Donnie G: I was convinced that I wasn't among the consumers that Canon's G7 X was made for because I have never been interested in owning any compact camera. Boy was I wrong. Although I have no interest in owning compact cameras, my teens are very interested in the category, and I am their "deep pockets". So I wound up buying 2 G7 X cameras, one for him and one for her. Between the 2 of them, they were able to setup the cameras without any input from "the broke old guy". After about 10 days, my gorgeous gal pal, Brandi, and I were able to decipher enough teen slang to learn that the camera features they worship the most are the programable click wheel around the lens collar, the articulated touch screen, and the ability to upload images to social media via Canon's Image Gateway service. I don't think that these kids are even aware of the other features, such as sensor size, lens speed, focal length, or even IQ. It takes better photos than their smartphones and their friends think its cool. :)
Donnie, I can make only one conclusion out of your story:your kids would be similarly happy with pretty much any other enthusiast compast. Whether is be Nikon P, Canon S, Canon G, Pana LX, Sony RX ...
Photoman: it looks like Panasonic & Sony win in this race...again.
@PhotomanThose build-in EVF/OVF are tiny and useless. For example for me such an EVF/OVF ist just a waste of money and useless addition in size and weight.
GeorgeP71: How can this camera rate a silver with SO MANY CONS??I would not buy it. The Panasonic reads MUCH BETTER!
Agreed, but Pana has much smaller zoom range. And I think for a non-changeable lens, 100mm is a must.
ZAnton: I think in Video Mode Sony uses full chip readout, while Canon skips lines.So Sony's image is MUCH better than Canon's.
Nikon had f**d up pretty much everything they started lately.Canon is still trying and at least some attempts are successfull (like 100-400, 35 f/2, G7X is not THAT bad for a first 1" camera, although I don't think it deserves Silver Award)
I think in Video Mode Sony uses full chip readout, while Canon skips lines.So Sony's image is MUCH better than Canon's.
Artistico: Well, in this day and age when digital processing has removed the need for colour-correcting filters and most others, save for ND, Polarisers and the occasional Grad for the ones without the patience for bracketing and post-process combined exposures, the only way a filter manufacturer can try reducing the fall in income is to hype up new products that no one really needs to try to create a demand.
I know what some will say - getting it right in camera is better than in post, etc. Well, the "right" image in that camera is also a processed image, except you are leaving your processing in the capable(?) hands of camera manufacturers sometimes with quite differing views to yours as to what a final image should look like.
I am as nostalgic as the next person, but using colour shift filters just so I have to move some sliders a tiny bit less in post doesn't appeal to me.
But, then again, what is Tiffen to do? If I were them I'd produce new filters no one needed and hyped them up too.
It looks like you have never worked with presice colors and are a pure theoretician. The ability of digital image to correct colors has its limits. More so, if you want precise colors. In most situations it is much easier to screw on a proper filter, than f**k 20-30 minutes with color correction afterwards (by eye). With each single image. With unguaranteed results. One can also use a Color Checker instead, but then again, you need more time to correct colors in PP (apart from that color checker and software also cost money).
High-res screen is good.... unless you work with Adobe products that can't scale up fonts...I have tiny-winy letters and icons on my Dell 27" 2560x1440. Thank's God it is not 24" or 22" with same resolution.
steelhead3: I wonder if the judges will know which cameras took the shot?
that is why you get 2/3 of the prize in nikon gear, not in cash.
xpanded: Scandinavians have bigger brains ;-)
and pockets =)
JohnTh: Most probably this throws out Tokina 16-28 F/2.8 and even Canon 16-35 F/2.8. Eager to see the image IQ, distortion charts etc. vs to above and Nikon 14-24.
Why is this not a PJ zoom? Do you KNOW how fast its Af is?This lens competes with Nikon 14-25, and Nikon 17-35, and Canon 16-35, and Tokina 16-28
brendon1000: Should be a stellar lens but but $1599 for an APS-C lens seems rather steep. :P
Wait a year or two.
Sannaborjeson: That is weird.
They show only 3000x2000px samples on their flickr and all the samples are terribly over-sharped. https://www.flickr.com/photos/carlzeisslenses/14833959224/
And for some reason CZ bans people from commenting or asking questions on their photo samples.
They have Original Size 3817*5719But you are right. It is oversharped.
Put the freakin' hard buttons back!
Archiver: Interesting that Zeiss have determined the Sony full frame E-mount system to be viable enough to create a whole new lens line, and that the market for manual focus lenses with declickable aperture is also enough.
... and manual focus in 2014, lol.
Boss of Sony: God, photography is expensive nowadays for the latest tools. Think I'll pick up a 2nd hand Pentax K-5 for $300 in mint condition and a new 50mm f1.8 lens (with AF) for $150, and save myself roughly $2,000. Will do exactly the same thing.
Pentax is very good, but FF is a FF.Zeiss was always very expensive. Similar lenses from Canikon cost much less.
strong NR even at ISO200
Mayeye: Would love to hear from some DP members as to how this software stacks up against Lightroom/Photoshop combo or DxO Pro
@FellowpedestrianYes, I will will probably switch to PSP or Gimp. Because of bold Adobe business strategy. But not because PSP is better software (haven't properly worked with Gimp yet).
ZAnton: Have this program on my office computer. Extremely, epically stupid and unlogical user interface. Although I am pretty fluent with PS, I spend 2 hours TRYING to do very simple things. Finally I used a combination of MS Office Picture Manager and PowerPoint instead.The other day it took me 40 minutes to paint dots on the map (print screen) to show the way from a railway station to the office. Then I spent 20 minutes trying to save it (it saved only the BG layer). Failed.Same evening at home, I did same thing with PS in 2 minutes.
It seems that they were thinking like that: "PS has this button bottom left - we'll make it top right! ""PS calls this function "resize" - we'll call it "pixel count variation""
I repeat, I spent hours with PSP, unable to do very basic things. It is all but "simple learning curve".Maybe this software strategy is made so, that it cost you $100, but you have to spent another $600 for an teaching course. Maybe. I don't know.I'm just sharing my experience.PS. I learned CATIA and Ansys ICEM CFD quicker than PSP.
Just a Photographer: Truly amazing that this company still refuses to make their software available for Mac users. As a company they may be even worse then Adobe.
Don't tell me bootcamp or parallels.. Thats not an option. As a Mac user you wanted to be away from the windows experience.
@bfordhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systemson PCs and laptops windows has over 90%.
I don't know where are you from, but in Russia and Germany Mac costs twice as much as the similar PC/laptop from any major brand.Whereas in the USA price difference is about 20-30%. Also in USA the computers (and not only computers) in general cost less.