 28mm f/2.8 AIS
              AF-S NIKKOR 28mm f/1.4E
              Voigtlander 40mm f/2.0 Ultron SL II
              NIKKOR 50mm f/1.2 AIS
              AF-S NIKKOR 50mm f/1.4G
              AF-S NIKKOR 58mm f/1.4G
              AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f/2.8
              AF-S NIKKOR 85mm f/1.4G
              NIKKOR 100mm f/2.8 Series E
              AF-S NIKKOR 105mm f/1.4E
              AF DC-NIKKOR 135mm f/2D
              AF Micro-Nikkor 200mm f/4D IF-ED
              AF-S NIKKOR 400mm f/2.8E
              AF-S Fisheye Nikkor 8-15mm 1:3.5-4.5E ED
              AF-S NIKKOR 14-24mm f/2.8G ED
              AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8E ED VR

              So if Nikon screws up the f-mount, I will be pissed.

            • Exactly, what is the chance that you will sell all of those and go mirrorless… no way. All of those lenses work just fine and the D850 is still one of the best cameras money can buy today and it will be for a while. For people who buy their first camera, mirrorless could make sense, this is why Nikon should provide this option, but DSLRs will be here for a long time.

            • No chance I will sell that.

              If Nikon came out with a D950 mirrorless with focus points from edge to edge but otherwise identical to the D850 including fitting the f-mount, I would be all over that. It would be a good complement to my D850.

              But I am nervous……..

            • No need to be, this is the result of mass panic created by a few people online, the end is not near 🙂

            • RC Jenkins

              See my response above. No reason to sell them if Nikon changes mount on a mirrorless. I don’t plan to sell my F-mount lenses when Nikon releases a new mount. I’ll buy a handful of the mirrorless-specific, differentiated lenses that I need (like pancakes, faster/wider lenses, or lenses that project a larger image circle for IBIS) and use my existing lenses for anything else–on both cameras.

            • I hope you are right….

            • RC Jenkins

              Me too 🙂

              I’ll put it to you this way: Nikon cannot abandon F-mount lenses.

              F-mount lenses are designed for SLRs. They will not perform on any mirrorless exactly as they’ll perform on DSLRs.

              Even on an F-mount mirrorless, they’ll be being adapted to the way mirrorless cameras autofocus. The “adapter” is either optional (removable / good for choice) or mandatory (built-in to the camera).

              The primary reason for any performance differences is that mirrorless cameras inherently AF differently. Nothing to do with an adapter.

              Want a proof point? I linked this in another post, but look here:

              “As noted in the introduction, the EOS M5 is the first M-series camera to fully realize the potential of adapted EF and EF-S lenses – they behave almost exactly as they would on the 80D in Live View, meaning they’re far more usable and reliable than with the older ‘Hybrid CMOS AF III’ system used on the M3 and M10.”

              If you’re not familiar:
              Canon M5 = mirrorless camera, mirrorless “EF-M” mount
              Canon “EF” = DSLR lens = Nikon “FX”
              Canon “EF-S” = DSLR lens = Nikon “DX”
              80D = Canon DSLR

              In other words, they took Canon DSLR lenses (think “F-mount), used an adapter for the new mirrorless mount, and compared performance between the mirrorless camera and the DSLR in live view. The performance was almost identical.

              Nikon should be able to produce something similar–particularly for AF-S & later lenses.

            • Ivan Kutsarov

              Until you realise you are not using your DSLR stuff anymore. Then dump it in a blink of an eye.

            • RC Jenkins

              Why wouldn’t you use these perfectly good lenses or why would you replace them with something that does something identical?

            • RC Jenkins

              I also have a lot of those same lenses. So why wouldn’t you be able to use them with an adapter on mirrorless?

              For example, your:
              NIKKOR 15mm f/3.5 AIS
              NIKKOR 20mm f/2.8 AIS
              NIKKOR 24mm f/2.8 AIS
              PC-E NIKKOR 24mm f/3.5D ED
              NIKKOR 28mm f/2.8 AIS
              Voigtlander 40mm f/2.0 Ultron SL II
              NIKKOR 50mm f/1.2 AIS
              AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f/2.8
              NIKKOR 100mm f/2.8 Series E

              Are likely manually focused. Lenses like these (my AIS lenses & Voigtlander SL II’s) work better with my mirrorless cameras than with my DSLRs, despite using adapters. I mount my MF Nikon lenses on my Fuji mirrorless all the time–and the in-viewfinder focusing aids work so much better than my split-prism focusing screen + confirm dot on my Nikon DSLR. Some adapters can even turn these manual-focus lenses into AF lenses by moving the lens back & forth.

              For the AF lenses you listed, there is no reason that an adapter will make them work any worse than a mirrorless F-mount camera than a different mount + adapter. Don’t confuse inter-manufacturer adapter performance with intra-manufacturer adapter performance. These lenses were designed for DSLR PDAF. Once you go mirrorless (adapter or not), they won’t perform exactly as they do on DSLRs anyways.

              Nikon will remove many of their limitations by changing the mount while maintaining compatibility with an adapter.

            • I think that you cannot get the same performance when using an adapter. Obviously we don’t know that because we don’t even know what the mirrorless system will be, but it’s just my speculation.

            • RC Jenkins

              What’s that speculation based on?

              Remember, you can’t compare the lenses to being mounted on a DSLR because that’s a different scenario.

              You’d need to compare an F-mount mirrorless vs. adapted mirrorless. And these should be the same. Because the performance (presumably AF performance) will be almost entirely due to the differences in AF mechanisms between DSLR and mirrorless, not adapter vs. not.

            • PhilK

              I agree, but there is definitely one thing that an adapter will always compromise on, and that is size/weight. An adapted lens will always be larger/heavier than using that same lens on a native body.

            • RC Jenkins

              Not if the body itself takes includes that size / weight…which it often does. 🙂

              The few grams and mm of a single adapter without any optical elements is negligible for most lenses as far as I’m concerned. Exceptions would be the smallest lenses, which are typically normal primes. These are incidentally the first mirrorless-specific lenses I’d probably buy. There’s always a point of diminishing returns for larger lenses.

            • PhilK

              Yes, the bodies for SLR lenses are going to be deeper, but I’m talking about “how much size/weight will this lens add to my camera bag” sorts of calculations.

              Would you leave the adapters attached to the back of lenses you use frequently? Because otherwise, when you attach a native lens, you have two things to remove and store before you can mount it.

              And yes, one of the reasons one might want a new native MILC mount is so you you can get some nice small pancake walkaround lenses. (Without all the baggage of in-lens VR, etc)

            • Based on existing adapters.

            • RC Jenkins

              Existing intra-manufacturer adapters? Or across manufacturers? Because these are very different scenarios, and comparing across manufacturers is irrelevant.

              Nikon would be adapting to its own system that it knows everything about, not reverse engineering or using partial information to determine communication.

              The only reference point I can think of that can meet the above criteria is from Canon.


              “As noted in the introduction, the EOS M5 is the first M-series camera to fully realize the potential of adapted EF and EF-S lenses – they behave almost exactly as they would on the 80D in Live View, meaning they’re far more usable and reliable than with the older ‘Hybrid CMOS AF III’ system used on the M3 and M10.”

              Again, this is not an adapter vs. no adapter thing.

              Instead, it’s a DSLR vs. mirrorless thing–or more precisely, a difference in how DSLRs autofocus vs. how mirrorless cameras autofocus thing. And that’s based on the way the lenses themselves were designed.

            • PhilK

              I think if you design the adapter into the system from the beginning, and you have top engineering expertise (as Nikon does), you should be able to significantly improve the performance/compatibility over “generic” adapters.

              When I first started doing photography, teleconverters were widely reviled as a cheapo alternative to a “real” longer lens. Even worse than teleconverters were things stuck onto the front of lenses to increase their magnification.

              But camera/lens makers have been producing bespoke front-lens-group-interchangeable lenses with good performance at least since the 1950s (eg Schneider view-camera lenses, cameras with front-lens-group interchangeability like some Zeiss Ikon and Kodak Retina models, and later some famous Nikon and Leitz tele lenses comprised of a “focusing unit” combined with different front sections), as well as ultra-high-performance telephoto lenses with dedicated teleconverters (I think Canon started this modern trend) which maintained very high image quality.

            • Piooof

              I’m not that sure either. For screw-motorized AF, the adapter should contain a strong mechanical motor, with proper electrical power, or it’ll suck. For the rest of of the AF(S,P) lenses, I don’t see why an adapter wouldn’t be transparent; it’ll probably work like an extension tube with some intricate rewiring inside. Same for manual Nikkors, it should work like the F-mount you find on any current body, neither better nor worse.
              It is clear that by going mirrorless Nikon will reduce space between mount and sensor, not to have a slimmer body but to simplify the design & construction of lenses (esp. for high pixel count sensors). So you’ll need anyway an extension tube for old lenses. From that point on, they would be stupid not to introduce a new mount, hopefully good for the next 50 years.

            • RC Jenkins

              Yes, this analogy of extension tube (or teleconverter) is largely correct, with a small (but important) caveat.

              DSLR AF lenses are designed around highly separated phase-detect AF, which can be more precise for just the PDAF piece. Mirrorless cameras (almost?) always use a combination of less-precise phase detect for the ‘general’ focus, and then fine-tune with some intelligence–usually CDAF & sometimes supplemented by distance information to reduce iterations & time. This can effect the feedback loop between the camera and lens. ie. how quickly and precisely is the lens prepared to go past the focus distance, and then turn around and come back into the point of focus?

              However, this is a fundamental mirrorless ‘problem’–and it’s the same whether the lens needs an adapter or not. There is an inherent difference between how DSLRs & mirrorless cameras AF; but there is not an inherent difference between how an adapted/extended vs. non-adapted lens communicates.

              Maybe Nikon should just call the adapter an “extender” to prevent people from needlessly freaking out.

            • Ivan Kutsarov

              Native lenses performance is usually much better than with adapted ones. Been there done that with Sony A7 and Olympus mirrorless systems. Adapted anything I could buy from eBay at a reasonable price I owned some serious rare vintage stuff, Minolta’s Rokkor’s 58mm f1.2 and 100mm f2, almost every Konica Hexanon AR lens, Canon’s FD 300mm f2.8 and 85 f1.2, Takumars, you name it! You will quickly realize it when start playing with this kind of stuff. Sold everything and never looked back as I am not a super antique lover and what I value is great practical experience and fun shooting. And modern lens technologies are great fun! Adapters are a chore.

            • RC Jenkins

              What does this have to do with a functional intra-manufacturer adapter? One could make the same argument that native lenses perform worse than adapted lenses because the 2013’s Panasonic GM1 has poor autofocus, while a Canon M5 with EOS adapter AF works well.

              You’re comparing the cheapest 3rd party, non-A-mount lenses, using CDAF adapters and jumping to a conclusion. Not an appropriate analogy.

              For a relevant comparison, you’d need to use a Sony A-mount lens via LA-EA3 on an A7II or later, after Sony’s firmware update that specifically added support for PDAF.

              The difference is night & day:

              An adapter + A7 performs similarly to the A6000. No PDAF support with the LA-EA3. And a different manufacturer’s mount (eg. Canon) throws a completely irrelevant variable into the mix.

              You can also see what Canon did with their EOS-M adapters in cameras like the M5.
              “As noted in the introduction, the EOS M5 is the first M-series camera to fully realize the potential of adapted EF and EF-S lenses – they behave almost exactly as they would on the 80D in Live View, meaning they’re far more usable and reliable than with the older ‘Hybrid CMOS AF III’ system used on the M3 and M10.”

            • And regarding vacations. I don’t go on vacations to goof off and look at the sites. I go to capture images. So I bring the best I have got including a tripod.

            • You see, I have kids – I cannot do that 🙂

            • My 11 year old boy is my Sherpa. The 21 month old boy and 1 month old daughter stay with the grandparents. Not old enough to be Sherpas yet………

            • PhilK

              The problem of leading with F-mount mirrorless is that using that mount natively will undermine the product’s overall market competitiveness from launch time. Nikon cannot afford to invest the kind of time/money required to produce a prosumer MILC and then have it end up a niche product like the Df was. It would hurt them badly.

              What Nikon desperately needs to do with a new mirrorless product line is win a substantial amount of new Nikon customers including people who have never used Nikon as well as people who previously abandoned it. Just pandering to that shrinking group of “Nikon lifers” with native F-mount in the beginning is probably not a good strategic choice. Perhaps a later model with dedicated F-mount would be an option, though. And of course, adapters.

              As for timeframes – your “10-15 years” prediction is pretty unrealistic given the speed which technology moves these days. I’d say Nikon will have to move even their flagship cameras to mirrorless within 5 years or so, 7 years max. By that time a camera that can only shoot 11FPS will look positively antique when the rest of the competition is doing 50FPS.

              Edit: Re: 50FPS and so on – if flash storage throughput is an issue, make an add-on grip that has SO-DIMM slots in it for add-on fast RAM cache buffer for people who wanna shoot crazy high-speed bursts. 😉

            • The only advantage I really see is the small form factor with certain lenses. People argue that the optical viewfinder on a DSLR is complicated and therefore expensive. But an electronic viewfinder isn’t? The prices that are being charged for electronic viewfinder equipped mirrorless cameras suggest that the electronic viewfinder cannot compete with an OVF. I think that all the other advantages of mirrorless can be fixed with a good liveview implementation.

            • RC Jenkins

              SLR OVFs are very complicated mechanically.

              Let’s think about what they have:
              ::Primary pellicle mirror to reflect light up, onto the:
              ::Very fine textured focusing screen, which then reflects through the
              ::Dedicated metering sensor, and the
              ::Glass pentaprism and through the
              ::Glass viewfinder.
              (All of which are very precisely aligned, at the sub-millimeter level. Try replacing a focusing screen, and you’ll see how precise.)

              Of course, that’s just the top half. There’s also the bottom half, where:
              ::Some of the light goes through the primary pellicle mirror and goes
              ::To the secondary mirror, where it is reflected downward and split into phases toward the
              ::Dedicated AF module

              And of course, that’s before any movement, and barring light leaks through the viewfinder and other openings, which also have to be accounted for.
              In operation, the mirror slaps up and synchronises with the shutter opening and closing–particularly in continuous shooting.

              It’s enough of a cost where Nikon uses things like pentamirrors instead of pentaprisms in lower end models and less precise synchronization.

              A mirrorless has none of the above. Instead, there’s just a small LCD screen in a small glass viewfinder–which is a much smaller cost than all of the above.

              There are also other advantages implied. For example, because of the physical constraints (mirror sizes in the mirror cavity), we won’t see edge-to-edge PDAF in full-frame DSLR OVF operation. You also have the ability to get higher shutter speeds since you don’t have to synchronize with the mirror movement. And no light leaks from the viewfinder. No disconnect between the AF module & sensor. No disconnect between the metering module & sensor. Etc.

            • PhilK

              There are a variety of advantages. Sticking with the F-mount all these years has had its pluses and minuses. These days, the minuses are starting to overwhelm the pluses.

              Pluses: compatibility with old lenses

              Minuses: reduced technological flexibility, reduced performance.

              Designing a new lens mount for Nikon MILC has the following potential advantages:

              Smaller external size

              Larger throat (long-time limitation of F-mount compared to modern competitors, constrains super-fast lens design)

              Optimization for MILC AF

              Optimization for MILC image stabilisation (in-body or hybrid)

              Optimization for body/sensor characteristics (eg shorter back-focus requires light hitting edges of sensor to travel at an acute angle, lenses can be optimized for this)

              Optimization for electronic diaphragm – no compromises need be made to work with old mechanical-diaphragm-based bodies, eg sensor for mechanical diaphragm actuator

              Probably some other things I’m not thinking of right now

            • PhilK

              Re: my previous response – mind you, I’m not suggesting giving up compatibility with F-mount, I still think that’s very important for Nikon.

              But it can be done either with good-quality adapters, some sort of hybrid body design, or building some models with native mirrorless mount and others with native F-mount.

            • I hope that they do produce a mirrorless line with a new mount and that it should be DX or a little larger and compatible with FX with an adapter. A square sensor would be innovative. They should also do mirrorless on the FX mount. And when sensor prices decline a bit more, they should do mirrorless in serious medium format.

              No reason that they can’t do all.

            • PhilK

              I think a DX model is a good option, but it’s a far more competitive market than FF MILC right now. Nikon only has Sony and Canon to compete with in FF MILC at the moment.

              Re: aspect ratio of the sensor, I think Nikon’s 35mm history would likely motivate them to stick with the FX format which they have invested so much in. (And which would provide them with a gigantic pool of compatible lenses to use right away – a serious consideration when launching a new format of any kind.) But if some people want square aspect-ratio, give them an option to chop off the sides of the image and what they see in the viewfinder. Easy-peasy for a mirrorless digital camera. 😉

            • Allen_Wentz

              That edit of yours is actually a great travel camera idea. Build a good ergonomics small-sized body (if that is possible…) and offload added features to
              1) a carefully designed (i.e. not simply a stupid bolt-on) grip and
              2) an add-on hot shoe flash unit.

              That way a smallish 3 fps body could always live in one’s pocket while the flash/grip modules could add some or all of the following:
              – High frame rate
              – Fast AF capability
              – Backup camera card
              – Big buffer capacity
              – Flash
              – Optical viewfinder
              – Battery capacity
              – Better grip

              Make it ILC with an available pancake zoom and Nikon could rule the compact space. If the compact space even still exists by the time such a beauty was produced…

            • Without a new mount there will not be much benefit for a nikon made mirrorles system the only benefit will be an old lens colection. With a new well designed mount you can still make an adapter and use old lenses and you can design better smaller and faster dedicated lenses. The thing that nikon needs to do is tu make the solution in such way to insure their old consumers that they can use they old glas and benefit from it and show the new generation of consumers they have also a newer more compact solution that works as good or better then the old solution still having the option tu use both. I think that this allways was such a big problem to develope thay did not relised a larger sensor solution.

            • Luis Augusto Fretes Cuevas

              Mirrorless cameras will be superior (arguably already are).

              1. Autofocus has reached parity on high-end Sony cameras
              2. EVFs are vastly superior to OVFs
              3. Mirrorless are far better for video
              4. The bodies are inherently more compact

              There’s a lot of inertia on slow hardware markets, especially on this one since people have invested thousands of dollars on glass (and because there are almost no standards or regulations, people are trapped with the current companies and their shitty software practices), that’s the main reason DSLRs are still outselling mirrorless cameras.

              For example, Samsung didn’t have the patience to stay in the game, because their cameras were very, very good and so were their lenses.

              Camera manufacturers are dying because they’re slow, clunky and inefficient. Moreover, whichever company competently executes a strategy as a software company first, hardware second, will destroy the others long term.

            • Who cares about the cameras? Well I do a bit. But all they are is photon detectors. It is the lenses that matter. Any greatest camera today is mediocre in a little over five, but the lenses are still relevant. I have a half dozen that have been in production for more than 20 years and I bought them brand new in the last 3 or 4. All Nikon……

              The only manufacturer that can hold a candle to Nikon’s lens selection at that level of quality is Canon.

            • Allen_Wentz

              NONSENSE. I care about the cameras. Sorry for shouting, but I really strongly disagree. Camera bodies are hella more than “photon detectors.”

              Bodies allow one to “get the shot” and sensors make the capture. Just compare a D1 or my D2x or my D3 to a D5 or D850 using identical glass and see the huge difference in capture competence that a D5/D850 provides.

            • What I said was “literal nonsense”. But, if I took myself literally, I would buy a used D3, not a D850 (which I upgraded my D800 with). But here is the thing. If I was a Canon shooter, I would not be losing sleep over how superior Nikon is to Canon. I would continue to buy great Canon glass, knowing that eventually the cameras would catch up.

              I don’t think one can say that about Sony……

            • Michael Jin

              This is only partially true. Camera bodies today play much more of a role than they did back in the film days when they were just film boxes. A huge part of your image quality is attributed to the sensor that is detecting those photons, so the old adage that it’s the lenses that really matter no longer holds true.

              Sure, you can probably use the lenses you have now on a camera released a decade from now, but will it be able to resolve the detail required for that new sensor? I have a bunch of older AF-D lenses that I just won’t use with my D810 (and certainly not with my D850 whenever that decides to come) because their flaws have just become really apparent now that our MP counts are where they are. I’ll still occasionally pull out one to use for a particular feel (primarily my 135mm DC lens), but for general photography they might as well be useless unless I enjoy not-quite-sharp images on my 4K screen. The problem will only get worse with 8K screens and higher MP sensors.

              So yes, lenses also become obsolete in the face of newer technology because when they are designed, they are only designed to resolve for the technology at the time. However, neither becomes irrelevant in a span of 5 years. I know several people still doing professional work with older cameras. Hell, one guy I know is still making a living with his Nikon D2X, which still boggles my mind every time I see him with his camera.

            • bobgrant

              I have worked with several mirrorless, including the Sony. The AF is not on par with a D5 and the overall handling of the camera is SERIOUSLY terrible. I don’t know a single professional who finds them comfortable in the hand. Smaller and lighter also has to have good ergonomics for it to matter. Hobbyists may walk around with a light camera in a bag, but a professional holding a camera for hours is a lot happier with a properly designed D850 grip vs, the hard edges of the Sony stuff. I expect Nikon will do much better with their mirrorless and this is all good evolution. But we just aren’t there yet.

            • Duncan Dimanche

              Ummm yes and no.
              The a7rii and iii are stars eater (to start with no it’s a no go for astro)

              The body size is great but the lenses are massive and heavy.

              I have shot with the a7rii and the sony 85mm g master with the eye tracking and it failed to nail focus many a time.

              So it’s still not a perfect system. But yes I would love to see a new nikon mirrorless (with a new mount IF the adaptor let’s you fully use the old nikon F mount with no compromises


            • A. F.O.


            • bobgrant

              1 to 2 years? People have been saying that for years and DSLRs keep getting better and better. I just ordered a D850, but my older DSLR’s are still professional tools. There’s no mirrorless solution to replace the gear I use. We’re a LONG way from seeing DSLR’s vanish and I’m shooting tomorrow. When mirrorless is better than a D850 and doesn’t mean I have to throw away 15K in lenses, I’ll buy one.

            • I agree

          • RC Jenkins

            huh? That’s not what I was responding to. I’m just correcting the statement: “not a single mirrorless camera made it to the top spot,” when almost half of the top spots were occupied by mirrorless cameras.

            Are you asking how much longer we have to wait for DPReview to rate mirrorless cameras specifically in their top spot per price category? Because these do not relate to market share, use cases, etc.

            As we know, there is no “one-size fits all.” So let’s go through their list by pricing category. This is answering the question: “I have $## much money. What should I buy?”

            ::Under $500:
            Winner: Mirrorless
            Runners up: 8/10 = mirrorless

            ::Under $1000:
            Winner: DSLR
            Runners up: 7/12 = mirrorless

            ::Under $1500:
            Winner: DSLR
            Runners up: 6/10 = mirrorless (counting A77 as DSLR)

            ::Under $2000:
            Winner: DSLR
            Runners up: 7/10 = mirrorless

            ::Over $2000:
            Winner: DSLR
            Runners up: 5/7 = mirrorless

            Seems like mirrorless cameras are doing pretty respectably–again for this question that’s driven by pricing. In their use-case driven buying guides, mirrorless cameras similarly seem to do very well.

            If DSLRs are clearly better than mirrorless cameras, why aren’t SLRs (which have existed as an incumbent de facto standard) the only cameras we see on these lists?

            You mentioned that mirrorless has been around almost 10 years (mainly through m4/3), but APS-C or larger mirrorless has only been launched as common in the past 5 years or so, when Fuji launched X (XPro1), Canon launched M (EOS M), and just after Sony launched “E” with their entry-level NEX cameras a few years prior. Also around when Nikon launched Nikon 1. Most of these launches were geared toward entry-level cameras, with the exception of Fuji–which soon launched an entry-level camera as well (X-E1). At the time (again, only about 5 years ago), the market wasn’t well known.

            But we’ve recently seen strides in the area and will continue to see technology progress.

            Otherwise, it seems that you’re suggesting that Nikon should not launch a competitive mirrorless platform. I don’t think that would be a smart move for Nikon.

            • When you have 12 cameras in each category, of course you will have a lot of mirrorless in the rankings as well. Remember, only Nikon, Canon and Pentax make DSLRs. The mirrorless manufacturers include: Sony, Leica, Fuji, Olympus, Panasonic Canon, Nikon, Sigma and Yi. So yes, of course you will get multiple mirrorless in each category, but if you consider how many companies produce mirrorless cameras, there should not be a single DSLRs in those listings.
              Btw, I am all for Nikon launching a mirrorless – I never said they should not.

            • RC Jenkins

              I’m confused by what you’re saying then. You’re claiming that mirrorless camera sales will not affect DSLR sales in the future because they didn’t rank highest in all of DPReview’s price-bucketed categories…for this year? How are you arriving at that conclusion and how are you converting between DPReview’s primary recommendations and sales?

            • No, mirrorless already is impacting DSLR sales and have been for a while – there is no arguing here All I am saying is that DSLR is not dead and it will not be for while. That’s all. If you read certain websites, Nikon is already out of business and dead which is far from the truth.

            • RC Jenkins

              I certainly didn’t say DSLRs (or Nikon) are dead. All I said was that DSLR’s didn’t win all of the categories (which is true) and that mirrorless cameras will gain steam and continue to improve relative to DSLRs (which is an opinion). I don’t think this is an overnight or 1-2 year process–but I’d be surprised if DSLRs continued to have a dominant market share over mirrorless camera sales in 5-10 years. This is coincidentally roughly how long it takes to establish a platform, so Nikon needs to get moving on this front ASAP. This is Nikon’s opportunity to re-establish itself.

            • Actually DSLRs did take all the top spots in each category (except compact), which means they won all of those categories. We are talking about the #1 spot here. I already explained in my previous post that with so many mirrorless models, it is inevitable that they will get different spots at the different ranking.

            • RC Jenkins

              Once again, they didn’t. Unless the M5 and A7Riii are DSLRs?


              There are 5 categories. 3 were won (#1) exclusively by DSLRs. 1 was a mirrorless. And 1 was jointly won by both.

            • IronHeadSlim

              But, at the state of the art it is still the DSLR that excels.

            • RC Jenkins

              Not particularly…Define “state of the art.” Because remember that mirrorless (A7Riii) tied DSLR (D850) for the top tier in DPReview’s budget brackets; and mirrorless also beat DSLRs in lowest cost (& physically smallest) brackets.

              Just as a note, I use both DSLRs & mirrorless cameras, and each has pros & cons.

              It’s important to remember the history here: SLRs were complex solutions originally designed to solve an inherent film limitation: that one couldn’t see the exact frame through the lens on ‘mirrorless film’ designs. That’s the fundamental benefit of SLRs: the through-the-lens optical viewfinder.

              Mirrorless (digital) is designed to solve DSLR limitations–seeing what the medium (sensor) interprets while reducing mechanical complexity (ie. through-the-lens electronic viewfinder, which aligns to digital photography). The performance may not be 100% yet in certain applications, but the technology is heading in this direction or already very close. And as I mentioned earlier, in many cases, mirrorless bests DSLRs in some ways in practice.

              Note again that these were the specific cameras for budget categories, not camera type for use cases.

            • PhilK

              As for what mirrorless is “designed” to do – it is also designed to A) lower the degree of mechanical complexity of producing a digital camera, while B) increasing the manufacturer’s profit- margin. 😉

              Not disagreeing that MILC can solve traditional DSLR limitations, but those are not the only reasons companies produce MILCs.

              One of the key reasons why many companies that were traditionally electronics manufacturers are now also still camera makers too, is that the mechanical engineering and production capabilities that used to be central to camera production are less important now, if not entirely unnecessary to producing a camera. (eg, shutter, mirror and film-advance design)

            • RC Jenkins

              Not sure I follow. What’s the difference between this:
              “reducing mechanical complexity (ie. through-the-lens electronic viewfinder, which aligns to digital photography)”
              and this:
              “lower the degree of mechanical complexity of producing a digital camera”

            • PhilK

              I was commenting on your assertion about why companies produce mirrorless cameras. You suggested it was to solve DSLR problems, basically. I just don’t think it’s that simple, is all.

              In short: one of the key reasons companies like Panasonic/Olympus/Fuji make Mirrorless cameras rather than DSLRs is that they are easier to make and more profitable. (And Olympus/Fuji are no stranger to SLR production, both having histories in that area going back to the 1970s at least)

            • RC Jenkins

              I don’t disagree. I was speaking more from the technical perspective rather than the business side, but I completely agree that there is a significant reduction in longer-term costs in going mirrorless–especially at the low end.

              SLRs have an overhead that mirrorless cameras don’t–in short, SLRs have all the parts of a mirrorless camera + many more. And these are precision mechanical parts, not simple “slap ’em on” parts. 🙂

            • PhilK


              This is also why, in my opinion, Nikon got caught on the back-foot a bit in relation to companies like Canon and Sony, whose many years of diverse electronic product making give them a leg-up on some of the aspects of digital cameras that Nikon does not have the same length of experience with, or corporate resources devoted to.

              Sony for example is known as absolutely state-of-the-art when it comes to electronic product miniaturization. They stated in respect to the A7RIII, for example, that the main reason they were able to double the size of the battery (and double the battery life) in that model over its predecessor without increasing its size/weight much was because of all the size reductions they made in the electronics.

              I have a feeling that is the kind of thing that make Nikon executives lose sleep at night. Very difficult to compete on such things with a company which has been perfecting their state-of-the-art electronic miniaturization capabilities since the 1960s, and which owns the component sources in many cases which allow them to drive this sort of thing faster than anyone else. (Samsung is another company in that position – as a gigantic electronic component maker – but they are no longer in the complete retail camera business)

            • RC Jenkins

              Agreed–though I fear that Nikon executives are in denial and don’t lose sleep at night. Hopefully, they prove me wrong.

            • PhilK

              Here’s to hoping Nikon execs lose more sleep lately, then. 😀

            • I am not sure that mirrorless is really doing that. I wonder if mirrorless is reducing mechanical complexity, which is really quite simple, with electronic complexity. I look around and don’t see mirrorless being cheaper, but more costly.

            • Exactly, mirrorless was supposed to be cheaper and the latest MFT cameras are $2k and more.

            • PhilK

              Personally I do not think shutter, mirror and diaphragm mechanics are “quite simple”, especially when they are working at speeds at or above 12 FPS and trying to maintain a usable viewfinder image and AF tracking all through that. And doing all of that 400,000+ times without excessive vibration or noise.

              Whether or not a manufacturer passes those cost-savings down to the customers is another matter, of course.

              (One thing that is a bit simpler in the electronically-controlled camera era – which started long before the digital imaging era – is that shutter blades are now timed electronically rather than with watch-like geared escapements as they were in the old days. But it is still a not-insignificant challenge to move all the shutter, diaphragm and mirror parts at high-speeds repetitively.)

            • You have shutters and diaphragms on Mirrorless cameras too. You can get rid of diaphragms and shutters (mechanical) on both designs if you want. Only the mirror and pentaprism truly distinguishes SLRs from their competitors.

              And while I don’t truly regard anything in a camera as “simple”, there does seem to be a consensus that the mirrorless solution to the problem that the SLRs solve has no moving parts and is therefore simpler and cheaper.

              I don’t believe this is true.

              Heck, EVFs have not even been able to match OVFs on lag (though if you don’t shoot action it is acceptable). If they are truly “simpler”, why not?

              I think of this as I type on my IPHone X with my thumbs. People say that this way of tying is superior to a keyboard. Hogwash! I will never type a hundred words a minute with my thumbs.

            • PhilK

              Yes, shutter and diaphragm are present on mirrorless but in many cases (or so I understand) mirrorless cameras do not always operate the diaphragm mechanism with every exposure like an SLR does. Also,the shutter is not as central on a mirrorless because a significant portion of the time the user may be using an electronic shutter, or no shutter at all. (eg with video)

              In the case of Nikon in particular, a new MILC could conceivably be designed for electromagnetic diaphragms and in-lens AF motors primarily, saving quite a bit of complexity and mechanics only needed for older lenses. (And instead, possibly offer that capability in an add-on adapter instead)

              Re: EVFs and ‘lag’ – it’s a very different paradigm. Whether mirror blackout or electronic lag is worse or better is to some degree a matter of opinion. And there is absolutely no doubt EVF tech will continue to improve continuously in various respects, including response-time. (The latter probably requiring improvements in both sensor readout-time as well as image-processing throughput as well)

              And you might be very surprised how fast some people can type on a phone. Ever use SwiftKey or Swype?

            • Hmmm……no. i should try those.

          • Claude Mayonnaise

            I just read a Nat Geo article on the best travel cameras of 2017 and I believe they were all mirrorless. Recently I’m starting to like the idea of running a nice 1 inch compact for most things and my Nikon Full frame for more focused outings. Cameras are so damn good nowadays I think the selective choice to pick and choose a camera for specific purposes is fantastic. We live in excellent times as photo dorks.

            • A. F.O.


            • Allen_Wentz

              Sure but travel market is just a subset of the overall market.

              I fully agree: “Cameras are so damn good nowadays I think the selective choice to pick and choose a camera for specific purposes is fantastic.”

            • I wonder how many of the photos published at Nat Geo are taken with mirrorless. Now this will be an interesting statistic. Anyone seen something like that?

            • Claude Mayonnaise

              I would bet that most are DSLR, but I think pros are using a variety of equipment. Jay Dickman is a National Geographic and Pulitzer Prize Winning photographer and he uses m4/3. I’m pretty sure none of it matters. We are spoiled to live in such times. Photography technology is amazing today.

            • No, it doesn’t matter, I was just curious.

          • BVS

            Just until Nikon releases their mirrorless solution. 🙂

            • Yes, just like if Nikon had released the DL cameras, they would have gotten the top spot in the compact category as well.

            • BVS

              I’m still sad about the DLs. Hopefully Nikon has something even better up its sleeve(s).

            • Yes, this was sad.

            • Claude Mayonnaise

              I’m looking at a G7X right now and wished it was a DL.

    • Allen_Wentz

      DSLRs and camera makers survive based on PROFITABLE SALES, not based on bloggers rankings.

    • danceprotog

      The truth is smartphones are killing mirrorless faster than mirrorless killing DSLRs because the whole point of mirrorless was a smaller form factor which smartphones are doing just perfectly.
      I have friends who use mirrorless and tell me its the future and dominates in video abilities… The funny thing is none of them actually shoot video. Who actually buys a “stills” camera to shoot video and vice versa? Mirrorless definitely dominates the entry level cameras, but smartphones are taking that area over really fast.

  • Fly Moon

    Nice! Though I am not sure about DPR anymore!

    • fanboy fagz

      I agree. they pump out nonstop garbage. their info is not legit many times.

      • A. F.O.

        how many are they anyway? Do they have time and personnel to do all they say they do?

    • Well, keep in mind that this is not the “best cameras ranking”, this is the best cameras for 4 different price brackets and I do agree that Nikon does offer the best bang for the bucks. The latest mirrorless cameras are just ridiculously expensive. Which camera do you think is better than the selected Nikons for that price?

      • Fly Moon

        Peter, I didn’t mean it regarding picking Nikon. I own D850, D810, D500, J4 🙂 I also own a Fuji X-T20 !
        My comment was meant as a general statement about the quality and how the site is run!

        • oh, ok – no problem 🙂

      • BVS

        Honestly, I’m kind of surprised that the D5600 was able to best the likes of the Canon 77D, Fuji XT20, and Sony A6300. I’d agree with the rest of the wins though.

        • Maybe the price? The Fuji XT20 is $800, the D5600 is $650. Remember, this is not about the best overall cameras, but about the best camera for the money.

  • Zainb

    Funny I thought you don’t post “opinions” but only facts? I guess that rules doesn’t apply if Nikon is rated best.

  • AlphaStatuz

    My mind is literally humming with glorious anticipation. My 850 should be with me on Thursday. Going to be difficult to get to sleep early for a 4am wakeup

  • Eloise

    “The only exception where Nikon did not get the top spot was the under $500 category where the Nikon 1 J5 was #6 and the Nikon D3400 was #7”
    6 and 7 in this context is not a ranking, simply they were 6th and 7th in alphabetical list…

  • Fernando Costa

    That’s Why Nikon shouldn’t be in trouble, they really know how to make great cameras, with great quality vs price etc.

    • I agree, but some keep repeating the same non-sense on the Web and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy…

      • Fernando Costa

        I know, if you tell a lie to many times it becomes truth.
        I use to sell cameras, and as I remember since D3/700 Nikon is top knot and become a quality standard to beat.
        Anyway In my country I don’t have Nikon service or NPS And it’s a brand with a lot of history on here.
        Canon dominates the photojournalism and Sony the video in recent years.

        • Allan

          What country are you in?

    • Bob Thane

      They shouldn’t be in trouble, but they definitely are struggling to maintain sales volume. I’m pinning it on advertising – I see awesome Canon ads in mainstream marketing, whereas Nikon seems to be mostly reliant on people seeking out their information.

    • Allen_Wentz

      Nikon makes excellent cameras at the high end (which is why some of us love Nikon), but understanding customers = good business requires listening to customers. The arrogance of Nikon and lack of listening is why they have financial difficulties.

      • Fernando Costa

        Allen has I remember as a seller, Nikon DSLR entry level ware better cameras then canon only in film canon was better, but they sell more, Pentax are better cameras then canon and they sell poorly in my country, marketing and of course listening to the customers is one of the keys, missing.

  • Merv S

    The problem is not how good these dSLRs or mirrorless cameras are, the problem is getting people to buy them.

    Prior to about 2011, dedicated cameras did not have to compete with smartphones for consumer’s money. These days, dedicated cameras are almost always lower in priority for a purchase in comparison to a smartphone.

    It is also hard to convince someone to buy their first dSLR or mirrorless only for them to find out they can’t get the quality of pictures they can get on their smartphones unless they also learn camera usage, technique and post processing.

    Besides my points above, there are also the issues Thom Hogan mentions. Marketing being one, surely if I upload my dSLR pictures to Facebook, they could read the EXIF info and figure out that I used a Nikon camera. What comes up as ad suggestion on my Facebook feed? Canon dSLRs….

    • PhilK

      Regarding “…find out they can’t get the quality of pictures they can get on their smartphones unless they also learn camera usage, technique and post-processing.”

      Perhaps the dedicated camera makers need to actually step up their software and in-camera processing game then, and close that gap with all the people using Snapchat/Instagram filters on their pics and posting them to social media. 😉

      Snapbridge is certainly a weak response to those developments. It doesn’t even handle the basic photo tasks well.

      I say replace Snapbridge (because at this point the name already has a bad reputation) and replace it with “CreatorBridge” or somesuch which not only improves the basic photo capability, but also does flexible image processing and social media integration. (Perhaps by linking to a mobile ‘smart device’)

      • RC Jenkins

        I think that only improves the “post-processing” aspect. A key aspect of photography is “gather as much light as possible”–which requires the combo of large sensors, large apertures, and low shutter speeds. Which is partly down to equipment and partly down to expertise in knowing what each of these does.

        Mirrorless cameras will inherently improve some of this, since users will be able to see live previews of what they’re shooting.

        What won’t help significantly, however, is slow consumer lenses that don’t allow users to explore or learn. When most smartphones today have a DX equivalent of approx. 18mm F/6 (or around there) lenses (and now dual cameras), that kit lens isn’t going to render much better than the phones. Yes, they’ll have zoom, but users have proven they’re used to primes & cropping by this point. Let users “step up” to zooms–and keep them F/4 constant or faster.

        To stay differentiated, camera makers need to get faster lenses in front of these DX sensors.

        That, combined with a seamless mechanism for getting the photos onto the smartphone (which I think is Snapbridge, though I haven’t used it) is the formula.

        • PhilK

          You’re still speaking like a purist photo tech geek.

          My message is: since people have demonstrated the vast amount of photography they do these days is with mediocre equipment that happens to have easy-to-use and fun post-processing and media-sharing capabilities, then the “camera companies” need to give people what they want too.

          Otherwise they are making the same mistake the music industry (and many before them) made, eg using cartel behaviour to keep trying to sell people overpriced CD’s, when what they really wanted was cheap MP3s and streaming. (And when the CD strategy didn’t work, going around suing some of their best customers at a young age, gaining lifelong industry animosity from them and their followers )

          Back to photography – the young/millennial generation has shown that they are obsessed with selfies and media sharing. So the camera companies should make sure their products are the best and easiest selfie takers ever.

          Absolute image quality is not the be-all/end-all. First, you have to make it easy and straightforward and fun. Once you have their attention, then they may discover the quality advantages. And maybe even branch out from selfies into a diverse photography buff. 😉

          • RC Jenkins

            No, you’re reading it (and responding to it) like a purist photo tech geek.

            I’m not talking about image quality in the sense you are. I’m talking about making the process of taking the picture you want non-technical. “Image quality” is not just noise & sharpness, but also things like what we call DoF, field of view, motion blur, etc. These are all qualities of the image–and this improved image quality is the primary reason people buy dedicated cameras vs. phones. Most people don’t buy a camera for the fun of lugging around extra equipment–they do it so that they can take “better” pictures (whatever qualities that means to them).

            Non-technical people who buy cameras always ask the same questions: “How do I do that background blur effect? How do I do that dreamy waterfall effect? How do I take better low light pictures?” And they want to take the picture and post it to social media seamlessly.

            There are a few components to arriving at the results they want to see:
            ::The equipment (specs)
            ::The settings / framing / etc.
            ::The interaction between the user and the first two items above
            ::The post-processing

            When people say something like “I want background blur” or “I want better low light,” the reality is they often can’t get it much better for the combo of frame / subject / kit lens. So this has to be addressed with the equipment (lenses). The kit zooms today aren’t that well differentiated over phones today except for sharpness / cropping ability.

            For the second & third parts, many people won’t understand things like aperture–hell even half the people on this site don’t know the difference between aperture & f-number and how f-number doesn’t determine DoF. Camera makers have tried to address this with scene modes–but feedback I’ve heard from people who buy ILCs is “I don’t like using those” and “it doesn’t work” and “I want to learn how.”
            What they can understand, however, is the camera guiding them through how to take the pictures with the qualities they want and exploring. This guidance is how I’ve taught photography to many people–and they pick it up very fast when explained properly in a non-technical fashion.
            For example, when I teach DoF, I train users to think about incident light angles on the outer portion of the lens and the effects of aperture and subject distance on this–without using any of this terminology. I call the aperture “the hole” and the distance “how far away something is.” This usually clicks within minutes, and I often get “I finally get it now! It didn’t make sense before.”–and their work shows it.

            Post-processing today for most people is generally done outside of the camera–and people have a good sense of how to manipulate pictures to what they want to see.

            This is what camera makers need to address: appropriate equipment, non-technical ease of use, and seamless workflow.

            • PhilK

              Once again – only a small subset of people who take pictures these days have any interest in learning about what “the hole” does to DoF – at least to begin with. Especially when their smartphone can emulate different DoF effects with its multiple lenses and image processing anyway, not to mention make them and their other subjects look thinner, younger and more glamourous at the same time. Etc etc.

              Which brings me back to my point again, which is: instead of planning how they’re going to send people to boring photography classes they don’t want to attend, camera manufacturers need to build products the mainstream customers and potential customers actually want, and these days that includes lots of selfies, image-processing and social-media sharing. Otherwise there will be little reason for all those people to stop shooting everything with their smartphone.

              Re: Smartbridge, it has been widely panned all over the place for not being very good at what it does, and missing various features other competitors offer. Smartbridge (as it currently exists) does little to make Nikon competitive in terms of image-sharing. It’s like video shooting on a Nikon DSLR up until recently: Nikon can say it “ticks the video feature box” in feature lists but the actual functionality is not very competitive. Same with Snapbridge.

              Just a couple examples how Nikon is perfectly good at producing quality photographic products that do a fine job from a technical standpoint (for the functions Nikon feels like prioritizing, like traditional still photo shooting), but terrible at understanding what the market is doing, what the cultural trends are, and what the typical customer at a particular point-in-time actually wants.

            • RC Jenkins

              And once again – you’re not paying attention to anything I said regarding the results. You’re suggesting that Nikon should build a camera that normal users buy but will not produce differentiated results users want. Instead, your camera allows them to do what they already do on their phones…but with bulky additional equipment and worse.

            • PhilK

              I made no such suggestion. I did say that Nikon is perfectly capable of building quality still-picture-taking equipment.

              Now what they need to do is make that quality still-picture-taking equipment also incorporate features that will draw people into dedicated-camera photography who are not already “photo tech geeks”. This is a challenge facing the whole industry today and Nikon is a conspicuous laggard in this regard.

              Otherwise Nikon will continue to be the brand of choice for old fogeys and increasingly avoided by the newest generations of photographers, bloggers, “social media influencers” and so on.

            • RC Jenkins

              You did suggest this through your arguments.

              What I said is that Nikon needs to produce a camera & lenses that give non-technical the ability to produce the results they want to see. And there are a few inherent components to this:
              ::The equipment (specs)
              ::The settings / framing / etc.
              ::The interaction between the user and the first two items above
              ::The post-processing

              You argued against this.

              Your position is that Nikon should produce a camera that people want. This is a no-brainer…should they produce a camera nobody wants? But you argued against Nikon producing a camera & lenses that have the physical abilities and interfaces that produce results they want.

              Your support for this is for post-processing only; since you argued against improved image quality & technical capabilities of the equipment (relative to phones), and guidance & interface to the user (relative to existing cameras).

              And so your argument is that Nikon should produce a dedicated camera for users that does exactly what their phones do. Just extra equipment to buy & carry. It won’t provide improved image quality / results over a phone and it won’t provide improved interface relative to existing cameras.

            • PhilK

              I suggested no such thing. You are hallucinating, LOL. (In particular, your assertion that I am against “improved image quality and technical capabilities of the equipment” and so on is some kind of completely unrecognizable bizarro twist of what I wrote.)

              Of course Nikon should produce a camera people want. The problem is not that Nikon wants to produce a camera that no one wants. The problem is that Nikon is not savvy to what a large proportion of the picture-taking public wants. Or just chooses to ignore it. Or is incompetent at producing what those people want. And perhaps a bit of unable to convince people they should want what Nikon wants to make, too. 😉

              In short, their declining market position is evidence enough that their execution is faulty compared to their major competitors these days.

              Neither did I ever state or imply that Nikon should produce a “dedicated camera for users that does exactly what their phones do.”


            • RC Jenkins

              You’re the one hallucinating.

              You argued with those direct points I layed out, saying things such as “Absolute image quality is not the be-all/end-all. First, you have to make it easy and straightforward and fun.” and “My message is: since people have demonstrated the vast amount of photography they do these days is with mediocre equipment that happens to have easy-to-use and fun post-processing and media-sharing capabilities, then the “camera companies” need to give people what they want too.”

              You haven’t addressed any point I raised except to argue that the only thing relevant is post processing like consumers do on phones.

            • PhilK

              To add to the last comment – personally I think what Nikon needs to do is hire some “culture influencers” from outside the insular Japanese photo industry to advise them on some of these cultural matters they are clueless about. Even if they dismiss their ideas about specific products I think any company in their position would be smart to get some outside input on how various cultural trends will affect their industry in the future.

              Another idea would be to create a sort of “skunkworks” division, not dominated by Nikon old-timers, to work on fun, interesting, perhaps pop-art’y, never-been-done products. Even if the products never see the light of day it would be a good exercise and demo for their traditional design division to get ideas and inspiration from.

  • TheName

    Interesting how the D850 ties with a camera that you can’t buy yet.

    • well, you cannot buy the D850 either 🙂

      • TheName

        The D850’s have been shipping for over a month. The Sony isn’t expected to arrive until the first week in December. There are thousands of D850’s in the wild. Hard to believe that they would comment on an unreleased camera, very suspect. Lots of Nikon haters.

        • I agree, a lot of Nikon haters…

      • Michael Jin

        Truth.. Still sitting here waiting on mine.

    • AYWY

      There’s also the point of how quickly the review appeared on the website, compared to other camera bodies from other companies which were announced and released throughout the year. How speedily that happened raised my eyebrow.

      The fact now is that print and online publications (including news reportage) have a business to run and bring in profits. Advertising and referral money are a real part of business.

      • PhilK

        In recent years DPR seems to have been a bit on the Sony bandwagon.

        But lately I wonder if Nikon’s struggles haven’t driven them either consciously or unconsciously to ‘promote’ Nikon a little bit more directly than they have up until recently.

        • Why everybody thinks that this is a conspiracy? Same as with DxOMark’s test results. Maybe it’s much more simpler than that – Nikon maybe just makes very good cameras at reasonable prices.

          • PhilK

            I never used the word or implied “conspiracy”. Which is specifically why I wrote “consciously or unconsciously”. (Human nature often causes people to do things like unconsciously favor a person or entity perceived as the “underdog”, and I think it’s possible this may be at play here a bit.)

            The problem with DxO ratings is that they are simplistic and don’t tell the whole story. They are good for comparing the things that they compare in the conditions they compare them in, and for maintaining consistency over the years so the ratings make sense between camera generations. Whereas some of the ratings make little sense. (Like rating the – as I recall – Hasselblad H50d as better than the D850 at “sports”.)

            Nikon DSLRs have traditionally done well in those DxO ratings, but like Consumer Reports ratings, people often overrate the importance of them.

            Including many publications parroting the line that the “100” rating on the D850 was A) some sort of “absolute” highest figure which represented some sort of “perfection” that could not be improved upon*, and B) being suckered by this strange apparently political move on the part of DxO of hiding the results for the Pentax 645Z for some time, until a recent uproar after the D850 result announcement caused them to backtrack and release the rating. (Which of course was 2 points higher than the D850 rating)

            *Helped by the hype-ish DxO press release worded “First DSLR to hit 100 points” wrt to the D850, which implies that this is some sort of special number, when it is in fact no more significant than 99 or 101.

            • Yes, I was generalizing in my response.

    • Erik Johansson

      The world is bigger than the US, the A7R3 has been available since early November in China (probably Asia) and I picked mine up on Tuesday in Sweden, at the same time as someone else picked up a D850.
      I know from that store at least 6 A7R3’s are in the wild here 😉

  • Brett A. Wheeler

    Best camera over $2000: Nikon D5. The D850 is great, but it’s focus tracking at full burst can’t keep up. See the comparison on YouTube. The D5 also beats it at low light/high ISO, buffer size, and dynamic range.

    • PhilK

      It doesn’t beat it at absolute DR or low-ISO DR.

      Thing is, the kind of people that are buying products like D5s and 1DXs to actually use them (eg, not collectors and wealthy gear dweebs) are probably not making their buying decisions based on DPR “best value for price” lists, either.

      For that matter, neither are the collectors or dweebs, either. 😉

    • RC Jenkins

      “Best” is a relative, subjective term. The D5 is much more specialized for high-speed shooting than the D850, but the D850 is arguably a better “all-rounder” for most people.

      As far as your specifics, here’s their difference in high ISO (at ISO 25k):

      The D5 is marginally better. For noise, not detail.

      Here’s their difference in DR:

      The D850 is clearly better.

      For most people, the D850 is probably a better camera. How often do most people shoot 50+ RAW shots in a row? Even then, if you’re shooting over about ISO 400 (likely if you’re shooting continuous), you can safely switch to 12-bit lossless compressed raws, where the D850 can get over 150 continuous shots. For most people, this will be sufficient.

      • Brett A. Wheeler

        Yes, it depends on what you use it for. Like I said, the D850 is great.

    • Michael Jin

      The D5 is only the better if you’re doing sports photography, working as a PJ, or doing a TON of low-light photography.

      For those of us that aren’t trying to track people running around and moving erratically or for those of us that do most of our work at lower ISO’s, the D850 is actually better than the D5. It has MUCH better dynamic range at lower ISO’s than the D5 (the D5 is a complete joke at low ISO’s) and nearly twice the megapixel count for almost half the price.

      For the price that the D5 sells at, you would think that it should outperform the D850 in every single way, but in reality, it’s pretty much a draw that will swing one way or the other depending on your use case.

      • Brett A. Wheeler

        The D5 has room for improvement, and the D850 has it’s advantages. Once upon a time, Nikon would have called the D850 the D5x.

  • peter w

    Strange that there is no place for D500.
    D500 sure is a best pick light weight professional model without any compromises for sports and both long reach and macro nature portraiture.

  • CaMeRa QuEsT

    How can Sony be the 2nd best selling FF brand behind Canon when currently at Amazon the D750 is the best selling FF (25th overall in ILC sales), the D850 2nd (40th), the 5DMKIV 3rd (66th), the A7 4th (73rd), the A7RIII 5th (76th) and the A7RII 6th (88th)? It just doesn’t add up in my tally: they might actually be 2nd best selling FF BEHIND Nikon, but not Canon!

    • The truth is that Amazon’s best selling list doesn’t mean anything – it’s an algorithm that reflects the most recent purchases on the site. Some websites still think that this is a big deal and report about it extensively when in reality it doesn’t really mean anything. Any new model or any sale will bring certain camera models up the list. I wish Amazon provides the same info on a 12 months period – only then we can draw some conclusions.

      • CaMeRa QuEsT

        Oh well, I thought there was something to cheer about in that list, or at the very least a good laugh!

  • Allan

    I vacationed in Portugal this year. My memories of the trip will always focus on how friendly the Portugese people are. But I’m unhappy about the 10 pounds I gained, eating your excellent pastries available on every street. 🙂

    • Fernando Costa

      Allen good choice, Portugal is really fine country. With a lot of sun ☀️
      But you have to be careful with the food and wine ahah.

  • My favorite country in Europe. Best food. Been there four times. Love it.

  • Back to top