If this is a real partnership, the companies would have been better off with a solid announcement, instead of rushing crude, even bizarre sketches and mockups.
REDred Photo: I feel that a lot of the arguments presented here are not quite targeting the real issues...
Why do people really buy Hasselblads? Perhaps there are a few people out there willing to pay lavishly for style, but I suspect the VAST majority of Hasselblad users (and Lecia users) got into the system for the unique capabilities, quality of craftsmanship, exceptional lenses, and long-term durability of the system as a whole.
I use a Hasselblad 501CM with a Phase One digital back in my studio specifically for the leaf shutter lenses, huge digital sensor, rock solid dependability, direct tethered shooting, long-term compatibility, etc. Do I LIKE my Hasselblad... sure I do... but more importantly, it has capabilities other cameras dont... and it does what I NEED it to do... exceptionally well... and it will continue to do so long after other cameras have been recycled.
If you take away all the reasons for using a Hasselblad in the first place, then what do you have left? A Sony.
"How about a smaller Hasselblad-esque body with SLT (semi-transparent, non-moving mirror), 36mm square 22MP sensor with 16bits, no AA filter, interchangeable focus screens, a set of quiet, electronically controlled leaf-shutter zeiss autofocus lenses that allow flash sync up to 1/2000th of second.
I'd pay $7k for that. Not for a Sony." Exactly.
Faucet taps on top deck to pour drinks?
This makes Sigma SD1 with wood body mainstream.
Solution in search of a problem.
Where's the EVF. And I don't see a Jade handgrip.
VENTURE-STAR: I've owned three Canon G series cameras. All were fitted with useless viewfinders which I hardly ever used. Nevertheless, they were reliable, well built cameras with good optical performance, producing very consistent results. I also had an Panasonic LX5 (with no viewfinder), which was okay but lacked satisfactory optical performance. In fact, the last digital camera I owned with an accurate viewfinder was an Olympus 5050. But I've found small VFs to be mostly a waste of time and I prefer the bigger view of an LCD screen. The 7700 is exactly my idea of a good compact (almost) camera. I'd prefer it with a manually operated, non-retracting zoom as this reduces the liklihood of component failure. Unfortunately, this camera's CCD will never provide SLR quality. Apart from that it looks good. My concerns are build quality, reliabilty and lens performance, especially at wider apertures towards the edges. If the test reports are favourable, I might buy one as my next SLR backup.
"I'd prefer it with a manually operated, non-retracting zoom as this reduces the liklihood of component failure. " Avoid the Achilles heel of the modern digital P&S, the zoom gearing. Amen.
jdonalds: Wow the specs and price on this Nikon look really good. It will be good to see the full review. However...
All 4 cameras in our house have viewfinders. My wife and I simply won't buy a camera without one. There are times when the LCD simply won't do the job. An EVF would be perfect.
Perhaps Nikon will consider putting a viewfinder on the next model if they see sufficient comments like mine and so many others here.
Yes. The lowly P60 went EVF instead of optical tunnel and it works great for bright light or those who prefer eye-level working. Often, Nikon and Canon just don't try hard enough.
buongustaio: any news about the sooo much craved body that would better handle top-pro 4/3 lenses?17mm aside, this is all i'm asking from this stand :)
Good points all.
Wish Pentax Ricoh could ally itself with one more strong company. Is there another electronics firms (i.e. Sony or Panasonic) that would like to get into cameras?
manhattankid: I am very disappointed in the G15.
First what happened to the G13 and G14???
Canon removed the flip screen which to me is the best feature of the G series. I have owned the G 5 which came out in 2003, the G6 (which I bought used instead of buying the G 9 and G 10), and have been thrilled with the G12.
The G5 had F 2.0 lens, canon later lost that and now brings it back, it had raw, canon later dropped that with the G7 and brought it back , and it had an articulated screen which canon dropped and brought back.
Why not make a G series camera with a larger sensor, F 2.0 and articulated screen? That is not a fantasy camera since Canon already has these features in other cameras it makes. I will be passing up on the G15.
Like dpreview, I was surprised that the G series was continued. More interested in seeing what the GX successor is like.
deep7: Funny, though understandable, how so many complain about the fixed screen. I have a G1X and would much prefer NOT to have the annoying, fiddly swivel LCD!For a while I used an Olympus EP1 with a fixed screen and found it quite useable when viewed at an angle (ground shots, overhead shots etc.). I suggest G-series fans wait until you actually get to try one before you panic too much.
I'm happy enough with my G1X but wonder if Canon will ever have the balls to make something a bit more serious - better viewfinder, better close-focus implementation, fewer gimmicks (wink detection??!! etc.). It would help to abandon the G compact shape and go for something lower and wider...
"a bit more serious - better viewfinder, better close-focus implementation, fewer gimmicks " Yes.
nixda: A lot of people here complain about that Canon didn't innovate with the G15. I personally couldn't care less about innovation; I am much more interestd in implementation; implementation of proven technology.
What is there to innovate really? It all comes down to a decent sensor, a high-quality, fast lens, and usable controls. The rest is up to the photographer.
Swivel screen, viewfinder, flash, location of buttons, GPS, WiFi, etc., those are all highly contentious items that some care about very strongly and others not at all. To me that means that these items are not really that important in a grander scheme of things. A company has to make decisions and inevitably will lose some customers and win others.
Overall, the G15 is a decent package that will allow people to take great photos. If I hadn't decided to go with a compact ILC next time, I'd take the G15 in a heartbeat.
How about a better optical viewfinder. I'd also like excellent focus capability and accuracy at close distances. I still haven't found a point and shoot camera that can focus as well and as accurately, even in very low light, and throttle the flash down as well as the Nikon Coolp[ix 995!
In 60 years time, one would think you could come up with a rangefinder that works within an optical viewfinder that shows, say, 125 percent of the view of the focal length lens attached. Then, you would have a maximum sized frame line with some "outside the frame" view as touted in the press release. Only Contax and Fuji, to my knowledge, have tried to advance optical viewing systems. Those who have worked with outstanding rangefinders with such frame lines and parallax correction (Fuji 6x7/6x8/6x9s in medium format; Konica III in 35mm) will understand.
Reminds me of the German WERRA rangefinders; quite minimalist for their day.
Jay Jenner: I think this looks like a brilliant little camera. I am very familiar with the excellent build quality of Olympus cameras and their stellar lenses. It is also very important to me how a camera handles and this looks like it would be a pleasure to shoot with. The grip is important, as is the lens ring and other manual controlsThe cost is steep but not stupidly so. The larger sensor of the Sony is tempting for sure, and that looks like a super little camera, but all things considered I think I would rather have one of these.It does help that I already have a couple of Oly flashes I guess.
The key is image quality, how the lens mates to the sensor and processing. To my eye, Olympus has always been more three-dimensional imagery than Sony, although Sony focus and resolution are always excellent, but I am speaking about much older digital cameras.
Two exciting new cameras from Leica. Remember, with adapters, we can use many screw-mount lenses on these cameras.
ThomasH_always: Pity that the optical viewfinder has not been improved. For me its an invaluable tool in my G12, but I wish I would have rudimentary focus information in it. And it could be a bit bigger as well. Brighter lens in the G15 is an advantage, of course, however I became quite attached to the flippable LCD screen, and I will have to do some thinking if I really want to replace G12 by a G15.
Exactly. Canon could try harder.
Why not hire a few folks away from Olympus to learn how to tame those JPEGs?
iwouldificould: That camera up there as pictured is not 2800 dollars. That guy has the $599 optical viewfinder, the $179 lens hood, and the $249 thumb grip. So that camera costs a little over 3800.
Trips up market are always interesting. In the united states consumers generally don't tolerate up market from brands that also sell cheep. Companies go to great lengths to work around this. Premium brand creation such as Acura and Infinity are examples of this. This may out perform a Leica X2 in every way but it doesn't say "Leica" on the front.
Form factor alone might sell some of these cameras and some shooters swear by the 35mm focal length, but is that enough? I think it is fair to ask who this camera is for, I also think it is fair to be excited about companies being willing to innovate, to push the boundaries of what a camera should be. For me personally I like the form factor, if I could switch out lenses too, this would be my next camera. Even a 50mm and a 90mm would be enough for me.
Yes, this is quite an achievement and premium product. But I feel that modern manufacturers can develop new models more quickly and more economically than in the past. Much of the conponentry, sub-assemblies, processing engines, etc. are already developed.