G3User: This is nothing but a mirrorless love fest! Mirrorless this, mirrorless that etc... They are just toy cameras for now. I still don't see them at real weddings. Still don't see them at major sporting events. I would never trust one when getting paid to shoot. What they really should be focusing on is the demise of paid photography. I see they all avoided that topic. What a waist of time this video was.
The only reason for having mirrors in the first place was to allow for better AF and tracking. Technology has caught up, and in a big way. SLR mirrors are quickly becoming vestigial organs that are just getting in the way. The likes of Canon and Nikon will have to jump on board soon or play catch up.
The writing is on the wall for the SLR format. Old habits die hard, that's all. They did talk about the demise of paid photography, but beyond the opening 5 minutes of the video. ;)
JakeB: I find those Sony mirrorless cameras look incredibly boxy and ugly, even worse than traditional dslrs, and for that reason alone would never carry one.
Spec sheet is impressive, though, which makes them attractive to gearheads.
I must be "Shallow Hal" then because I actually prefer the way they look.
RodluvanII: great shot, but ease up on the drama
" Both my DSLR and lens are weather resistant.I went ahead with the shot knowing that I was risking damaging my camera and lens"
Good for him for recognizing he just won the "opportunity lottery" and acting on it despite the conditions.
NZ Scott: Cool photo!
Given that Dpreview is primarily a gear site, it seems odd that this story does not mention the photographer's camera gear. Personally, I would like to have known what he was using.
I suspect that the photographer used a non-Sony camera/lens combination, and Dpreview has deliberately kept the brand out of the story to pander to Sony's wishes.
This is not good journalism.
If you ask me, this type of photo is about an amazing capture at the perfect moment. Camera gear kinda fades to a nerdy footnote (except for perhaps the fact it was weather-resistant in this case).
Like I kidded about in an early post, "This image would have won first prize shot in 'auto' with an entry level system". (not taking anything away from the photographer, just the gear)
Nice! This image would have won first prize shot in 'auto' with an entry level system.
Things haven't changed for the photographic enthusiast.
But for all those who think 'white balance' is referring to racial equality, or 'depth of field' is a setting on a lawn mower, the world is opened up to them. It's all good!
J A C S: Shooting in Auto mode with a dSLR or similar is simpler than shooting with a phone.
IMO, carrying a big camera around all day is all part of the operation, which isn't easy or fun for most people.
Hey, at the end of the day, this article isn't even about 'photography'. It's about the masses that are just wanting to capture a moment in time with a device they've already got in their back pocket they also happen to use to make tweets on.
Perhaps the act of pressing the button is simpler, but not the act of lugging around 2 lbs. of camera around one's neck all day, which is of no interest to most non-photographers.
Thomas Kachadurian: There is a simple way to own the market. Make a camera that allows you inside the interface. Imagine a camera that could have all the options, but that the user had to turn on some thing if they wanted it, but otherwise it doesn't show. Don't need auto bracket? You'll never see it. Dot want 47 scene modes? Only turn on the 4 you want, or none at all. Only use A and M mode, get ride of the rest.
Let use rename things that are confusing. Let us turn off movie mode so it's not there.
I would say to that, why would they go to the bother of incorporating high-end photographic control that might be of used by 1% of their buying public?
XTifanatic: Although phones are brilliant for snapping quick shots if you do not have your gear with you or if you want to travel light but it doesn't really involve much. All it involves is some at maximum basic exposure settings but nothing to what a DSLR or mirrorless can provide. It also makes people dis-interested as this lack of incorporation and self adjustment into your photos removed you out of the equation and puts the phone in charge. Much like what a camera in full auto is like. Ever since getting my first DSLR earlier this year, I could never go back to anything more basic as it is just too non incorporating and would bore me to use as I am not making all of the decisions such as the f stop, shutter speed, focus etc.
Yes but you are a photographer. A tiny minority of all people taking photos. The vast majority of snappers that this article is talking about might think f-stop is a curse word and for them, their phone is and always will be their Leica.
CanonKen: It is only when I teach others about photography and using cameras I realize how astonishingly complex it is to use a modern (or any) camera. Think of everything you can manipulate:--Focus point--Focus mode--Zoom--Aperture--Shutter speed--ISO speed--Metering--Exposure compensation--White balance--And that thing called timing--And that thing called composition
Maybe I missed some, maybe some are redundant, but this is not an easy thing. To really NAIL exactly what you want is no simple matter. It is second nature to many of us here, but for a phone user who expects to 'shoot like a pro', it is easy to get overwhelmed.
Agreed! Very few non-professional photographers even have a clue about what their camera can do. I don't know how many people I've met with a decent DSLR who never take it our of 'auto' mode and if they do it's to 'scene' mode without a clear understanding of what it does. It truly can be a daunting task to explain aperture or manual mode!!
Image quality on most smart phones is more than acceptable for non-photographer types who had to previously buy a camera to take pictures.
In a touristy spot lately I noticed two main types of photography: smart phone and DSLR, while not many small censor cameras...
This fall appears to be a perfect storm of the lense hood and a weak point in the granite absorbing the fall. Otherwise we're just looking at a non-storied, $10,000+ heap of rubble.
In all seriousness, did Canon lose market share with their G-series cameras and that's why they transitioned it to a mass market super-zoom?
Old SLR body technology is finally starting to make way for 21st century mirrorless bodies to match a modern day sensor.
can we custom order the arm color in something other than zombie grey?
kadardr: They could come with a FF X100. Would buy in a second.
And at 1/3 the price, I can already see the beads of sweat forming on Leica's forehead.
Graham Austin: it's going to cost a lot of money, they want to be competitive, but my guess is that they are competing with Leica - £4000 is my guess
Just saying [rightly or wrongly] that, I can't imagine any photo "aficionado" of the Leica variety would even consider a no-name competitive camera like this from a start up company unless it was half the price or better.
The Leica brand and price point is based on so much more than just numbers and specs. To its owners, the red dot symbolizes legendary quality, mystique and prestige built up over decades.
However, maybe this start up considers themselves new trailblazers to a certain extent, but I would think that when they say "competitively priced" they have something like Sony FFs in mind, not Leicas.
Competing with Leica? £4000? On what plant? If this comes in more than £1200 they've missed their opportunity.