Maverick_: That's a lot of effort for $399. Lots of features for so little. What would they have to do next to top this. Where do you go from here camera makers? 16mm to 2500mm for $299? And what comes after that fish-eye, to 3000mm for $199?
This to me sounds like the beginning of the end. You can't support this growth in order to give people reasons to upgrade their bridge cameras. If someone buys this camera today and shoots with it a few times a year, he/she would have no reason to ever upgrade unless the camera breaks. This camera already belongs to a small market segment.
With compacts going away, as phone cameras taking over that responsibility, a tiny segment who aren't shooting with DSLRs and phones would still want a bridge cam true, but this segment will keep shrinking fast.
My guess is that we are looking at the last of this particular segment. A couple of more years and that's it.
The future is phone cameras and FF DSLRS.
When you can get that kind of zoom in a camera or DSLR for under $400, come and talk to me. There are plenty of amateur birders, would be photojournalists and paperazzi, part time soccer parents, occasional zoo or wildlife photographers etc. who can't afford or justify $1200+ on a decent DSLR and long lens (or $12000 on a "proper" setup with 500-600mm primes, TC and tripod/monopod) for whom this sort of gadget is the perfect toy.
Whether this particular camera fails or not depends on how it fairs against others in the group.
It's just one half of a pair of roof hinge binoculars. At $25 I won't quibble, especially if someone's made sure it works with your device. But lets not call this something new. I've been holding cameras eye to my telescope and microscope eyepieces for years.
I don't really want a tablet so this isn't for me.
That just tells me NYT and Getty don't have a clue. Instagram is awful.
Won't touch another Fuji "Waterproof" camera. My wife's XP20 died after a handful of uses. The seal doesn't last and eventually you get water incursion that isn't covered by warranty. In the meantime the picture quality was....well AWFUL. I have an old Fuji S5700 that I'd still use happily in certain situations and it had possibly the best macro of any compact I've owned, so I'm no Fuji hater. But these "waterproof" cameras aren't worth having - splashproof or disposable waterproof with unknown time to failure - you choose.
This is make or break time for me, whether I buy this camera or not.
Are we going to have more of the same AF, oil splatter, hot pixel and other QC issues? If so, I'll just run my current D90 cameras into the ground, and when they die I'll consider whether to sell up what remaining accessories still work with the gear of the day and move brand or not.
I would have liked to see higher FPS and flash sync speed. Miss the D70 1/500th flash sync. That could be magic shooting at the long end. And only 6/7 FPS when Sony sports 12 and the D300S could do 8 with grip I think is a mistake.
Price is good. Features are great. Let's hope they've been listening about QC complaints. I'm not going to be an early adopter. I'm going to sit back and wait till well into this camera's production life before I put down any $$$.
Wonderful photos at web resolution, but I'll keep my DSLR for it's versatility. I can shoot action, low light, long zoom, extreme wide, extreme macro, and astrophotography. You can pry it out of my cold dead hands.
Please post a link to the pro forum. Lots of photo ops of professional's heads exploding. Keywords: Uncle Bob, Shoot and Burn, Spray and Pray.
I had family shoot with 2 D70 bodies when we were married in 2007. The money that would have gone to hiring a pro went into 2 lenses and a flash unit. We didn't get every shot a good pro might have, but we don't have an expensive horror story out of it either. I wouldn't pay someone to spend a few minutes with an iPhone at a wedding regardless of their talent.
This is why I'm not interested in "high art". More often than not it's boring junk that's well marketed. Good on her for having a play with the camera and shooting some pics that are interesting to other people...I'm not buying.
Time isn't what it use to be...
Is DPreview really an appropriate place for this spy series? Otherwise known as creepshots. The last thing I want to do is be associated with a site that encourages people with cameras to behave in ways that make others angry. Eventually this kind of behaviour will see cameras banned or regulated/licensed.
Really? Creep shots on DPreview???
Please go disrupt someone else. I want to shoot pictures, not be disrupted. When you have an EVF that can compete with my OVF I *may* look into your gear.
Sammy Yousef: My workflow is very different. I've only every messed with trial versions of Lightroom but i found to my horror that an earlier version was actually modifying my files (meta-data only). My workflow means that the only software to touch the files when they first come in are OS file copy programs.
I copy to a drive in directory structure that follows the pattern: YYYY\YYYYMMDDDescription. If I have multiple cards I am careful that all files have been copied by checking number of files and total size. I then carefully take care of name collisions and move everything into the top level folder for that shoot. I try not to do any editing at this stage as it complicates things. I run pixelfixer over the directory if I've done any high ISO shooting, and I may split the directory into files by different shooters if my wife and son have been using the cameras.
Now I can create a second copy of the directory, wipe my cards, and start editing the primary copy.
Two more things.
From time to time I run md5sums on the originals so I can check if the file has been altered, and generate a new md5sum for new files. I like to keep pristine copies. Software that modifies my files without my knowledge gets turfed.Hence no Lightroom purchase. I must admit I've neglected to run those md5sums for about a year.
My second copy is on a removable hard drive which is periodically copied to a new drive, with the old drive going either to my mother or mother in law's house- about every few months. Unless the entire city is taken out i should retain my pics for some time as I have multiple off site copies of anything older than a few months..
My workflow is very different. I've only every messed with trial versions of Lightroom but i found to my horror that an earlier version was actually modifying my files (meta-data only). My workflow means that the only software to touch the files when they first come in are OS file copy programs.
For the love of everything sacred, please add user option to map out bad pixels. I will not spend $200 to get a single hot pixel. No one else does this. Best controls of any manufacturer and arguably the best image quality and yet your quality control (Oil splatter, focus issues) and lockout of user for basic functionality turn what should be a shooter's dream into a frustrating expensive nightmare.
Based on past experience on boards such as slashdot.org (computers and science newsdiscussion), the moderation will be a disaster. It's too easy for groups of bullies to put in the time and effort to gang up on someone they don't like, and most good people will simply steer clear rather than get involved. The user moderation system on slashdot.org has contributed to turning it from a reputable "news for nerds" board into a shadow of it's former self.
Yeah just what we need. yet another underperforming underspec'd nostalgia camera that will milk rich old guys who miss the simplicity of a walkaround film camera with a 50mm lens.
There are cheaper alternatives for most of these things. You can get a manual flash, camera card, camera backpack, and tripod combined for less than $250 IF you know what you're looking for and skip the big brands. (If you don't know what is and isn't good and don't take the time to look at reviews you almost certainly will end up with junk though).
Another tip for saving money is to buy last year's model on close out or just before close out. You can pick up decent point and shoots for <$100.