AllOtherNamesTaken

I tend to agree, lowering a rating due to lack of touch screen seems silly. If the T5i gets a Silver as wel with it's 5-7 year old sensor techl, you know the rating scheme is BS. In general, the rating scheme is inconsistent and pointless. I think most people just skip to the conclusion or use the image comparison tool. I also wouldn't be surprised if they are offered money in return for certain ratings.

No, overpriced compared to the competition. A built in TC versus taking one off/on is not worth $6,000 to most people.

Aaaaand it's only $6,000 overpriced, lol.

Where's the phase detect AF? They are 2 years behind on the AF front.

With things like the NEX 6, Nikon V2, etc. on the market this is way overpriced IMO.

$500 for 1/1.7"...nooo thank you.

1/2.3" for $400? Pass. Again.

1/2.3", no thanks. Not when things like the RX100 around, and it costs more than a Nikon V1.

Unfortunately, it's still a Q10.

Wow - just saw the MSRPs haha. Looks like my Vello RF triggers will have to do for now - well made and they work flawlessly for $35. Not quite as compact as the Nikon's though.

Looks excellent. Lets hope it's priced a little less than some of Nikon's other accessories! Somewhere around $59 maybe?

Too bad about the 1/1.7" sensor. Looks like an OK camera other than the sensor. With how small M43, Nikon V1, and Sony RX100 type cameras are, there is no excuse to be using such a small sensor IMO. Just not for me, but I'm sure some will like it.

39 close points also give you 3 things - more cross type sensors, better tracking and, very small AF points, which I can place easily on the eye of a small animal or person. Another reason more points helps is in macro, with the camera fixed and the subject moving (an insect, perhaps). You can move the point to 39 different places, rather than 11. I can't think of a single situation where all else being equal, more AF points is worse than less.

If you found the AF quirky at all, you likely had the wrong custom settings. My D600 locks on immediately, and focuses on things so dark I can't see them in the viewfinder. You can bet the AF in the 6D is not better than a 1 series, which isn't -3.0 EV - Canon would never do that.

As for the argument of selecting 1 of 11 points faster than 39, you can set the D600 to 11 points too...heck, you can even set it to 9 points - imagine how fast you could switch between them then!!

It would probably be the same sensor base as Nikon, but Nikon uses their own design, processing, and electronics that have historically been better than the similar sensor used in the Sony product. The RX1 will be the most interesting though, without the light loss.

Since canon has been recycling 5 year old sensor technology for a while now, and also since they wouldn't likely release a camera with better ISO performance than the 5D3, I think it is safe to assume it will not be as good as the D600 (which is on par with the D800 for ISO).

ISO performance aside, I expect things like the sub-par viewfinder (97%, no LCD overlay), 1/180 sync speed, no pop up flash, single SD slot, 4.5 FPS and 11 pt AF with single cross point will be bigger dealbreakers for people.

The price needs to be $1299-$1499 IMO, then they can make a case for the thing.

Imagine the whining if this had come out at the desired $1500 price point.....along with full plastic build, 3 FPS, no environmental seals, 95% penta-mirror VF, no in-body AF motor, and 9pt AF to keep the price that low.

Nikon camp is mad about the price, Canon camp is mad they paid $1500 more for almost the same camera.

"Everything is amazing, nobody is happy" Louis C.K.

Nobody's offended, simply pointing out ISO 1600 or even 3200 isn't high when cameras can do 204,800 these days (though it isn't exactly pretty!). D4 or downsampled D800 images can handle ISO 12,800-25,600 quite easily for most applications.

I'd imagine the D600 beats the D40 handily even at ISO 200 or 400...

My apologies if I offended in any way, but the D40 is simply not comparable to the D600.

I'd like to see your D40 take that same ISO 1600 image (I do not consider that high ISO these days). If it looks as good, I'll buy it off of you as I'll be able to save a lot of money.

Also keep in mind these are JPEGS, which are always considerably worse than 14bit RAW output.

PDAF isn't just for sports....surely you must know that. It makes photographing anything that moves much easier. Why not just throw it in there? The people who want to use it will, and the ones who don't, won't. Because there were no amazing AF systems "back in the day" is a terrible argument. I doubt any of those people are still using manual focus film cameras, and I wonder why? Technology is a wonderful thing.

Nikon and probably now Sony have put very good PDAF in their mirrorless cameras. It is only an advantage to have that as an option - you can always use CDAF if you prefer. #1 criticism of mirrorless cameras right now is their AF, which is why they are starting to introduce PDAF.

Anyways, it's just my opinion. Why not expand your customer base with a simple addition of a feature?

No phase detect AF, basically limits usage to static subjects....next please! Great camera otherwise. Nikon has had very good PDAF in their mirrorless for a year, and the new Sony NEX has it. Even the Canon EOS-M has it, albeit a very poor version. No reason why Fuji couldn't have incorporated it somehow.

I agree however you can get superzooms with the same range & sensor size in much smaller packages. I would also argue that the majority of superzoom buyers do not care about maximum external control or the huge size of a DSLR with none of the benefits a DSLR typically offers. I find *most* P&S customers have size, or the lack of, as a fairly high priority. Enthusiast users seem to be willing to sacrifice some size for external control and a decent sensor. That has just been my observation, anyways.