The researchers methodology seems to have concerned the short term. I doubt these conclusions in relation to the long term. I've taken photographs most of my life of family and social events. The photographs I have of my father, my brothers and my wife, all of whom have passed away, are precious because they keep my memories alive long term. I'm sometimes surprised when I look through them, that there are moments that I only actively recall when I see them - they jog my mind to recall the situation. I do recall them, so they're buried away in my grey matter, but I don't think my mind would be triggered to think of all those situations if I didn't see the photographs.
Thanks for the review. It looks good, apart from the feet - it needs retractable or (even better) fixed metal points for field use. I'm not sure how the standard rubber/synthetic ends are fixed onto the CF legs, but on the old aluminium models, they'd get pulled off if you pushed the tripod down into sand/ice/mud and then lifted it out.
The 190 is available in a four section leg version as well as the three section one shown here. (No-one ever mentions is how long it takes to put up a tripod with four or even five leg sections (like Sirui) when you're in a hurry. It seems take an age and I recommend buying the three section models unless you're very, very desperate for the space saving.)
I have to acknowledge the lens build quality and IQ, but TBH, I'd have preferred a smaller, slower lens over this one. I see the mirror-less advantage of small size and light weight slipping away a bit here.......it's almost as heavy as the camera body. I'd have been happier with an ILC version of the 23/2 from the X100.
The 27mm pancake isn't a substitute for a 23mm of modest speed. And before someone suggests buying a X100s because I get my preferred lens 'and a body for free' (as several have posted earlier) let's acknowledge that someone interested in light weight kit isn't necessarily wanting to carry two bodies.
Richard Murdey: Assuming that it is now competitive in the autofocus department (and the original was astonishingly awful in that respect) Canon can now go out compete with the NEX5, various PEN models, the tiny GM1, and the new low end Fuji bodies - which is more than can be said for Nikon.
Nikon chose to walk away from that fight, a decision that may have been the right one: at least there are reasons to chose Nikon 1, tradeoffs that may or may not appeal, whereas what Canon is fielding -while competent - cannot be said to have any originality or unique selling point.
I don't think anyone here actually knows whether a more highly specified mirror-less camera would be "bad business" for Canon or Nikon. The assumption lying behind your statement is that such a camera would cause a net reduction of their own sales revenues. That assumption might not be correct. It might indeed reduce their DSLR revenue by a small percentage (given that they're different markets) but might increase revenues gained by selling to customers currently buying from their mirror-less competitors.
Canon did say some time ago that they would announce an M2 in late 2013 and that they'd later offer a more enthusiast-oriented model. Well, the M2 is here, and perhaps the other version is still on the way - albeit rather late....... We'll see.
Interesting. It looks like it's going to be a polarising camera......... Not for me. Still not small, plus I'm not invested in Nikon glass. And 16mpx in an era where 24mpx is almost standard? Yes, yes, I know it's potentially better for light collection, but that much better at the expense of resolution? I guess it depends on your uses......
I wonder if Canon will follow. And Pentax - some of their forum members have been calling for a small bodied retro DSLR for years.
With conservative DSLR designs still on offer, this new camera from Nikon, and the Sony A7's, it really seems that there's some choice opening up in the FF arena. Pentax and Fuji are also rumored to be developing FF models for 2014 too. Whether anyone likes this D-FM model or not, the improving range of choice in FF has got to be good for us as photographers.
Thanks. It's a pity the drab weather has made the outdoor sample shots from both the A7r and now the A7 somewhat lacking in contrast and color. Still watching both, no decisions made.......
DPR - There's strong interest in legacy lens use on these two cameras. When you do the review, could you please also consider testing some adapted RF and DSLR lenses on both bodies? Perhaps a wide and a standard? ie Side by side tests of the same lenses at several apertures on each body? Thanks.
Evolution, not revolution, but sensible updates - making a good camera better. As someone considering buying a mirror-less, it goes up in contention. Still not enviromentally sealed though - something Fuji needs to address in future models.
Thanks for the preview. These look incredibly tempting - good feature set, small, sealed, high res, excellent BIEVF and weighing in at only 470gms....... Brilliant! I'll look forward to the review.
An issue for me is compatibility with FF DSLR glass. It's not yet clear how well the sensor and its micro-lenses (which are designed for short registration distances) will react to DSLR lenses designed for longer registrations. I'm assuming for the moment that it will actually be OK because Sony are touting their four A mount DSLR lens adapters. For the longer run, it would also be good to know their FE lens road map.
Just a Photographer: Too bad that the largest apertures of their new lenses are so small.
A 35mm lens needs an maximum aperture of f1.4 at least not f/2.8.Same goes for the 24-70. Too bad that its largest aperture will be f4 instead of f2.8.
Otherwise a very interesting move of Sony.
Fast WAs and zooms often have other compromises, and that's in addition to size, weight and cost.
Anastigmat: Sony should spend some money and hire a camera body designer because their new cameras are looking less and less sexy. This new body reminds me of the 1970's Japanese cars famous for their origami designs of sharp corners, like folded paper.
Funnily enough they remind me of 1980's Japanese cameras. Take a look at a Nikon F3 or a Pentax LX. I'm happy enough with their styling.
Finally here after so much anticipation....... High res FF IQ from a small, sealed digital camera with a decent built in EVF and weighing only 470gms. I can't envisage a better landscape/hiking/street/travel camera. Kudos to Sony. I'm going to have to start saving.
Major questions for me are : 1) legacy glass compatibility with DSLR WAs since there are no prime lenses yet wider than 35mm or longer than 55mm; 2) the native lens road map; and 3) the Australian price - I sincerely hope that it's comparable with the US prices quoted here......
Looks like a highly competent and innovative camera.
A kilogram and $4,000? While I don't doubt that it will be an excellent lens, I think I can live happily enough without it. There are after all, some excellent 50mm and 55mm lenses out there. Zeiss seem to have over-looked that size, weight and price are themselves a compromise. And do we really have to have lenses named after birds? What's next? Not a dodo, one suspects. A Hoopoe, an Emu or a Puffin? Anyone?
Jiri Folta: I was taken by the quality of Fujifilm cameras and lenses. Not only optical quality but also craftsmanship quality. It was major reason why I sold my Nikon D7000 and all those plastic Nikon lenses made in China, Thailand and so on.Now, I'm reading that new Fuji lenses are plastic and made in China (XC 16-50mm OIS and XF 27mm (as written on fujirumors.com - First Look: X-M1 with New Kit Zoom and Pancake Lens). An idea of photographic company that is going to bring quality materials and some quality spirit is gone. I hope not but it seems like things are going this way.Reading some day that X-Pro 2 or X-E 2 are made in China I would sell it all away. I don't want to buy plastic in China made lenses and cameras. I want in Japan made metal quality. For me, buying Fuji was not only buying photographic tool, it was also investment in the future! It was some kind of promise many photographers had accepted.I hope we can call Go Fuji Go in the future again!
I suspect that the profits Fuji make on cameras like the XM1 and XA1 are the resource that will enable them to continue to make higher level cameras like the XPro1 and XE1. Plus their lower volume prime lenses that appeal to pros and enthusiasts. Anything they can do to broaden their base is a therefore a good thing. And lets not pretend that the metal shells of the XPro1 and XE1 reflect an entirely metal structure.......there are plastics in their construction too.
Thanks to DPR for the post and link. A good and informative read.
novak977: lovely concept but I would rather invest in underwater case for upcoming Full Frame NEX or alternatively Fuji (with their excellent low light performance). Large sensor is the key for good underwater photography or video. Just don't expect exciting results with your f5.6 Nikon lens - equivalent of f 15.1 on full frame!
Yet another person who, faced with either rugged compact cameras or this AW1, argue for a bigger camera and casing. It's not either/or. There has to be a middle ground - which used to be held by the Nikonos.
Quite apart from the cost of a casing, the sheer size and weight of the things is a deterrent to many outdoor users. Hopeless for mountaineering, caving, kayaking etc. Try stuffing a DSLR in a casing inside your life jacket. We need a slightly bigger camera with real 'O'ring sealing to cater for diving pressures and really rough conditions.
I agree with you about the potential for an NEX FF in a small casing, but let's wait and see the camera first. FWIW I really can't see the point of debating equivalent apertures between formats for UW use. It's not about shallow DOF UW - it's usually more about getting enough light and actual depth of field.
I commented that I liked this camera, despite the 1" sensor, under the announcement comment page. I think it's probably still the best AW camera so far, but I'm feeling a bit more cautious having read more. I suspect that it's not quite as rugged as I first assumed. There are no real "o"rings - and those square gaskets on the doors have a terrible reputation across the net for leaking.
Yes the system needs a really wide prime lens. I can't see the point of offering a 10mm prime and a zoom that starts at 11mm. The prime should have been a 7mm or 8mm. And it needs a tele zoom.
No, it's not a Nikonos. And I don't really understand DPR's joy in finding that it doesn't feel like a rugged camera. Surely it would be better if it did?
Interesting camera. I'm down on record (in the comments pages of the rugged camera reviews) as saying that someone needed to make one with a larger sensor. And here it is.....
I was hoping for APSC, but this is still a major improvement. I like it - it'll be a great camera for my beachy and adventurous kids. Good for sailing and kayaking too. A real test will be the performance of the zoom - it needs to be good to attract serious users who like outdoor photography and don't want crappy compact IQ.
I think Nikon really need to release a couple of extra lenses, but perhaps that will come if the camera is successful. It's disappointing that the wide prime isn't wider. In fact I can't see the point of offering a 28mm (35mm equiv) and a 30mm-74mm zoom (35mm equiv). And it's only half a stop faster. The system needs a decent wide, maybe a 20mm or 24mm (35mm equiv) especially for underwater use, and a tele-photo zoom.
I invite DPR to look at the use of these comment pages in relation to the carpet bombing of negative posts from certain posters. If a poster has an adverse view of a camera that's fine - let it be said. However, once should be enough if you don't like it and you're not going to buy it. And if you're not, what is the ongoing purpose of being here and continuing to post multiple negative comments. This surely invites the reader to suspect that some of these posters are trolls at best and at worst, that it's a deliberate strategy to denigrate a product.
FWIW, I'm not an Olympus user, have no plans to buy it, and read this page out of interest only. However the repeated criticism from posters known to have interests elsewhere is just plain obvious and hardly fair.