taktak91: I'm rarely envious of Canon users, but today I'm very envious.
Of what ? Slightly upgraded version of the previous 7D, with no new trick, and certainly nothing to attract me away from my current cameras. What exactly about this camera makes you envious, compared with the previous model ?My 7D mk1 is for sale. OK for sports, but heavy, big, and about as exciting as a night with my mother in law
absolutely nauseating to see so many posts just canning the concept of flying quadcopters. Any one would think that they are all carrying WMDs the way that people carry on. They are a relatively new and exciting concept in obtaining new avenues to photography, in the same way that underwater housings, crash camsGoPros etc areIf you are not interested in embracing them, then FFS dont try and turn a DPR article into a pulpit for professing your views on their evils. Take that nonsense elsewhere. Like any new tool, they can be used responsibly or irresponsibly. If you are worried about their use, then perhaps better to offer constructive suggestions about guidelines rather than just nonsense like 'dont encourage them'. One could equally argue that the use of mid to long range telephotos lenses in urban communities is more intrusive (most copters use very wide lenses, and you are far less likely to see personal details than a complact telephoto on the beach)
abolit: Hey, Fuji! Enough of F3.5 - F5.6 crap! Start making some good stuff! F2.8 all the way thru or , at least , F4 . Sick of it!
Cobber, the top post on this thread referred to Fuji as producing 'crap'. If you really agree then why are you bother bothering to post here ?Perhaps you need a ..................reality check............
"Reality check"FFSNow I have heard it allAnyway, better late than never mate
Iudex I am pleased to see that u r another emerging Streisand fan. Make sure that u attach a large bowling ball to the back of your head to counterbalance that enormous lens that u crave
It is also about keeping the range commercially viable. You may well feel that a huge lens on the front of this camera is going to sell. Fuji clearly (up to this point) dont. If you want to put a Canon 70-200 f 2.8 on the front of this camera, go and by an adaptor. No point flogging Fuji simply because they chose not to produce such an absurd combination. Not everyone wants to put Barbara Streisand's nose on Kate Moss' face.
Nothing more annoying than this sort of ranting. There is no point opting for a compact system camera, and then screaming for a wide, long telephoto zoom. It must out of necessity be enormous. If you want such a lens, then buy a dSLR. Working with a CSC is all about embracing the smaller system, but accepting the compromises that a small size brings. If you want a fast prime, than Fuji have plenty. If you want a high quality zoom, then Fuji have plenty. If you want a high quality zoom with a long telephoto range, and a fixed 2.8 max aperture, you are looking in the wrong galaxy. Look at the options you have. if you compare with the Canon 24-70 2.8 (which is only about half as long at the long end) you are looking at almost twice the weight (490 vs 805 g). If you look at the Canon 70-200 2.8 with IS, then you are up to 1.49 kg ! Even if you accept f4 in the Canon 24-105, you are still at 670 g. So seriously forpetesake, take your whining elsewhere
Jogger: Its not good enough for professional use and its too expensive as a toy (which is what it is).
reread the posts mate. What are you referring to when you say 'this is be definition..commercial' ? We were not referring to any particular mode of use. Jogger mentioned commercial use, not me. Clearly this little drone is not appropriate for commercial use. And by the way, the law is different in every country. The FAA is of no interest or relevance to those of us who dont live in the USA. It is hilarious that you seem to assume that we all live there
Fujica, who in their right mind would consider this model for commercial use ? I am afraid your response just smells of a drone hater.
Dailou: ..........continuation from below the need this baby fulfills and is due to canons commitment to the underwater guys and gails, they always at the time of intro have a underwater housing you can get which in comparison to underwater housings is reasonably priced. with the better wide angle, nice viewing display , fast fstop, and decent sensor size, canons good build quality, and canons commitment to providing uw housings this will be a nice small package that should get good underwater results. (see the first half of my reason i like this camera). this is why i like this camera - by the way i have been shooting with this thing for the last 2 weeks and it is pleasant to use and the results are good
Do you think that 'pleasant to use' and 'results are good' is the glowing endorsement that a new Canon camera would once have drawn ? They ought to be leading the pack, but have become reactive. My cupboard is full of old Canon bodies that barely see the light of day. I use the 7D for sports events, and the 5d mk2 for underwater use and video, but thats it. The brand has been left in the dust
Just demonstrates to me the problems with where Canon is heading and the lack of imagination in their development dept.This is really just a minor tweak of the previous model. It would appear that any thought of having a dramatic change of direction with real imagination and foresight is just beyond them. I had, until the last 3 or so year, bought nothing but Canon cameras for more than 2 decades, but now cant really see anything in their line up that appeal at all. My 5d mk2 remains an excellent SLR, but I would love to see Canon jump out of the pack, and produce something really exciting, say, and mirror less interchangeable lens camera with a full frame sensor, that weighs about half of what an SLR weighs (e.g. something along the lines of a Sony A7R) that produces outstanding stills, and high end functional video. There is a window for them here to produce the ultimate non-SLR travel camera. They have the sensor tech.
But sadly, I cant even imagine that this is on their radar
Paul JM: Great pity. I am sure that some outstanding photographic and video opportunities will now be lost for ever. I dont at all buy this business of 'its a wilderness..' If that is the case, then why not just ban anyone from going there at all, and risking leaving rubbish, interfering with wild life etc. It is really just a matter of where you draw the line, so I dont think that people want to be too judgemental about where that line is drawn. There are plenty of people who are prepared and committed to the responsible use of unmanned copters etc for aerial photography.It seems to me rather odd to ban the use of drones in Yosemite, but to allow firearms !http://www.nps.gov/yose/planyourvisit/weapons.htm
Steve, not at all. I spend a good deal of my life in remote areas in Australia and more than anyone would not like to see them ruined by human interference, but I fail to see what possible threat a handful of responsibly controlled drones could represent to YNP. You are assuming more than you can in suggesting that I think that people are 'allowed to behave just as they would elsewhere'. I just done see that drones represent any more threat to the environment than any of the other issues outlined aboveThis also needs to be balanced against the threat to your liberties that such a ban represents.But then, clearly the drone represents more of a threat than a firearm.
so out of all aspect of human interaction and potential for interference with the natural environment of a treasure like YNP, including vehicles, camping equipment, rubbish, firearms, and anything else that people may chose to bring in, including themselves, that the only abomination that should be banned is the use of drones. Careful what you wish for.
Great pity. I am sure that some outstanding photographic and video opportunities will now be lost for ever. I dont at all buy this business of 'its a wilderness..' If that is the case, then why not just ban anyone from going there at all, and risking leaving rubbish, interfering with wild life etc. It is really just a matter of where you draw the line, so I dont think that people want to be too judgemental about where that line is drawn. There are plenty of people who are prepared and committed to the responsible use of unmanned copters etc for aerial photography.It seems to me rather odd to ban the use of drones in Yosemite, but to allow firearms !http://www.nps.gov/yose/planyourvisit/weapons.htm
JapanAntoine: better go Fuji, for half that price and probably same or higher IQ
TragicMy whole family and most of the neighbourhood are here pleading for one of your raws
Then please demonstrate to us all the outstanding images that u have created that exceed the capacity of Fuji x series lenses
Fawning Leica fanboy'Colour subtlety'FFS !
Up to what task ? Howboutraw, why don't you dazzle us with a display of your photographic talent that demonstrates why you exist in a plane that exceeds the quality of Fuji x lenses ?
EssexAsh: another video camera, maybe change the site name to DVReview now?
Pretty simple dummy. Don't read the video postsUseless posts like yours waste far more space than the DPR video posts
Provia_fan: I agree with so many of you. That's exactly what Bresson, Winogrand, Gilden, Eggleston used to say. They packed their cameras and went home saying "Poor phase detection, no face detection and no touchable screen, no HDR mode, EVF too small and too big....can't shoot!" Because they depended on all these things, that's how they built their careers. :P
Sports shooting in a poorly lit gym.... and you propose using a mirror less Fuji...... you must be joking