The difference between the default cameras listed is minor bordering on invisible. More proof that absolute IQ is becoming a non-issue.
T3: Beautiful, compact APS-C ILC cameras like this make carrying around a big, fat, ugly, conventional DSLR as your everyday shooter less and less appealing.
If I did not have to use a 5Dmk3 for my TS-E lenses for my business, I would be on mirror less like flies on poo.I will be using MILCs for events and weddings but still can't use them for architecture.
attomole: So View finder, shutter speed and aperture ring are swapped out for flippy screen, Mode switch and control dial. And Fuji muzzle sweeps the flanks of Panasonic and Olympus uFT and the APSC DLSR market by showing its serious about the system nature of its X cameras with an entry Model.
It may not be the camera you were wishing for but it is the camera Fuji was smart to put out to entice more users to its flavor of camera crack.You may note that EVERY comment section on DPR is populated with a chorus of price whiners. This offers the market a price point that is very attractive yet I know that never really stops the whiners.
ManuelVilardeMacedo: Mirrorless, as it is done now, is a path that leads to nowhere. Cropped sensors will never equal full frame. The way to go is the one Sony pointed at with the RX1: full frame mirrorless. Price can be a problem, I know, and then there's the lens size issue, but mirrorless cameras like this one are uncapable of the kind of dynamic range a full frame sensor can offer. I use a mirrorless camera alongside a 35mm film one, so I'm not writing this out of bigotry or cynicism. These are my findings after comparing results.And no viewfinder is an issue, too - although there will always be the X-E1 for those who can't do without one.
Sounds very similar to the arguments made about 35mm from medium format users in the 60's. And the sheet film users about medium format shooters in the 30's.The amateur format of today is the pro format of tomorrow.Ask the 'togs at the Chicago SUn Time about phones.
cgarrard: Decent price, bet that grip isn't comfortable though... needs to be deeper into the body a bit (wider) by about 1/2" from the looks of it- however, I'd need to hold it for a 100% sure opinion. No viewfinder/option I presume, that's fine since they have the X-E1 but would have been neat to see Fuji put a viewfinder on this one then every camera in the line up would have one.
Btw, that brown and silver one is SERIOUSLY sexy looking. Wow.
Next year everyone will have a brown option.
stealthhacker: fuji may be good at retro design, but their lens&accesseries are quite expensive. and the body is bulkier than its competitors.
There are always uglier and poorer cameras to choose.
Kim Letkeman: " the relatively low monthly fee does make Photoshop rather more accessible to new users on a budget"
In the same way that the so-called relatively low barrier to borrow money from a "finance company" makes said money more accessible. But in neither case is it a good value. By the 5th year, a new user has spent over $1200 USD on one single application ...
20 bucks a month for one application is not "relatively low" ... it is "robbery" ... despite my preference for the speed of Photoshop, I am sticking with LR until they choose to put a gun to our heads for that one too. For my more advanced processing, I am happy so far with onOne Perfect Suite and Google Nik suite, both of which can be had at good prices for Lightroom (less than one year's "rental" for Photoshop CC.)
Adobe are playing a dangerous game here, and your trying to characterize the software as "more accessible" for the very people who cannot afford to be "bled" in perpetuity does us all a disservice.
Yeah, just like all the other rip-off subscriptions we pay for. Newspapers, Netflix, Hulu, GotoMyPC etc.What is up with those people? We should own that stuff!
Andystack: Well, adobes stock spiked up dramatically today in after hours trading on news that cc sales are up 20%, welcome to the future.
That and Adobe's earnings will determine if the move to the subscription model was the correct one.I find it astonishing that anybody really thinks that contemporary American management theory includes squishy notions of client dissatisfaction that cannot be papered over by PR.
Must have been posted about a nanosecond ago. Missing the avalanche of outraged hobbyist posts.
"Clients" who try to get you to work for free are not clients. They are thoughtless people who have somehow latched onto the idea that everything (except what they get paid) is negotiable down to zero.
They continue to bedevil us because someone keeps believing them.
monkeybrain: I wonder if Canon will produce any more pancake primes? It is probably possible to do more focal lengths, but then they might start stepping on the toes of the EOS M line (and we all know Canon likes to, often artificially, differentiate between its models a lot).
I doubt it as the lens formula is best at the normal range of FL. A telephoto or WA needs greater size to just do its job( tele) or avoid the flipping mirror and be far enough from the sensor to minimize edge falloff (WA).
Barry Fitzgerald: It's a nice lens tried this and the 18-135mm STM. Good optics and low price it's a winner for Canon (shame about the 1.6x crop though for APS-C users) The focus by wire is "a bit better" than some previous versions, but as ever it can't respond to faster turning like a mechanical focus can, it's weird as focus by wire always is.
On both lenses manual mechanical focus would be superior no questions about it. So I'd downgrade them a bit based on that. A good mechanical focus always beats electronic focus by wire hands down.
As good as mechanical focusing may be you will see less and less as it is cheaper to to make electronics. OTOH focus by wire will get better. Note how good electronic steering can be on some cars.
samhain: 400+ comments in 5 hours, no takers. Shocker. I'm guessing its the just the $140 lens cap people aren't happy with...
One good thing about this camera- it serves as a model for other companies as what NOT to build: a slow fixed zoom camera with no ovf/evf.
There probably will be takers. After intros like this, I notice an avalanche of negative comments and several months later there are boards devoted to the camera.
rb59020: $900.00!?! For that price it should be an f1.0! I could git the Sony lens and 9 K-1000 bodies on ebay! Or three new tires for my pickup truck!
You should not be shopping Zeiss or the other premium brands if you want to quack price.
Gesture: That expensive optical viewfinder has been done away with; not to mention smaller without being exotic miniaturization. These cameras should cost less.
Yes, even though the camera division loses money, they should charge less to make you happy?
Photomonkey: "I wouldn't feel comfortable in a heavy downpour."
I don't want to have a camera out in a heavy downpour.
I think the weatherproofing issue is a bit oversold as most people do treat their gear with some care.If you think about it, the most vulnerable part of you camera is the front element of the lens. If you are protecting THAT in a rain, you will also be covering the rest of the body IMO.
@Josh, Yes, I get it. But you are then trivializing its importance while defending its presence. If that is the case, then one should not be making such an issue of its absence.
The fact is that the issue of weatherproofing, while it has its advantages for limiting the exposure to sensor dust (most importantly), is still heavily oversold to a credulous market.
The fact is that when we look at a camera/lens combination and then think about exposing it to rain/dust/fire and brimstone, the areas that ARE "weatherproofed" are already fairly well protected by the basic construction of the camera. The lens mount is the obvious point of ingress for contaminants and that can be (and should be) the focus of weatherproofing efforts. That said, it is a simple O-ring on the lens and the job is done.
"I wouldn't feel comfortable in a heavy downpour."
Photomonkey: Photoline is an interesting alternative.Comes from Germany and is priced at 59 euros.Seems to have a lot of features, is 64 bit and has RAW support.
As the UI is different it will take a bit of time to see if it measures up.
Noticed that the RAW was poor. It also crashed on me and was slow. That is a huge advantage of LR where the files are imported with a great starting point dialed in.
Photoline is an interesting alternative.Comes from Germany and is priced at 59 euros.Seems to have a lot of features, is 64 bit and has RAW support.
MarcLee: To the people whining about "the competition does not have this", or "the competition does not have that", get real. Unless you buy a high end camera, your camera does not have a bunch of functions that owners of a 1DX for example have. Sometimes not spending so much has a small disadvantage. Taking a stand against greed may involve a little sacrifice. It's this attitude that has made Adobe the monster it is. Let the suckers pay Adobe's overheads for less innovation. There is plenty of software out there to do MOST of what MOST people need. Support it and it will do more. Find out what you need. And buy it. I would like a 5D MK III to cost no more than my point and shoot. Guess what? It ain't going to happen.
I hear the same rants whenever Adobe releases an upgrade (granted this time the wails are louder). Maybe all the previous whining about Adobe's greed convinced them that you aren't serious. ;)
@GaryJP: I agree. But considering the "ethics" of the average corporation in America (can you say Wall Street?) it seems the average American shrugs and lets it pass.