nathantw: The Stella wasn't a bad product, it was just way overpriced. In fact, that's where the problem lie, the products are overpriced. Instead of selling more of the same product at a lower cost to make a profit they swung for the fences and tried to make a person's monthly salary in one sale. The "profitable" CFV50c is the same. When there are alternatives, entire cameras, selling for almost half of what a digital back sells for with the same capabilities, then there's a problem.
I'm actually excited about the direction Hasselblad is going if they are indeed going back to their roots. Hopefully they'll come out with a new X-Pan with a digital sensor or a Flexbody with a digital sensor built in. Maybe we'll see an updated V-series that's well built but modern? Guess we'll just wait and see.
Perfect. Formats no one else is doing, but digital. I wish one OEM was brave enough and good enough to rethink the basic DSLR and simplify it without losing capabilities,.
The modern DSLR is absurd with all the buttons, dials, etc. But, now, all OEMs are locked into certain subassemblies that dictate the placement of so many controls.
The Pentax K-10, which failed in the marketplace, was one of a few cameras that tried to streamline the interface.
Mrrowe8: Sadly much like the T-Rex , Hasselblad & Leica days have come and gone .. They use to be what ALL real photographers aspired to own as it represented the BEST .. Now however they are in most cases overpriced hipster junk .. If they focused on specialty fields maybe they can inch back into the real world .. But now they are just a dull filler story ..
Thanks for sharing those observations. Yes, that's the irony of this era. The last decade or so, the films were getting so good that it improved the quality of many vintage cameras, not just the higher-end ones.
At that time in photography, part of the appeal was and is the lenses, not that other medium format manufacturers didn't have great lenses.
Outstanding report; good writing.
garyknrd: Kinda curious why anyone would pick this over the new Sony?What are the advantages?
Established lens, flashes, accessories. Canon support network for professionals, commercial photographers. You like the Canon image "look."
These are mature products. Irrespective of exchange rates, the real price should go down over the years. That should be the value equation. Otherwise, like many, I would look for the previous model.
Good thoughts and props for responding in the comments.
veroman: Really? Listening to customers? Then why did Sony transfer all of their DSLR repairs (perhaps repairs for other gear as well) to a company known for many decades for shoddy workmanship and extremely poor service?
Why doesn't Sony have a legitimate service department of their own? Why is it that my A850, which needs a new shutter after only a few thousand clicks, cannot be sent directly to Sony for repair?
Listening to customers? Hardly.
This is where the Sigmas, Pentaxes, Ricohs, Fujis, etc. of the world (and even Olympus, Panasonic, Sony, as you note) need to excel at-customer service and warranty repair.
At the investment these top of the line camears represent, I want top of the line warranty service.
SirSeth: Good thoughts Richard. You've highlighted the areas where DSLRs still provide substantial strengths: OVF, battery power, and C-AF. I wish you had covered some mirrorless strengths better: like the resurrection of many legacy lenses, and all the info one can see in the viewfinder such as WB, DOF, level, histogram, and auto-gain with stopped down lenses. Peaking, magnified view, and review in the viewfinder are also useful for MF shooting used macro and other disciplines. Mirrorless is more than just size and video for many of us.
I shoot mirrorless because I can buy a very inexpensive FF body and cherry pick just about any lens to go on it. I was shooting legacy glass with DSLRs previously but a set of Canon FD lenses that I use on the A7 are basically useless on DSLRs. This whole line of lenses was resurrected by the new technology.
I know I'm not in the majority and that may not be worth mentioning in an editorial, but people on the fringes are always pushing the envelope. ;)
Yes. This is because Canon and Nikon didn't attempt to advance the state of OVF beyond focus points and, instead, bring some of that information into the OVF. Much like Leica, as brilliant as the cameras are in their own right, never tried to advance rangefinder viewing so we get a full frame size view plus some outside of the frame for each focal length. A tiny box for a longer lens is NOT the best possible solution.
Only Contax in the film era and Fuji in the digital era really tried to rethink and advance viewfinders.
Scottelly: This seems like Canon's answer to the Nikon D5500.
With only 1080p30 video and no IBIS, I'll stick with my Sony A65. The Nikon looks like a better deal to me, since it's $100 less and offers almost everything this Canon has, plus a bunch of functionality that Canons don't have. Frankly, I think I'd get the older Nikon D5300, which has Wi-Fi and does 1080p60 for $200 less. The only things these newer cameras seem to have that's new is the NFC and the touch screen. Of course this new Canon does have that status LCD on top, which is definitely a nice feature, which I do miss from time to time. It makes the camera like a more professional camera too.
This camera does have better/faster live-view focusing though, so it has two advantages over the Nikon D5500: better live-view focusing and the LCD display on top. The Nikons have 3.2" articulating displays though, while this camera has only a 3" display. Also, the Nikons can do 1080p60 (far less rolling shutter effect) instead of 1080p30.
I agree that the Nikon D5XXX are some of the best values in DSLR.
Josh152: For the price of this thing a person is much better off buying a used/refurbished D7xxx series from Nikon or XXD series from Canon. OR even a used or refurb D600/6D. Same goes for the Nikon D5500. Even more so since the affordable Nikon AFD lenses need a body with a focus motor and the D5500 doesn't' have one but the D7xxx series do.
Or a Pentax K5II.
Suave: While gear junkies tap into their last reserves of vitriol, Canon quietly makes cameras that regular customers want and can afford. Oh, and it has these glassy things, I keep forgetting the name... Marbles? No that's different... ahh, lenses!
Exactly. $600 body only is more than enough for entry level.
More like 73. Please review your cons. $850 and I can't select the AF point? Is that so?
Dare I say reasonably priced. Glad to see Sony pushing the technology envelope.
dcolak: Dynamic range of only 12 stops? In 2015? WTF?!
The classic Leica look was actually murky, indicipherable shadows and blown-out highlights. The digital era is completely more powerful.
Gesture: They look sharp, but will existing Canon APS-C glass work OK on the new sensor?
Thanks Dr_Jon, you understood what I was seriously asking.
Why do we want to eliminate reflections in the first place. The play of light is magical. You can always de-emphasize through contrast control.
Cosina extends the mechano-optical legacy.
Once again, this is why camera makers (although these are under $1,000) should have official recalls and technical service bulletins as the automakers do.
Ricoh-Pentax is on a roll with model introductions. Just need to find a core audience of enthusiasts-advanced amateurs.