I like the review...and wish there was more (lots more) of this hard core real world stuff on dpreview. Not to mention faster camera reviews.
Tilted Plane: I own this. Huge (!) distortion, corrected well in jpgs. Focuses fast and quiet. Not especially small for an f/2, but light. No image stabilization. In all, very sharp and therefore competent but nothing to write home about for this price. I'm keeping it, but not with particular joy.
Just to clarify on the sharpness--I've not measured it, but my 24mm Zuiko feels sharper on the A7r, and even the 14-24mm Nikon has more apparent snap (sharpness/contrast). It's not Zeiss quality, for sure. But then, this is a $400 lens, and I use it when I don't want to think and it makes a very decent point & shoot street lens.
I own this. Huge (!) distortion, corrected well in jpgs. Focuses fast and quiet. Not especially small for an f/2, but light. No image stabilization. In all, very sharp and therefore competent but nothing to write home about for this price. I'm keeping it, but not with particular joy.
Weird, but it seems ugly to me! But the point is good--some of us want our cameras to look great, too. Yes! Maybe you need a poll/contest for "The camera that takes the best picture"--meaning of course, from the outside.
These are not actually photographs, but photographic contact prints of engravings. (Some might call them photograms.) And they are direct positives on metal, so there is no negative. The dates are approx 1826. The only known existing photograph (in a camera, 8 hour exposure) by Niepce is in Texas, also made in 1826.
Maybe this has been mentioned already in the other notes, but my two cents anyway.
right on...and ditto for Nikon.
The question does linger--is a $900 camera, without a lens, entry level? The Rebel line seems to beg for a true entry level--in terms of price--without having to buy a 2 or 3 year old model. No?
The page of the flare issue is unusually fair and intelligent. Kudos! And thanks!
A pretty careful avoidance of Nikon (or Sony) comparisons, overall. Too bad. Head-to-head comparisons are really (!) helpful. Does this hold up next to a D750? Or even the D610? Or the similarly priced A7II? If so, when, where, under what shooting conditions?
rrr_hhh: I don't get it at all : may be because I'm not a native English speaker ? But really, I would be hard pressed to translate any of these sentence into my own language.
I mean : one can launch a teaser without telling anything about the subject/object coming, but why on earth making such un-understandable statements : which image of Canon do you think they to are offering to their customers ? What I get from it us just that Canon isn't able to communicate, not even at the symbolic level in order to create a positive image of the brand.
Plus, given the avalanche of negative comments targeting those who don't think Canon is able to see the impossible, well, I just feel aggressed/insulted.
Talk about a communication fiasco...
the other replies are right on...and now we know it was a dud! ha.
Macx: English isn't my first language so please bear with me, but is "We see impossible" proper English?
Regardless, it's still complete marketing bullship, akin to "We're giving it 110%", unless of course they're suggesting that they're delusional at Canon.
You can do whatever you want in English...partly why it's such a suggestive and invasive language. There is a "grammar" that most of us follow, but when we break the rules, it's potentially powerful. Of course, much of the time it sounds strained. Canon's ad agency took a chance and great for that (the camera company hasn't been)...but yeah, it's awkward. Supposed to make you think, right? But think what?
Still, it could have been another boring product ad. Impossible to have seen how awful the reception would be to it. I guess they saw that, since it was impossible.
It's true--it's a great example of English at its best, filled with ambiguous implications. Just what ads do well--making the reader go somewhere further. I love the ad. It's over the top, but why not? And it doesn't make "sense" in the way a translator or translation might expect at first. Way beyond facts and clear points. A good thing!! Who knows about the physical results, of course. Nikon might sneak something in using a Sony sensor and Canon, well...
GREAT interview--amazingly candid responses from Sony. Helps to love the brand and have hopes. Thanks all around. In my view Sony will never intrude on Canon and Nikon with DSLR, but mirrorless? The field is wide open. Good for us!
boring pictures...how do some people get included and not others? seems like an editorial slant (probably by accident?)...anyway, it makes the site seem a bit amateurish, frankly. and dpreview is the BEST...don't get me wrong.
I cry foul in principle. You're an Amazon company, no matter how you butter it. Recuse yourself.
rfsIII: In my opinion DPReveiw is leading readers down a dangerous dead-end path with all this "equivalent aperture range." The whole silly business started with a post on one photographer's website and has now grown into a weird cult of people who are angry all the time about f/stops and love to argue with anyone who doesn't profess unwavering faith in their precepts. And worse, it completely misses the point of the exposure triangle. To get more out of your camera you need to understand the relationship between f-stop, shutter speed, and ISO but this new religion you people have adopted throws that out and makes readers think that the surface area of the sensor is in some undefined way related. Converts go on and on about twice or four or 16 times as much light hitting a larger sensor than a smaller one as though that matters. Unless you are dealing with bellows or other real exposure-changing variables, from an exposure point of view it doesn't matter what size sensor you use.
You finish with the problem of your argument--it's NOT about exposure. The size of the sensor relates to the geometry relative to the lens and incoming light through the aperture...depth of field. Visual qualitites. That's why a "normal" 150mm lens on a 4x5 inch camera looks (!) amazingly different than a "normal" 35mm lens on a APS-C sensor camera when both are shot at the same aperture.
JohnEwing: Nikon's first step into the mirrorless world gained them firstly a twisted ankle and secondly a Bronx cheer, before a few people began to see that the Series 1 aren't such bad cameras after all, but that was like people taking to Heaven's Gate after United Artists had turned up their umbilici.
Personally, I'd like to see them bring out a mirrorless body based on the S or SP designs, with a full frame or even an APS-C sensor. FF might be better from a marketing standpoint, but an APS-C camera could be very acceptable indeed. They could probably finagle it to have an F mount, too. Large wow factor there: they immediately upstage virtually all the others, especially if they use the folding Ai tab of the Df and make it compatible with a godzillion lenses.
...well, it's nice to dream.
Price, size, convenience, features, on and on...the world turns.
Does anyone else get the vibe that these responses are out of touch? There seems to be a world view that seems 10 or even 20 years out of date. I know, I'm not giving specifics...but just throwing that out there with some despair, since the camera companies really need to set trends, not discover them later.
He's been saying that since the early 1970s. And I believe him. But I also know I was made to hate war more directly because of his work. That's something.