LOVE this camera, but am still concerned about sensor dust accumulation on a $900 camera. That is the only thing that gives me pause. If there was some known way to remove dust then I wouldn't hesitate at all.
Nothing in this interview convinces me Canon is relevant again for anyone other than those who have very specific, very high-performance needs for larger DSLRs.
Regardless of how I feel about Sony's (lack of) APS-C lenses, someone in the sensor division sure got their bet right on that business model
WT21: I really hope the little clip-on flash can be angled backwards for ceiling bounce. That would be just awesome.
The standard in-built flashes (ala NEX6 and Panny GX1) were strong enough for in-the-living-room bounce flash. That and fill flash is all I expect out of an on-board flash anyway.
zoranT: Please explain the reasoning behind wanting to buy this, provided that 'pocketability' is not the main criterium (which it isn't, as mentioned in the review). Why wouldn t you go for Fujis or Sony NEXes mirrorless etc. that also are not pocketable? Certainly bigger lenses etc., but remember, pocketability is not the criterium. Yet, much bigger sensors and thus better IQ. I simply fail to understand why someone wouldn t prefer bigger sensors including a comparable price range, when size is not the main sales point.
There's not-pocketable, and there's not pocketable. This is the former, not the latter.
Bigger sensor is not always the answer. If you are convinced the size of the sensor is the only thing that matters, than go medium format.
burnin: An 'all-in-one" camera without a built-in flash doesn't make a whole lot of sense. At all.
I would love a built-in flash that you can tilt up, but there's nowhere for it. So, I hope the add-on one tilts up.
I really hope the little clip-on flash can be angled backwards for ceiling bounce. That would be just awesome.
mpgxsvcd: Late Breaking News. Canon commits suicide. Nikon attempted suicide but they are on life support with a very grim prospect of survival.
I find the Canon "rumor" sites to be quite humorous. Most of the "rumor" posts are about printer and DSLR bundle deals. They have nothing else to say!
Hachu21: The exact same size as the eos M + 22 f/2... Oh my...
Actually closer to the old film Canonette
Canonette: 120 × 75 × 60 mmLX100: 115 x 66 x 55 mm
Pre-order already in.
Only tests I need to see -- noise at high ISO (if I can get to 3200, I'm good), bokeh (please be smooth!) and AF -- but Panny's experience in AF should mean this is fine.
Also, I CANNOT believe this is $899. I said elsewhere it would be above $1,000 and I am so (wonderfully) wrong. Panny is going for market share, and to establish a classic.
zoranT: Impressive, but simply too big. Why not go for APS-C size cams that are the same size then? GM1 size was really impressive.
the phoblographer's review says the body feels a bit too small
I honestly don't think the ILC market is big enough for all the vendors who want to play here -- Canon, Nikon, Sony, Fuji, Ricoh/Pentax, Oly, Panny and now Samsung. (did I miss anyone??)
Out of those, my gut tells me it'd be Ricoh/Pentax and Oly and Panny that are the weakest, all of which would be a far bigger loss to the gear/hobby/profession than if Samsung bowed out. But Samsung has deep enough pockets to tilt at windmills and any market share they take from the others (except maybe Canon, lol) is, IMO, a shame.
Cane: What will happen to the faux want-to-be 1960's designs once the old timers kick off?
You mean when the 20-something hipsters die off? That's some time away.
Absolutely Sony. More bodies please.
I only own 2 native e-mount lenses. The rest are adapted. No need to upgrade my NEX6 -- it works just fine, thank you. You want my money Sony? Better/more mid-range e-mount lenses.
Legally, sounds like wikimedia is correct. Now, the macaque needs to lawyer up.
Incredibly useful concept that sadly leads to some of the most boring and droning discussions on photo forum boards.
Good article that will hopefully clear it up for most.
Managarm: >> Perhaps Nikon will help to relieve the pressure on manufacturers of 10-stop ND filters, as soon landscapers will be able to achieve the same effects with less powerful and more common versions <<
Yeah, right. ISO 64 would allow the usage of all those extremely common 9 1/3rd-stop ND filters instead of the ones with 10 stops. Huge difference in that department... ;)
Apart from that I also really welcome native ISO 64, finally going down again. I'd gladly trade anything higher than ISO 3200 for those lovely lower values.
assuming the lower ISOs would carry higher DR, deeper color depth and better s/n ratio (or at least 2 of the three) then I would agree.
mrschmo: The direction this is heading is banning drones everywhere.
One can only hope
zebediah: Fuji need to stop churning out the same camera every 3 months and work on putting out a new sensor. Moreover, the strange choice of high ISO noise reduction they introduced with the X100S, this camera and the new X-T1 makes me think they've already lost the plot.
This doesn't even make sense. Do you mean cameras with the same sensor?? The XT1, XE line, XPro line and XM/XA are pretty distinctively different cameras. High ISO NR comment may be valid, but I don't think I afgree with the opening line. Also, Fuji is not exactly "churning out" cameras -- see e.g. Sony for that.