petemod: This lens is almost as slow as EOS M camera sales.
Hey, I bought an EOS-M too. $379 for camera, 22mm f2 pancake, 18-55 zoom, and flash.
Price low enough and you can move product.
9.6% (Japan) market share for a mirrorless line that is being dumped (Japan prices were even lower than US!) is not exactly a big seller.
Damo83: High-end optical performance, eh?
Actually all three EF-M lenses are very good. As are the STM EF-S lenses. Canon has lately been putting out the sharpest low-end lenses
quezra: Finally the tele lens! Now where's the EVF and grip to use it properly?
Well... The EVF needs an EVF socket
Hephaestus: Plastic mount. Not mentioned in the release, and not mentioned by dpreview, but it is plastic mount (and metal body). Rather strange decision - the remaining three EOS M lenses have metal mounts.
The body looks like metal, but maybe plastic made to visually match the earlier M lenses?
The M was introduced as a premium product, but did not sell that way! Canon is smart to lower build cost to hit a lower price point.
Full Frame BSI. Yah
Ummm. The reviewer spends a lot of time talking about how hazy low-contrast lenses don't work so well, and concludes third-party lenses would not be a good choice for critical work.
Well, hazy low-contrast lenses are not good choices for critical work!
But what about the SMC 35mm f2 he says is great? Why wouldn't it be fine for critical work? The review doesn't say, other than ergonomic quibbles.
I mean, no one would use a 17mm Vivitar (I had one once) on a $1700 camera for critical work! (Playing around is another matter).
blacklion: God, please, kill PC sockets! 3.5mm audio jack is perfectly fine!
PC sockets are not very secure
tomtom50: Modern cameras have three basic settings, Aperture, Shutter, and ISO. Three dials, each with an A setting, gives you all eight permutations all the way from auto everything to total manual, with no need to illuminate a screen. And the new Fuji finishes it our with exposure compensation.
This is the first digital camera I could happily use 'dark' only using the LCD for review and few screen overlays in the finder.
From the photos it looks like Fuji has built the camera Nikon claimed they were making.
Meaning the camera is not glowing when you want to be inconspicuous.
photogeek: You can thank the stubborn US consumer for the resurgence of these viewfinder humps and huge camera bodies. Folks seem to think that if the camera is not the size of their head, and it doesn't hurt their neck, the image quality has to be worse somehow.
Personally, I think Sony NEX (models with a viewfinder) offer the ideal form factor right now. They're about as small and light as they can physically be without sacrificing the hand grip, tilting screen and built in flash. And that's the proper way to do it, now that we're not constrained by the the size of the prism and mirror box.
I agree about size, but Sony could learn about user interface from Fuji.
Modern cameras have three basic settings, Aperture, Shutter, and ISO. Three dials, each with an A setting, gives you all eight permutations all the way from auto everything to total manual, with no need to illuminate a screen. And the new Fuji finishes it our with exposure compensation.
Now that Sony owns part of Olympus they are helping Olympus sell the Stylus 1 by over-pricing the RX10. Very neighborly of them.
The normalization feature is really nice. I would recommend a red and a green fur patch rather than two green patches top better show weakness in the red channel.
Also it would be nice if the settings showed aperture and shutter speed as well as lens used. That allows comparing exposure without downloading the entire file and comparing exif data.
tomtom50: That Fuji refuses to release the algorithms they use in-camera amazes me. I won't buy from a company that so disregards the needs of their users.
I stand corrected.
Where did you read that Fuji released the algorithms?
That Fuji refuses to release the algorithms they use in-camera amazes me. I won't buy from a company that so disregards the needs of their users.
bzanchet: Great first impressions! I'm really looking forward for this camera, it should be a great 2nd camera for me, specially for the size (who carries a DSLR for a party concerned about DOF?), lenses and Olympus Jpegs. Even with the smaller sensor, I believe it will be better than Canon S100, like the Pentax Q.
Today's 1/2.3" is yesterdays 1/1.7", upper Dxomark 46 - 48. The newest 1/1.7" sensors are now in the 50s, coming up against the Nikon 1" sensors. The RX100 1" sensor beats the last generation m43, and so on. I don't know when it will stop, but the 1/2.3" Q and SX50 have IQ good enough for at least some enthusiasts.
I see no reason the XZ-10 cannot be as good as the S90 / S95 except with a faster lens, and that is darn good. It will not beat the RX100, but it is a lot cheaper.
FF DSLR same size as Olympus OM-1.
tomtom50: The DPR review seems to omit two important consideration; I hope they can add them.
- The real benchmark to work against is the current hybrid AF champion, the Nikon 1. According to its reviews it manages to achieve dslr level focus tracking in good light, beating all other mirrorless cameras in this regard. Since focus tracking is the main wonderfulness of PDAF, isn't that the comparison that should be made?
- Does viewfinder shooting have a Hybrid mode that is a bit slower but finishes the main PDAF action with a little CDAF trim? It might be a bit slower, but it would sidestep calibration issues. If Canon did not take advantage of this it merits a mention as a lost opportunity. (perhaps I missed it in the review)
I have heard people use the Nikon 1 with the FT-1 adapter and the 85mm f1.4 with good results. You can hardly get more critical than that.
I understand the point that bigger mirrorless are closer to the 650D because they are... Bigger. But comparing a DSLR against a mirrorless is comparing apples and oranges already. For the 650D apple the closer is the Nikon 1 orange because they share a key feature - on-sensor AF.
I did not know that the Nikon 1 uses either PDAF or CDAF, but not both. Thanks , Bart.
On reflection that makes sense. On-sensor PDAF does not have the flapping mirror/mechanized PDAF that DSLRs have. On-sensor PDAF just has less to be miscalibrated, so a CDAF trim is perhaps not needed.
My question would be: what is it about the Canon on-sensor PDAF that requires a CDAF trim where Nikon does not? Perhaps a critical patent Nikon is not licensing?
The DPR review seems to omit two important consideration; I hope they can add them.