Lets see... 200000 cycles estimated shutter life at 10 frames per second.If we were to unbox a brand new one and tape something over the shutter button to hold it down, it would last about 5.5 hours. Warranty claim!! :-)
sdh: I'm not a Canon fanboi but wow, just wow on the AF system!I think it's an oft overlooked point that AF systems in entry-level full frame DSLRs suck because they cluster the points in the center of the frame. So while it looks great on the spec sheet that your low end FF DSLR has 11 billion AF points, the center 3 of which are cross type (or whatever Nikrap specs these days) it's not very useful because it nets out to 1 oversize center AF point. And yes Canon is guilty of that too, but less egregiously so IMO. Unless you're shooting landscapes, Id take a high end crop body anyday over a low end FF.The 7DII is impressive.
In other words, what I said, more or less. LOL, nice reading comprehension Chief!
FodgeandDurn: I feel a bit like I've gone to a sports car website and accidentally read all about the latest Subaru Legacy.
The Spec B version of the LGT 2.5 GT was the high point of the Legacy line. Starting with the 09 or 10 redesign (I forget exactly what year it was), it's all crap. :-)
I'm not a Canon fanboi but wow, just wow on the AF system!I think it's an oft overlooked point that AF systems in entry-level full frame DSLRs suck because they cluster the points in the center of the frame. So while it looks great on the spec sheet that your low end FF DSLR has 11 billion AF points, the center 3 of which are cross type (or whatever Nikrap specs these days) it's not very useful because it nets out to 1 oversize center AF point. And yes Canon is guilty of that too, but less egregiously so IMO. Unless you're shooting landscapes, Id take a high end crop body anyday over a low end FF.The 7DII is impressive.
Suggestion to dpreview: Add a side-by-side comparison view between the Canon G7 X and Pana LX100 to either or both of those cam's "body & design" pages.
Wow. Just... wow.Cameras like this give Canon and Nikon fanbois something to genuinely bond over.
sdh: None of those photos made me think, "Wow you can't get that with an APS-C, pardon me, DX, sensor DSLR.
That said I enjoyed the photos themselves.
I didn't look up the EXIF for any of those (couldn't find it actually). But if some of them are shot at ISO's reasonably too high for DX then I stand corrected about the shots not demonstrating the capability of FX.
I particularly like #'s 5,7,8,10. 5,7,8 photographically.10 because it's mountain biking.
None of those photos made me think, "Wow you can't get that with an APS-C, pardon me, DX, sensor DSLR.
OMG - ROFLMAO!!I guess the gearphile in me is slightly disappointed, but truthfully I don't really care. I sooooooo have more gear than I really need.
Ooh, what's that I see outside my window just now; I think it's interesting light falling on something interesting. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to grab any camera whatsoever and see if something interesting can come of it....
Or I could sit at my computer and whine about how upset I am that somebody hasn't made the bleeding edge of gear bleed more. LOLOLOLOLLOOLOLOLOL!!
I'm inclined to think a lot of people's expectations are way out of line here.Canon's offering a true ultrawide lens at a price point that halves the previous price floor.
I've used this lens a bit in recent weeks and am very pleased with its images. Stopped down (around F/8) my picutres look consistently sharp from center to corner, even at 10mm.
Maybe my expectations were low (this is admittedly my first UW), but at $300 the lens would have to be truly garbage to warrant complaints about IQ. This lens is far from garbage.
AFAIK UW's are harder to design than standard FL's. This lens reeks of value.
I'm very happy with my purchase.
Does RAW actually offer benefit in smartphone-size sensors?RAW has real benefit with DSLRs and regular point-and-shoot type cameras because the image sensor can capture a larger range of information than the jpg format can store. But the margin decreases as sensor size decreases (decreasing dynamic range).Do smartphone sensors actually have headroom beyond what jpg can store?
And separately I can't help thinking that if you're fussy enough about your images to manually post-process RAWs (because there's no point shooting RAW if you don't) then you probably should be doing photography on a device with a proper handgrip and shutter button (ie a real camera even if only a compact and not a smartphone).
sdh: To those who are making a fuss over the level gauge: WHY?
Activate the grid, pay attention to horizontal or vertical elements in the composition and visually align them to the grid.
In my experience a physically level camera yields an image that looks tilted, more often than not.
Interesting replies. I agree on principle, that it generally sucks when a new version of something loses a feature that a previous version had. But I can't help feeling that the level gauge was marketing fluff from the beginning. A lot of these comments left with an unanswered question: How can physical level-ness of the camera be more important than visual & compositional level-ness of the image?
To those who are making a fuss over the level gauge: WHY?
On page 7 in the Raw Improvements section they state that their RAW-processed version of a picture had "less false color" than the corresponding camera jpg. What is "false color"? I've never read that term before.
Retzius: For those who are confused as to why this lens is relevant, compared to the Nikon equivalent it is smaller, lighter, and much cheaper, with equal to better optical performance.
It is not targeted at your average Dpreview brick wall shooter who examines his sensor for dust particles. It is targeted at a first time Dslr shooter with an intro level body who doesn't want to change lenses that often.
And they sell alot of these
There's the mount conversion service too, which I believe the 18-250 does not offer. Fair enough. I still like my 18-250. (And actually prefer its cosmetics. :-)I wonder if the focus ring on the new 18-200 will rotate during AF. I bet yes! :-)
Retzius, Sigma's 18-250 serves the purpose you describe. So what's the point of this new 18-200? It will need to be either substantially better than the 18-250, or substantially cheaper. But the 18-250 is already pretty affordable and good.
What is even the point of this lens? Sigma's 18-250 is still pretty new, far from obsolete. Is this new 18-200 supposed to be better? Or just cheaper? But the 18-250 is hardly expensive. I have the 18-250, bought it for ~$100 more than it currently goes for, and Im very happy with it.
What's the point of this new 18-200??
Let's see, same lens, sensor and IIRC processor as the P7700. Is there any reason to expect image characteristics to any different from the P7700?
Antonio Rojilla: Best ergonomics and set of controls in a compact camera ever. Now if its sensor and lens were like those of the RX/QX100...
I never indicated preference of zoom range vs sensor size. 28-200 (equivalent) range is a foundational spec of the P7xxx series. If they were to drastically upsize the sensor at a cost of reducing lens range & brightness (or, drastically enlarging the whole camera), then they'd essentially be creating a new line. I'm not saying one approach is whoelsale better than the other; everything's a tradeoff. My point is simply that, going large-sensor w/ less lens range would make the camera not really a P7700 successor.