Great-looking camera there. Price: $699. So, let's see . . .
"Critical detail at 100% suffers" -$50"Waxy-looking skin in high ISO images" -$25"AF tends to hunt" -$50"Lens is not as high of quality as its rivals" -$100"16MP X-Trans sensor is at the end of its life" -$25"No viewfinder" -$150
What we have here is the equivalent of a Fiat 500L at a Subaru Impreza price. No thanks.
SW Anderson: Lars Rehm, I hope you've learned a lesson. When your audience is packed with photography elitists and humorless hardware snobs, you better not review inexpensive things designed for fun. If an item's IQ can't meet the strict demands of photo editors at National Geographic or LIFE, you'll be inundated with snark and disdain.
Never mind that the cost of these lenses would alert anyone with a lick of sense that they're not "serious" photographic glass. Never mind that most who buy these lenses can get acquainted with what a fisheye or ultrawide can do, albeit without impressive sharpness. Never mind that if mounted carefully, used in bright light with suitable subjects, for display at smaller sizes online or as 4-by-6-inch prints, this lens and others like it can produce good-enough results for casual, fun-oriented snap- and selfie shooters. Apparently, those folks and the things they might enjoy aren't welcome within the IQ jihadists' jurisdiction.
M1963, thanks for pointing the way to an excellent read.
photoshack, Rehm noted and illustrated the lens' deficiencies and included its price — the highest I've seen for one of these. If you deem all that a sales pitch, steer clear of advertising or marketing jobs; you might starve.
You try to hoist me on my own petard, yet adjudge the lens "a $4 piece of crap." The irony is that one person's $4 crap is another's means of having fun, learning or indulging in artistic expression. No humorless snobbiness or elitism in your flat condemnation, though.
I suggest to you that a reasonable, non-elitist, non-snobbish response would go something like this: "Similar lenses can be had for much less. They're not for me, but to each his own."
Lars Rehm, I hope you've learned a lesson. When your audience is packed with photography elitists and humorless hardware snobs, you better not review inexpensive things designed for fun. If an item's IQ can't meet the strict demands of photo editors at National Geographic or LIFE, you'll be inundated with snark and disdain.
SW Anderson: I'm trying to remember ever hearing anyone long for the good old days of Super 8 movies, and drawing a blank. Even if the quoted prices are intended to be suggested list prices at introduction, soon to be brought down closer to Earth, I foresee a future of clearance shelf stacks and eBay selloffs for these things.
In a way I don't like being so negative. It would be great to see more companies trying to score successes where the competition ain't, in part by creating or re-creating niches through drawing on good ideas from the past. Even so, running something like this past some random groups of consumers and movie-making enthusiasts should be standard procedure before mass production gets under way. For example, I could see in another area where there might be an affluent enough group of people who might be willing to pay a 2016 price for a completely authentic Model T Ford or Stutz Bearcat replicar. But for a 1971 Chevy Vega? Not a chance.
I was there also and couldn't agree more. Coincidental to this Kodak announcement and the above story, I picked up a Sony CX405 video camera. It's a well-received and popular model from 2013 if I recall correctly. Pro and consumer reviews have been positive. I got it at an almost embarrassingly low closeout price — good because I don't do that much with video.
This Sony model, at a fraction of the size, weight and inflation-adjusted cost of my long-ago Super 8 camera, produces results I find impressive. Whereas, my long-ago super 8 camera left me asking, "This is it? This is all there is?" And, of course, it wasn't just the camera. The narrow, springy film itself was kind of a nuisance.
Sometimes, one can say they don't make 'em like they used to — what a relief!
I'm trying to remember ever hearing anyone long for the good old days of Super 8 movies, and drawing a blank. Even if the quoted prices are intended to be suggested list prices at introduction, soon to be brought down closer to Earth, I foresee a future of clearance shelf stacks and eBay selloffs for these things.
jorepuusa: Wonderful pictures of war planes, but where are the pictures of US military planes bombing children and other civilians to pieces? Cannot see any. Romanticizeing killing machines feels absurd.
"But my brain is able to comprehend complexities and nuances that some of your leftist brains cannot."
Leftist brain here (ahem). Weakness and lack of will to defend freedom invites aggression by those who would destroy freedom along with people who cherish and champion freedom.
Leftist, pacifist and simplemindedness are distinctly different things. ;)
tmurph: These are stunning air to air shots of military aircraft, yes they are used and have been used to bomb and destroy lives but such is the nature of these machines ( if nature is the right word) to be used in anger when the need arises.Remember, this is a camera and photography site not a political sounding board.By the way, those incredible photographic tools we all use contain electronics that were first tried in military hardware.
"How about we just throw them all away to the landfill of history and live happily ever after?"
How about you taking that suggestion to Russia, China, North Korea and across the Middle East, and get back to us with the responses?
Universal peace would be wonderful. So would freedom from crime. Maybe if we were to fire all of law enforcement, the criminals would all decide to become honest as the day is long.
Really, Big One, you need a remedial course in logic.
zakk9: The correct title of this should be "Vantage Point: The military aircraft photography of Jon Pece". No, I don't care much for glorifying photos of military equipment used for unprovoked attacks on other nations, resulting in millions of innocent deads, damaged lives, refugees etc. Some call it "collateral damage", but it's murder, plain and simple.
My comment to you was judgmental and harsh based on your being off topic and your sweeping condemnation of a few thousand people you've never met. The great majority of the people you slammed are well educated, exceptionally well trained, highly disciplined and serving our country, sometimes in deadly dangerous circumstances. They are not homicidal maniacs who get off on killing whoever, wherever.
The core of all bigotry is a notion, "they're all alike." Conclusion jumping, as in, " There's also quite some hypocrisy in a photo of a man who says he loves his wife and flies to kill someone else's family," is the trademark of an ignorant blowhard.
There's a compelling case to be made that Pece and others like him fly to keep a whole lot of families from being killed.
As for being able to take differing opinions, I have much less problem with them when they're factual, logical and dispensed in appropriate places.
What part of this comment has anything to do with photos or things related? How many of today's pilots have you interviewed at length in coming up with your judgment they're "frighteningly stupid?"
I've seen a rare few comments from overbearing, know-it-all trolls and ignoramuses on dpreview, but this from you is the worst.
A note for Damien Demolder and others who write for Dpreview. Please, when you use acronyms like PDAF, always spell them out as words on first reference, followed by the acronym in parentheses. Dpreview is a site frequented by enthusiasts and pro's, but I doubt you want newbies to feel like laymen at a trial lawyers' convention ("Mens rea; in pari delicto — say what?")
I had to stop on "PDAF" and try to come up with the most likely meaning I could think of given the context: phase-detect automatic focus. Good, clear writing, especially of a technical nature, doesn't challenge readers to intuit what's being said throughout a minefield of acronyms and jargon.
SeeRoy: These are daft focal lengths for MFT application since they more or less duplicate existing, reasonably priced equivalents (in many cases faster) from other brands - notably Olympus and Panasonic themselves.Why "deceptively pleasing"? Are they in reality repulsive? Do explain.
Mr. Macedo's comment comes across as an exercise in thinking inside the box. These micro four thirds lenses are what they are. I went a long time in the film days thinking the "standard" 50mm lens was somewhat tight and constraining for my taste. When I got hold of a 40mm pancake lens, I was delighted with the modest additional breadth of view. I expect some others would feel the wider view was too roomy for their taste. A cada uno lo suyo.
Sigma is providing micro four thirds enthusiasts with additional choices at affordable prices. To my mind, that can only be a good thing.
In the spirit of constructive criticism, I sought in vain some mention about the LCD's usability outdoors in sunlight. (If I missed this, please tell me where in the review it's located.) I think LCD performance is especially important in a pocketable, take-wherever camera -- whose manufacturer charges a whopping $450 for a shoe-mount optical viewfinder. (For that kind of money, Nikon should build a top-plate replacement with built-in rangefinder, IMO.)
The design looks well thought out and the size decent. Should have built-in EVF or a very affordable add on EVF.
I wonder why Canon is shunning the U.S. market when it comes to its lone mirrorless model. Competition too tough? Stung by less-than-stellar reviews of the first model? Afraid of cannibalizing DSLR sales? Seems as though U.S. photography enthusiasts deserve the courtesy of an explanation, at least.
My reaction is mixed. In a field with an awful lot of me-tooism in play at all times, I have to hand it to HTC for a "hit 'em where they ain't." approach. The extreme wide FOV could be fun in the right circumstances. Given it's toy-like limitations, the RE's price isn't completely outrageous.
Then again, I have to wonder how quickly buyers will get past the experimenting stage and put the RE on a shelf near the Pet Rock and Rubik's Cube.
datiswous: I think not able to use a viewfinder (internal or via add-on) on a system camera kind of sucks, even if 80% of potential buyers won't need it. Even on high-end compacts this becomes kind of standard.
@le alain, I have presbyopia and wear glasses. I need dioptric adjustment on EVF's. The large-ish Pentax Q OVF is comfortable to use with glasses on, unlike my cameras with EVF. You might find it usable after all.
SW Anderson: Back to the future with a much better and more appropriate classic retro look -- one of the original Q's enjoyable features. For me, the Q-S1 isn't a matter of whether, but when, I'll get one.
For the Q's sniping detractors, photography for many of us isn't all about big, slick-magazine covers and two-page spreads. We'll never do billboards and might never indulge in exhibition-size prints. We can enjoy on-screen and small-print images, along with using a good-looking, well-made camera that provides an amazingly feature-rich, flexible shooting experience with easy portability. Some of our best images are more about a memory captured or scene preserved than impressive resolution and amazing sharpness seen via pixel peeping.
My Q is fun and useful in many picture-taking situations where my big, bulky but technically superior DSLR would be as out of place as a semi-truck at a gymkhana. Some folks seem to enjoy the Q as a target for put-downs. I see that as their loss, not mine.
Why? Probably because many young iPhone devotees are into sci-fi chic, to coin a term. Why were most episodes of the hugely popular X-Files series nearly all darkish/greenish, darkish/grayish? Why are sci-fi shows and movies so full of distortions such as graininess, out-of-focus sequences and anamorphic effects? Again, it's sci-fi chic lending an other-worldly ambiance.
The Holga- and Lomo-like special-effects filters on other cameras give sci-fi fans a piece of that action they can apply to their own images. That's my best guess, anyway.
The Q's "toy" lenses don't lend images those kinds of artsy and edgy effects. In fact, I've seen some remarkably crisp, well-rendered scenic images from the "toy" wide angle and some nice informal portraits and urban scenes done with the "toy" telephoto. I'm sure those photos benefited from some skillful post processing, but that can only do so much. The "toy" lenses aren't coke-bottle-glass bad by any means.
@Pat Cullinan Jr, windowless saloons in Oklahoma? LOL.
Thanks for the kind words, sorta. ;)
@TacticDesigns, the Holga phenomenon has always struck me as a kind of counterculture-statement thing. Not unlike the hippie era of rejecting suburbia, keeping up with the Joneses and conspicuous consumption, among other things. In the Holga fans' case, the rejection is against advanced-technology digital cameras with fine rare-earth lenses that sport sophisticated coatings. I don't for a moment think Pentax's motive for producing the "toy" lenses had anything to do with attracting the Holga crowd or playing off of the Holga's popularity. The Holga crowd isn't given to paying Pentax prices, and the thought of sporting a chic, classic camera design like the original Q's, titanium body and all, is probably enough to make a Holga partisan queasy.
Raist3d: The following photos were taken with the original Q body. The original Q did not have an 1/1.7'' sensor, but 1/2.3'' sensor which is even smaller.
http://raist3d.typepad.com/files/imgp7492.jpghttp://raist3d.typepad.com/files/patricktakingmyshot.jpgMandatory cat shot in all equipment discussionhttp://raist3d.typepad.com/files/imgp6249.jpghttp://raist3d.typepad.com/files/imgp6968.jpghttp://raist3d.typepad.com/files/godsave.jpghttp://raist3d.typepad.com/files/imgp4768.jpghttp://raist3d.typepad.com/files/imgp4981.jpghttp://raist3d.typepad.com/files/imgp5372.jpghttp://raist3d.typepad.com/files/imgp6122.jpghttp://raist3d.typepad.com/files/imgp3782.jpghttp://raist3d.typepad.com/files/imgp3887.jpg
MysteryLemon: I would love to buy one or the older Q7. The one thing putting me off is the lack of fast lenses.
I own a Pentax MX-1 which has the same sensor. The zoom lens on it is superb opening to f1.8 at the wide end and not closing down much at the tele end. It's also reletively compact, even when fully retracted at the tele end. It's the perfect all purpose lens.
Until Pentax make an equivelant lens for the Q system, I wont be buying one. F2.8-4 just isn't good enough on a camera aimed at enthusiasts with a sensor this small. Better lenses can be made and affordable too. The MX-1 proves my case.
The Q's 01 prime lens is very sharp and has a max aperture of f/1.9. I don't know about you, but I can get some decent available-light shots with that at ISO 400. Of course, the 01 is not a zoom. For that I go old school and use my feet. That gets the job done in most situations.
NoRules: I did this with my Q7. I think it's good enough.http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3672812
Remarkable image and quite the ambitious project. A hat tip for a job well done. And with that supposedly awwwful tiiiny sensor, no less. Who knew? ;)