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.
Good luck fitting a "compact" f/2.0 - 4.0 lens with 7x zoom in front of that sensor...
abortabort: No eye sensor is a bit of a downer on an otherwise very good camera. Also hope it isn't the 921K dot EVF from the Samsung NX10 and Olympus VF3 - They were just awful. 921K dots is fine, but it needs to have good solid colour reproduction and brightness that other 921K dot EVFs to date have lacked.
IMO no eye sensor is a deal breaker, not a downer.
I used a P7700 as my carry-everywhere camera for 6 months and never used that settings dial on the upper left corner (where the EVF will live now in the P7800.) IMO this is a superb change. I hope they improved the poor operational speed of the P7700.And maybe if the P7900 has an eye/proximity sensor to switch between EVF & LCD, then they'll have homerun IMO.
This review states the Oly XZ-2 has optical IS. Everywhere else I read it's sensor-based IS (same as in the XZ-1). I suspect this review is mistaken. Can dpreview confirm?
sdh: I cannot figure out a reason for this camera's existence. What does it offer over an entry-level SLT model (or generic entry-level DSLR for that matter)? Is the price floor that different? And even if it is, once you start buying lenses, like you're supposed to with any I.L.C., then body price differences diminish further.
And FWIW I'm generally a fan of Sony. In the MILC world I like the shape and feel of the NEX's over the most of the m43's bodies, outside of Pana's mini-DSLR early G models. And I still don't understand why the SLT system didnt become a game changer. (Because on-sensor phase AF will supercede it soon?)
But I just don't see the point if this new model...
peevee1:I'm not convinced. Is a lowest-spec'd SLT really that much lighter? Once you accept the bulk of a camera like the A3000 (holster-type case, space in your backpack/carry-everywhere bag/whatever) you're not going to notice a few ounces.Flopping mirror, Separate focussing/metering sensors > So what? My Canon Rebel meters and focusses as well as the Sony A33 and Pana G2 & GF3 I had for a while. The notion of SLR lens front/back focussing is soooooo overhyped.
I cannot figure out a reason for this camera's existence. What does it offer over an entry-level SLT model (or generic entry-level DSLR for that matter)? Is the price floor that different? And even if it is, once you start buying lenses, like you're supposed to with any I.L.C., then body price differences diminish further.
Am I the only one finds "street photography" generally insipid and uninspiring? This just takes it to a new level of tastelessness.