steve norris: A sensible review - thank you chaps. As far as image stabilisation goes, yes, it assists, but coming from a manual film camera background it is shooting technique that gets sharp shots for me. Agreed, with a long telephoto it helps noticeably but with small light primes it really shouldn't be necessary if you know what you're doing.
But cameras in this category as not made specifically for those who know what they are doing! Even for those that a do a little help in low light, even with a fast prime does not go amiss!
PaulChapman: Is this not insulting to people who are unable to speak?
I think that the subject matter is a little bit questionable. The candid shot of a person doing a foolish thing could quite easily end up depicting an injury or a death. Further, how can I depict someone who did (in the past tense) something. Unless of course they are injured in some way!
Hugo808: I like the idea of the voice recording, sounds like that would help at weddings too. Might get a few funny looks talking into my camera in the church though...
Spot on Keith Reeder!
DingieM: 10fps is slow when the new Sammy NX1 supposed to do 15 fps with 28mpx. I do not think the NX1 will disappoont on the sensor front...
I think Canon will lose huge market share by literally standing still after 5 years. Way to go Canon!
It does of course remain to be seen what these 15fps actually look like under real world conditions. Why would you think that Samsung won't disappoint? Have they done anything groundbreaking in photography thus far? Canon pro/semi pro consumers for bodies and glass aren't going anywhere yet, certainly not to the Korean that's for sure.
Retzius: She writes like a 14 year old.
I'm sure she will hate that.
Retzius. I don't think she was in a meeting or a presentation. More to the point did they ask you for a review? Was that a no? As for writing like a 14 year old, I've seen a few who put many to shame. moreover, she communicated what she needed to, which unless I'm mistaken, is the point of writing! What with cavemen above berating the fact that a 'woman,' god forbid, has written an article, and jealousy from Marcel Proust here, I might just be forced to defend DPR!
Joe Ogiba: It looks like the only players today with advanced cameras with 4K today are Samsung, Panasonic and Sony. Maybe by 2020 Canon will put 4K in the 7D Mark III.
That is frankly bizarre and wrong. Samsung is nowhere near a serious challenger to the CaNikon DSLR market. Not while it only has a handful of lenses to offer. Fujifilm (non DSLR) possibly, Sony (Non DSLR) maybe, but Samsung have an awful long way to go. Producing one well specified camera, which indeed the NX1 is, is not enough to be a market leader. We also don't know how those specs respond in the real world e.g. how will the AF stand up to shooting over 10fps? Canon know that they can do this. I'll wait for the reviews of this camera first!
Not sure how that comment relates in the slightest to what I wrote!
Maybe. But maybe if people are that interested in making films they ought to buy a dedicated 4K camcorder. But only when they know there is an affordable television to watch it on. Personally I don't want fripperies like video and weak articulated screens on my cameras, nor do I want to pay for them. Advanced cameras - Samsung and Panasonic. I suppose that depends what you mean by advanced?
Israel119: I think this is more in honor of Canon failing to create a new sensor for over 5 years, which is the equivalent of 3 lifetimes in the digital world. Apparently someone at Canon belies that it is enough to have great lenses, but cameras can still be considered new and current when they first started selling in 2009, like the 7D, which is not only ancient but mummified.
MIne's OK! I don't see Canon's camera business crumbling at the edges because its sensors are hopeless. Nor do I see millions of Canon consumers throwing their obviously mummified equipment away in search of the latest sensor technology that presumably all non Canon users have. I think the long and the short of it is that notwithstanding a few strange types, who are more interested in 'stuff' than taking pictures, nobody gives a s***!
tutek: For that money can buy Sony Alpha a6000. Canon has a weak 12.8, sony even 24 megapixels (maybe not all in the number of megapixels, but the picture is amazingly sharp) Reasonable price for canon would be 400-500 U.S. dollars.
Oh dear MegaPixel lust. Should we assume that the Canon 1DX or Nikon D4s, with 'only' 16MP sensors are inferior to the Sony as well. Please stop talking rubbish!
Tutek. That's fine, buy the Sony. You've waited for 3-4 years for a compact, you must be nuts. If the Sony is what you like, buy it. I'm sure Canon don't care!
Lea5: That staged image won a price, because it is political with a liberal message. They want to sell this man in the image as the true low IQ bearded american who is ugly, fat and owns lots of big guns and is a thread to the american public. What kind of people sitting as judges in those juries? Most of them are guilty white bourgeoisie liberals, who wants to ban guns and exterminate old american values. Disgusting people. I know many of them.
And what, pray tell, is the old American value that assault rifle toting men wish to preserve? That is if you insist on making a political point!
I'm just intrigued. What do you mean by tasteful in the context of urban decay?
Devendra: go with canon? which koolaid are you drinking? and then you shoot with Canon 40D?
i stopped reading after that
i wish DPR would monitor this absurd articles from so called "pro"s
Bizarre comment. The camera is irrelevant. The glass will make a difference, but rather a 40D in the hands of someone who knows what makes a good picture, than a Nikon D4 in the hands of a fool!
sagebrushfire: With freedom you just cannot have it all; to have absolute freedom would be a paradox because that would mean you're free to detract or take the freedom of others, who would then no longer have absolute freedom themselves.
So we argue and organize and find a balance that can satisfy the majority while giving the minority certain rights that allow them to coexist peacefully.
If you're in a non-essential public place or at a specifically planned event where photography is permitted, you don't have a reasonable right to privacy. You went out of your way to obtain access to a publicly available area.
Now, if you're walking in a business or residential area where you don't have much choice, perhaps you're traveling to work or school, I have less sympathy for photographers trying to snap your portrait because you have limited control over your ability to maintain privacy. That being said, photos of crowds or where a person is more or less unidentifiable are mostly harmless.
What would be the point of taking the picture if you are going to do that with it? Some of the most significant pictures in the history of photography would simply not exist if this view held sway!
bunyarra: <sigh> If you want to rant about sly photography go have as pop at the 1000's of security cameras that capture your every move in every city.
The purpose to which they are put is irrelevant. It matters little if the camera is on private property or used by the police. The suggestion that the state and private institutions have a greater 'right' to capture images of citizens is deeply worrying in my view. I would have less concern about being captured by a photographer than the beady eye of the state.
Dan4321: You follow one rule, but break two others. For instance, the cropping in the second photo cuts off part of the woman's hand. The third photo I think involves some nudity, so it should probably be labelled *NSFW* (or the whole article labelled that) because while we may not mind the nudity, someone looking over our shoulder in the workplace may.
In the modern world where photos are rarely printed and often viewed on screen, in a movable window, the rule of thirds is such a big deal anymore.
Had it crossed your mind that the crop simply illustrates the point? Nudity, crikey, are you in a monastry. There is more flesh on my local high street. And the final point is just odd.
rondhamalam: Low Iso Banding is worse ....................
the camera is useless
What an absurd comment.
Randello: WARNING! If Nokia haven't changed their business ethos and quality control, this product is certain to be plagued with many major software bugs and design flaws. Nokia release products before they are ready and without doing any software (and hardware) testing of prototypes. They rely on us to do it for them! How for example could a company as big as Nokia make such a mistake as to release the N97 phone that most of the time couldn't make or receive calls, not to mention many other major software bugs? This is the reason for their massive decline and the once market leader. In 2010 Nokia officially apologized for the amount of customers who have experienced issues with the N97 and the buggy software. This led to a large amount of potential customers choosing brands other than Nokia during this time period. And, Yes I was one of those people.
I made the decision then, and I still feel the same now, I WILL NEVER EVER TOUCH ANYTHING MADE BY NOKIA AGAIN.
You have been warned!
Agree totally, bought a Lumia 800 this year after having an iPhone, and it was totally crap. Three firmware updates later and it's still hopeless. I would never touch Nokia again, not even with a 25ft bargepole. Digital detritus in my opinion....good luck to anyone who opts for this disaster waiting to happen!