Would have preferred 24-90mm
chlamchowder: I like the recommendations a lot, and think this page will be very useful to a lot of parents, or college students with younger siblings.
However, I disagree with the focus on compactness in the pre-teen and teenagers section. When buying cameras like the Nikon 1, you're paying a premium for compactness. You can save a lot of money by buying a used DSLR, and get roughly the same image quality with a far larger native lens selection.
For example, if I were buying a camera for a 10-15 year old, I would seriously consider a $150 Nikon D70/50, or a Canon 20D for about the same price. I think anyone considering buying a camera for a kid needs to take the used DSLR market into consideration, because IMO that offers some pretty much unbeatable functionality/image quality per dollar out there. And a 10-15 year old can handle a medium sized DSLR without problems.
1. Do you not realize the absurdity of an article like this suggesting people purchase used gear? Or imposing an arbitrary budget on people? Your argument against compactness contains nothing to do with functionality and everything to do with price, which is a blatantly prejudiced assumption to make. Just because you personally have a $150 budget for a child's camera doesn't mean other, sane people are just as limited.
2. Do you even know how much Nikon 1 cameras cost? Your analysis suggests a complete lack of research into camera pricing, especially through third party sellers on ebay, that would produce a much more competent and NEW camera.
3. The far larger native lens selection is pretty much irrelevant if you are being so stingy with the camera budget, anyone who is looking into purchasing a seriously diverse collection is going to want a real camera, not a $150 used Nikon D50.
Literally the same camera...lol what a joke, they must have learned from Nikon when they "upgraded" the J1 to the J2 which lasted for about three months...really sad.
LOL no U.S. price, Canon is a joke that hasn't made a relevant camera in years, DSLRs are dead and long live M4/3.
They'd better be some incredibly superb lenses at those prices.
Ellis Vener: DrinkTANK Photo will be making the cases.
The first product Canon has ever made that wasn't a blatant ripoff of another company...oh wait, nevermind
So does this finally mean the fabled 8-1000mm f/1.0 optically flawless pancake lens we've been demanding for so long?
Airless: Why do you review this before the E-PL5 which is clearly a much better camera???
Exactly, which is why it makes no sense for them to review the inferior camera first. By the way it also has a removable grip and a dedicated FN button, something anyone who's actually smart enough to own one would know.
Why do you review this before the E-PL5 which is clearly a much better camera???
Airless: The best LCD-only camera ever
Pure semantics, if you have a more succinct way of describing this camera, please share. Clearly I am talking about cameras with no integrated viewfinder.
RX1 has a fixed lens with a fixed focal length, that alone disqualifies it.
The best LCD-only camera ever
IP law is a waste of everyone's time and just makes money for the lawyers. Get rid of all of it - make everything fair game. Someone who sells your images isn't stopping you from making money anymore than Burger King is stopping McDonalds from making money.
Anyone who has ever pirated from Adobe is completely vindicated by this new draconian policy. Adobe doesn't deserve a dollar of anyone's money if they're going to treat customers like this.
Having said that (my previous comment), this is a total dick move by Adobe and they'll never see a dollar from me as long as I use their products.
I'll just keep using CS6, and use lightroom to edit photos instead of ACR (if/when I buy a new camera that isn't supported by ACR 7.4). Annoying, but I don't ever pay for my software and I'm used to ACR's controls, so the inconvenience will still be worth it.
T3: Regarding piracy, I think the best way to decrease piracy is to *decrease* the price of your product, rather than *increasing* it. It's like music. Now that music is only 99 cents a song, people buy songs all the time now. Make it easy and cheap, and people will buy. Sure beats paying $18 at the music store for a whole CD album just to have a couple songs that you actually like. The cost of buying CDs were so high, people opted to pirate songs. Likewise, if Adobe didn't charge such an exorbitant amount for Photoshop, more people would be able to afford it, and fewer people would resort to piracy. But Adobe just doesn't get it. Now with this cloud strategy, it's just going to drive more people way, but this time it'll drive them towards other competing products.
You're #3. you just don't realize it.
You must be very insulated to think that digital music sales had any effect on piracy. Piracy is free. The only reason people buy music is because they don't know how to pirate, have an irrational fear of malware, or think it is their moral duty to subsidize everyone who does pirate by paying inflated prices that the music industry has set by factoring piracy. There is no financial justification in paying for music that can be pirated for free.
I would buy this camera...if I wanted to get ripped off