Interesting, and will probably offer fine IQ, but not for me. I've been hoping for some competition for the Canon G1X on the basis that competition might develop the genre. (The genre being small, large sensor all-in-one cameras). I don't think this is it.
The lack of a good built-in EVF with data has got to be the greatest omission. Cut price 80% tunnel finders don't really do it, and 90% add-on, lose me, forget me, knock me off finders that add 45% to the price of the camera and block the flash shoe in use don't do it either. I'd also prefer a zoom, but that's just me. For a fixed prime camera at that price, the Fuji X100s wins hands down.
Why can't the manufacturers 'get' VFs? The lack of decent VF has put a good proportion of potential buyers off many models. The mirror-less success stories for 2012 - the OMD, NEX6/7 and Fuji XE1 - all have high grade EVFs. The work's been done. No more research required. Just do it - build them in......
"Large and chunky build won't suit everyone......." (See conclusion 'cons'). Large and chunky? Really? Half the appeal of mirror-less is that they are smaller for the same sensor size than DSLRs and I thought the XE1 does an exemplary job of being small and retaining very high useability. Sure it won't suit phone and shirt pocket camera users but it's not intended to.
Otherwise a review that confirms what users have been reporting - it's a great camera.
Mr Maeda seems to have included the G1X 1.5" sensor with APSC, but at the same time left the future of the 1.5" line unclear (with the 1/1.7 and other possible sub-APSC sizes). It would be a pity if the G1X line isn't developed - the G1X lens/sensor/image engine is a good one - a few key improvements could make the camera attractive to more buyers.
The alternative of the EOSM hasn't been the answer. After spending a decade refining the UI for the G series, they abandoned the external controls for a camera with no VF, a touch screen and two lenses. One would have thought they'd have learned from Sony (who introduced the NEX line without an adequate range of lenses) and Fuji (who succeeded with the X series because of great ergonomics and a suite of high grade lenses). I hope Canon follow their lead on built-in EVFs too. No built-in EVF, no sale..... for me anyway.
It's great that the lens is wider and faster and that the specs are higher than the previous model. It's also got the advantage over the competition that it's 'grippier' - it isn't as polished and slippery.
That's the good.........BUT, to repeat myself (same comment made about the new Nikon AW camera)........ Why is it that the manufacturers of these 'tough' cameras assume that outdoor and adventurous photographers are happy with such a small sensor and the comparatively low IQ that it gives? Sure they sell, but that's because there's no alternative. If Sony can shoehorn so much into an RX100 and Canon the G1X, how about a larger-sensored tough camera? And how about RAW? Surely not too difficult? I'm prepared to pay more and carry more weight to get these features. Places worth going are places worth photographing with a bigger sensor.
I know I'd be repeating a recent post I started in the Open Forum about waterproof cameras, but here goes......
This new Nikon may or may not be a nice camera in relation to its competition - we'll have to give it the benefit of the doubt until we know more about it....BUT
1) Why is it that the manufacturers of these 'tough' cameras assume that outdoor and adventurous photographers are happy with such a small sensor and the comparatively low IQ that it gives? Sure they sell, but that's because there's nothing else. If Sony can shoehorn so much into an RX100 and Canon the G1X, how about a larger-sensored tough camera? And 2) Why hasn't a camera designed to be used in action, wet and in the rough got a GRIP!!!!
Rod McD: Yes this new design makes the diameter of a folded tripod smaller, but that's not the real problem. To me, the key aspect of any tripod that manufacturers have to struggle to improve is to keep the rigidity high and the weight low while getting the yoke as high as possible on the legs BEFORE elevating the centre column. I've never heard anyone complain about the diameter of their packed down tripod.
I'm a very keen backpacker and trekker myself - I agree with all of you (Carl, Steve, John and T3). I did acknowledge that it's an improvement, and I never said that it's not interesting, but my point was that storage diameter isn't the key aspect of good tripod design. (There are a huge number of travel tripods 'out there' that pack small but are too low to be versatile, or are dependent upon excessive column extension to get height.) I'd certainly look at these Giottos if I didn't already own several lightweight tripods that suit my needs.
Reg Natarajan: With every camera capable of ISO 12800 these days, tripods are about as useful as slide rules to me. (I'll bet some of the younger people here don't even know what a slide rule is. Trust me, you're not missing anything.)
Sooner or later the light gets low enough...... And let's not pretend that the IQ at ISO 12800 is as good as ISO 100.
Yes this new design makes the diameter of a folded tripod smaller, but that's not the real problem. To me, the key aspect of any tripod that manufacturers have to struggle to improve is to keep the rigidity high and the weight low while getting the yoke as high as possible on the legs BEFORE elevating the centre column. I've never heard anyone complain about the diameter of their packed down tripod.
If these developments are borne out in the production model and the field, it looks like Fuji are really nailing the best design elements for mirrorless cameras. What else is there to ask for (apart from better weather sealing!)? I'm with the poster who said that he's waiting for the same features to appear in a future XE2 model - I just find it difficult to live with one fixed lens. Give me an XE2 and a small range of high grade lenses and I'll be very happy.
There is no "best" camera - except the one you have with you. It seems meaningless to me to a) run a poll of members but limit their choices and b) to rank very different cameras with different purposes. What meets one person's needs is unlikely to fulfill everyone else's. We live in an era where it's hard to buy a bad camera. There's probably more choice than ever before - that can only be good for us as photographers.
Thanks for this article. I used to use a 4X5 camera and later medium format with tilting lenses for landscape work. I've missed them in the digital era. Once you know the magic of the Scheimpflug effect, there's no forgetting it. It's always seemed to me that photography without tilt and shift has something missing...... I can't afford an FF DSLR and TS lenses, but am contemplating a mirror-less with a tilt adapter and 35mm lenses. I think that would suit me for the print sizes I'm doing these days). (A mirror-less with an even bigger sensor would be even better!)
I haven't tried stitching. Unfortunately, the downside I'm getting from all the learned discussion below is that rather a lot of time appears to be needed at the computer. Not my preference - I'd rather be out there hiking.........
I don't understand why DPR is seeking a user poll and then defining or limiting the range of cameras users are allowed to vote for. Surely a user poll should reflect cameras that would actually get user's highest acclaim? As it is we are limited to DPR's chosen set.......
This list is incomplete - a good many 2012 cameras have been omitted. Brand representation is uneven. Camera type (compact vs CSC vs DSLRs) and format are unevenly represented too. If the process is to have any meaning, I'd suggest that all 2012 cameras should be available as candidates...... Rod
Interesting camera. Sony deserve credit for the innovation. One has to wonder whether it's a possible precursor to an ILC version. I wouldn't want to pay that much to adopt only one FOV. I'd also want a built in VF. I thought Sony got this right with the NEX 6&7, but it hasn't followed in the RX1.
A real gripe I have with most premium mirrorless models (OMD excepted) is that they aren't water and dust resistant. It doesn't matter whether you're talking Fuji's X series, Pentax's K01, the upper end NEXs or the RX1 - surely cameras at their price point should be environmentally sealed? These small light cameras are ideal for the hiker and traveler, and that's exactly where environmental sealing/WR is at its most useful. Coming from the position of owning and using a K5, this is very disappointing across the lot of them.
IMO, the concept that photographers create an image all by themselves is a bit of a problem. It understates what is in reality a more complex situation. If a work is commissioned, a photographer doesn't own and didn't create the image subject. If that belongs to someone else, or is a person, then giving copyright to the photographer may hold some potential problems.
What rights do you have as an inventor or manufacturer if you've commissioned photography of a new product that is in-confidence? What rights do you have if a photographer takes pictures of you or your child, even with permission? It's a general legal principle that you can't contract your way around a legislated right. So what limits exist in the new law around how a photographer can exercise their copyright? Even as a photographer, I can't see that this is the right outcome all of the time. Photographers should not be without rights, but neither should photographers have all the rights.
backayonder: So will the World be better off once the Photograph verification service have completed their work?
People used to believe that something in print had more credibility than something spoken, and they used to say that' the camera doesn't lie'. Unfortunately there's no basis for believing either and it's worse today than it ever was in the era before Photoshop. Shoddy journalism and faked photos appear all over the net. As both a consumer of "news" and a parent of internet natives, I think it's great that someone's outing fakes in the media.
I have to commend Easycass for a thoughtful and comprehensive effort to get as many controls as possible out of the menus and into physical form (my personal preference). I don't think I can really say whether it would be a "goer" for me given that the critical specifics of sensor size and lens design are an open question.
The responses in this column once again demonstrate that there is no consensus on camera design. It just shows that photographers have very different needs, wants and preferences. Easycass' proposed camera has spawned suggestions for every variety of camera from compacts, through intermediate sensors and up to FF........ there's probably a need for a dozen models to meet everyone's thoughts on sensor size, lens range and control.
You've a great site. Thanks for the development work. A few thoughts :a) I like the black background, but agree with calls for the site to allow options. b) Unless I've missed something in the previews above, I can't see whether you're continuing the symbols that show whether posts have attached photos. For those of us with limited download, it's frustrating when you open a post to find large numbers of attached photos or very big files. I would find it very useful to know how many photos or if the files are large. c) I don't like the concept of voting buttons for 'like' and 'dislike'. Forums are about discourse. Agreement and disagreement are inevitable and a good thing (as long as it's constructive and not personalised). Merit is not the same as popularity.d) I'm not sure how you're assessing posters' contributions to rate reputation. Sounds subjective and I'm yet to be convinced......
Rod McD: The FF DSLR market is already well served by C, N & S and any later entry will probably struggle to compete. The FF market that is not well-served by anyone (except Leica at $10K for a very modest RF kit) is a well featured, small, AF and WR, mirrorless ILC. Sony appear to be cracking the ice with the RX1 and one wonders whether a FF ILC version - surely an NEX - will follow.
Pentax have a great reputation for producing competent, smaller, WR cameras, and I'm hoping they might tread that road rather than a FF DSLR. I can only see it being successful if they adopt a new shorter mount and sell a full function K mount adapter (and MF adapters for other brands) to capture legacy lens users.
To Anastigmat.....Nothing would be wrong with producing a competent, smaller, weather resistant full frame DSLR (and FF lenses from say 8mm to 600mm) if it wasn't a business risk. I doubt anyone posting here actually knows if that market is viable for Pentax, including me. The difference between FF and the APSC market is that Pentax is already in the APSC market. The difference between APSC / FF and the twin lens reflex markets is that (as far as I know) there isn't a twin lens reflex market. The opportunity that Pentax took in the medium format market was that it was absolutely NOT well served at the price/feature point of the 645D.
This isn't as simple as 'just do it'.......
The FF DSLR market is already well served by C, N & S and any later entry will probably struggle to compete. The FF market that is not well-served by anyone (except Leica at $10K for a very modest RF kit) is a well featured, small, AF and WR, mirrorless ILC. Sony appear to be cracking the ice with the RX1 and one wonders whether a FF ILC version - surely an NEX - will follow.
Hassleblad used to make expensive yet (just) affordable high grade film cameras whose appearance stood for something - Zeiss lenses and mechanical and electronic excellence. There's nothing wrong with an NEX7 and aesthetically it's a fine camera as it was designed by Sony - it doesn't need a makeover of any kind, especially this kind.
If Hassleblad really want to make an outstanding smaller camera, how about introducing a digital version of the SWC? The old SWC was their smallest most portable 120 camera and had one of the all-time best ultra wide angle lenses in the fixed 38mm Biogon. They're still sought after second hand for landscape and architectural work. That might get some reverence......