DPR > This year, we opted to split the category in two, as we had a hard time definitively deciding on just one or two overall top picks. <
Why do we have to have only 1 or 2 top picks. If they are good, just say they are good. Why do we have to artificially 'down grade' some good cameras into non-top picks?
67gtonr: Isn't DPR, by separating mirrorless cameras into their own groups, saying that even on the verge of 2015 mirrorless cameras still cannot compete with DSLR's?
> It mirrors what camera sees to viewfinder, so you can see what camera will capture.
I beg to differ. The mirror reflects what you see, not what the sensor sees. EVF reflects what the sensor sees (with limitations, of course). Ultimately, both are just framing devices. Back to the original poster's point, why should we separate DSLR from mirrorless into two separate categories? Today, EVFs are slow and have limited gamut. But I can imagine the technology will catch up real fast.
> They are different class, because they serve different purposes.
So what purpose does an internal mirror serve?
As a service to consumers, it is useful to compare the two so-called categories. It's not like if I go shopping I limit myself to only look at one type of cameras. If I have $2000 burning a hole in my pocket, I want to look at all available cameras I can buy. I don't care if it has a mirror in it or not. It would be very helpful for a product review site to compare across 'category.'
> Isn't DPR, by separating mirrorless cameras into their own groups, saying that even on the verge of 2015 mirrorless cameras still cannot compete with DSLR's? <
Or the other way around.
justmeMN: Canon estimates that, this year, they will sell 9.5 million compact cameras, and 7.0 million DSLRs.
Not bad, for a company that does everything wrong, and that everyone hates. :-)
@LSE, you can not compare Apple and Nikon. Apple is 100x larger on market cap. Apple could not make its phone fast enough to gain more market share. At that size, growth and innovation is a completely different game.
Small companies can afford to come up with new products more frequently because they don't put that much demand on suppliers. For example, if Nikon wants to be innovative and use sapphire glass on it's camera today, no problem. They can get enough sapphire glass. But Apple can't because there is not enough sapphire in the world for Apple to use.
> the days of hiding behind a viewfinder whilst your child makes their acting debut in the school play or scores that game-winning goal are over."
Hmm, a 146-degree wide-angle lens seems way too wide for these examples. This is probably the result of ad writer not being a photographer.
Donnie, a good way to describe you is that you like to provide a contrarian view in a homogenous crowd. That is a very important role in a democratic society. Hey, if you hit that 1500th post, maybe you'll get a prize from Canon. :)
In the back room of Canon headquarters...
Wow, in two days we generated more than 1400 comments on our new marketing campaign on DPR alone. Great job, guys.
Jylppy: Hi all angered Canon fans (myself included). The campaign is Canon _corporate_ brand marketing initiative and since Canon is in multiple businesses, such a campaigns are vague considering from single business perspective. The problem is that once everyone saw a post at DPReview, they associated it to Canon's camera/lens business and were expecting some product announcement.
Canon marketing team's grand mistake was to use countdown to launch ... a marketing initiative. That raised expectations. In case they want to do corporate/brand marketing, they should have just launched the campaign without such a expectation-ballooning-countdown.
And if anyone at Canon camera business side is reading this, I am still expecting you to launch semi-pro-focused (APS-C) mirrorless with fantastic EVF and fast AF. Once that is out, I will buy it as my secondary camera. I use it along side my 5DII to cover wider focal length range when traveling.
Make "Fuji X-series" with your superb camera UI.
> Canon marketing team's grand mistake was to use countdown to launch ... a marketing initiative...
You nailed it.
Random Asian Guy: Someone from another site said it best:
If you are disappointed make sure you give their videos a thumbs down in youtube so their management can truly see how unimpressed ratio is:
> make sure you give their videos a thumbs down in youtube so their management can truly see how unimpressed ratio is...
You actually think their management would look at these? Hahahahaha.
samhain: That new icon(light busting out of a box) is definently relevant. Makes me think they put a big sensor in a small camera. Im leaning towards something medium format related...
"Two words: Fuji X30."
Haha. You got me there.
Kfrog: How about a medium format camera... for the masses?
> How about a medium format camera... for the masses?
A medium format camera may be what you want, but the masses already got what they want: a smart phone.
Nindy5: The clock has counted down to Zero, now what?????
"October 7th, 9am Pacific time."
> makes me think they put a big sensor Ina small camera
Geez, talk about lack of imagination. How about a small sensor in a big camera? No one dares to do that.
boogieboogie: So that's £400 for the camera that cost £200 to make and £800 for the purse that cost £10 to make. Go figure.
> You seem to be missing that Stella McCartney is not some ultra-high-end runway fashion designer.
At $1000 a bag, my wife would consider this ultra-high-end. Anything outside of what Target sells is pretty high end for us. So do me a favor and don't let her know how much I spend on cameras, ok? :)
maxnimo: I was just browsing the GoPro website and apparently all their cameras have a fixed super wide-angle lens. They don't even mention the focal length, nor do they give you a choice. They must think everyone wants, needs and loves super-distorted ultra wide angle views.
This probably explains why all GoPro videos look so terribly distorted.
"Eyes rolling in disbelief!"
To answer your question, maxnimo, try strapping any interchangeable lens camera to your head and go for a vigorous mountain bike ride or a freestyle ski run. Let us know how it turns out.
> something so materially complex and precision built is thought of as cheap/consumer/plastic/crap...
One word: volume.
You forgot that it actually costs another £800 to sell it. At the end of the day, Canon probably writes it off as marketing cost.
arvivaz: To the Apple Haters and the Shamsuckers, so sorry but it's a given. Just as the iPhone became the template for smartphones, and the iPad became the same for the tablet, the Apple Watch will most likely end up being the product template for the rest of the smartwatch industry to copy. The look and feel, the level of integration, the ability to do so many things, etc. will influence their product design and content. And Shamsung, which in the past couple years have been trying their darndest to predict the next big thing and as usual lose its pants due to a crisis of vision, will have found inspiration in the Apple Watch. And, like with a bad habit, develop a timepiece that's practically a clone of Apple's product. They are probably hours into the meeting right now measuring screen captures of Apple's new toy.
Jeff, don't be too upset. You probably don't care what speaker cables I use in my audio system. I don't either, but some of my friends do, a lot. They talk about cables and interconnects probably like you talk about watches, and they spend thousands on those copper wires. But most ordinary folks will just give them a blank stare. Sometimes, that's the appeal.
Joseph Black: It's nice to know some companies choose deliberate development rather than the rapid release of poorly conceived gimmicks. Not to say Apple doesn't have a gimmick here and there, but when they do something they do it right.
> Uh no. Most people don't use an iPhone to begin with, so how could I even imply that?
Haha, you got me there. I should've said 'many' rather than 'most.' In this case, it's many many millions. Installed base in the US is ONLY about 40% based on a Guardian article late last year. I doubt it has changed that much now. Still, you did imply all these people bought into 'hype.' Of course, you would be correct if you define hype as the Apple's signature 'look and feel' or its user experience.