ColdViking: Betteridge's law of headlines: "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no."
There are a few reasons, and a far, far, far better alternative. Reasons:
1/ It runs a mobile chip, the chip will never be able to do what a laptop or desktop chip can do. Want to do RAW? Forget about it. Never going to happen. There is no way the ARM chips are going to be able to power through that.
2/ It runs an operating system designed for a phone. It shows. It doesn't work.
3/ The apps are not there, and due to (mostly) hardware and software limitations of the device, they're never going to be there either.
The alternative, if you want to use a tablet, is a Microsoft Surface Pro. It's a real PC. It blows anything ever created by Apple out of the water for real work. It also isn't all that much more expensive than the iPad pro.
The iPad "Pro" is for those easily separated from their money.
rkumar You missed the point. The point was that system running a desktop OS and full desktop Apps will always blow the iPhone and iPad running iOS out of the water for productivity. iOS is just too sand-boxed. Not being able to do basic file management is just the tip of the iceberg.
As far as hardware goes, mobile CPUs are catching up but this can't make up for the limitations of the underlying OS.
iAPX: Looks unnatural at best
I agree that it may look unnatural. However, living in the Northeast, we get a lot of interesting lighting effects due to storms, breaks in the clouds, sunsets and sunrises, etc. Sun showers (when it rains while the sun is shining, i.e. a passing thunderstorm) are somewhat common during the summer.
The point is that it may look unnatural, as it's not something that you're used to seeing, but it doesn't mean that it is.
However, It is possible that the photographer over-compensated a bit in the dark areas to get a more dramatic effect of the clouds.
justmeMN: The results from other camera manufacturers will be even worse. As an example, Olympus' camera division has been losing money for years.
I started out using digital Canon cameras simply because they they were ahead of the curve for a time. When Olympus finally entered the DSLR market, I was very interested to see what they would do as I still have nostalgia over my old OM-PC film camera. But, for me, the smaller size of the four-thirds sensors is what turned me off.
I'm thinking that Olympus could be doing much better if they had gone with an APS-C size sensor. I would guess that they did this so that they wouldn't have to compete directly with Canon and Nikon, plus they could make their cameras a bit cheaper.
I agree, EPIC FAIL...
Nothing like the promotion of hot air to get people to like your products...
It almost seems like Canon has reached the point where they are unwilling to try anything new. So, now they are just trying to sell an image.
soundimageplus: "With good enough image quality, would you consider a built-in lens camera as your only camera?"
Of course. And size doesn't matter. FZ1000, RX10, RX1. X1. X2, X100s. X100T are all fine fixed lens cameras.
I agree. But... my definition of "good enough" would be approaching the quality of L lenses and have a zoom range that stretches from about 18mm to 400mm.
I could be wrong, but it's my understanding that there are too many trade-offs for such a lens to be able to maintain quality throughout the zoom range. That's why high end lenses have much shorter zoom ranges.
My S95 1/1.7" has been my go-to camera for a night on the town. An APS-C camera is just too big. That being said, 1" cameras have shrunk to about the same size as the S95 and I plan on getting one in the near future. That's why I voted for 1"...
robbinsbox: we are giving away a g7x to anyone who will comment. Canon Inc
I'll take one, please... (grin)
I have the S95 and it looks like the G7X would be a nice upgrade. There are two things that slightly disappoint me:
- No 24fps in movie mode. Perhaps this can be added through a firmware update?
- No built-in GPS. Though, I get that this was not included due to battery life and, perhaps, to keep the camera small.
Still, I would love to have one of these. So, if the first comment below is valid, that Canon is giving one away... PICK ME!!! (grin)
Jim: It's not much smaller than the G1X Mk II. Both appear not to be shirt pocket-able but both do appear to be jacket pocket-able. Given this and the fact that the G1X Mk II isn't much more money, why not buy a G1X Mk II instead of the G7 X?
The G7X is lighter than the G1X MKII but that is because the G1X MKII has a 1.5" sensor and bigger lens. There isn't that much difference in size.
Either way, neither are the type of camera that you would thrown in your pocket when going out to dinner or a night club. However, they would fit in a jacket pocket or cargo shorts so would be decent for hiking or walking around on vacation.
Thsoft: No 4K. Canon now is follower.
I could do without 4K. What I hoped for was that they would at least have a 24fps movie option.
cgarrard: It will be popular with Canon shooters- no doubt. But how about calling it an S series camera Canon, which it is? Now you've muddied the G series water, which is sort of a pity.
On first glance, the lack of front grip of any kind is a bummer- they had it right with the S100 (or should say, more correct).
The era of the 1 1/7" sized sensors is coming to an end.
I agree. It's definitely an S replacement. It's about 100g heavier and .25" wider than the S series. Beyond that, it has a number of upgrades over the S series (at least over my S95), not the least of which is the 1" sensor.
The one thing that I wish it had was GPS. Granted, having GPS turned on lessens battery life, but it's nice having GPS coordinates embedded in the photo information.
The price, though, is a bit high. It's $700, about $250 more than the S120 and about $100 less than the G1 X mk II (1.5" sensor). I would have expected pricing to be in the $500 - $600 range, about mid way between the two. Personally, I think that it's priced too high. Anyone looking at this would likely look at the G1 X MK II as it's only $100 more for a larger sensor.
Photo-Wiz: I see the colors did not survive. This area of Germany is full of beautiful colors.
I don't think that Photo-Wiz meant that there was anything wrong with B&W or that it isn't artistic. My thought is that he/she was just expressing his/her preference for colour.
Personally, I don't see the appeal of B&W photos. But that is simply a matter of taste. For example, I'm sure that the ceiling and chairs in the church photo had interesting wood colours and accents. But it's completely lost in the B&W photo.
Of course, the cool thing about photography is that people see things differently.
David Hart: I have the 24-105 F/4L on my 40D and love it. I paid $1040 for it in 2008. Today, it's selling for $100 more ($1150) for a new one on Amazon. The pre-order price of the 16-35mm is about $50 more.
Since I have the 24-105mm, I was wondering if having the 16-35mm would be useful on my 40D, allowing for the 1.6x crop factor. The 16-35mm would be equivalent to starting at 25.6mm and the 24-105mm would be equivalent to starting at 38.4mm.
I found this image on canonlensblog.com which gives an approximate of the difference . Personally, I'm thinking that the 16-35mm increased wide angle would be worth adding to my camera bag.
I just wish that Canon had made this lens a 12-32mm as it would have been a more useful range for a crop camera, given the 24-105mm. However, I understand that they also need to appeal to the FF crowd as they will sell more that way...
I had thought about getting the 17-40mm a couple of years back but never pulled the trigger. It's currently going for $450 less ($739 on Amazon), with a $100 rebate, than the 16-35mm but with the crop factor I would lose about 1.6mm.
The reviews on fredmiranda.com has the 17-40mm rated as a 9, but it tends to have soft corners on FF cameras. I wouldn't see it with my crop camera, but if I ever upgraded...
I do think that the 16-35mm will end up being a better lens, but only time and samples will tell. Yeah, I think the 16-35mm will be the way to go...
I have the 24-105 F/4L on my 40D and love it. I paid $1040 for it in 2008. Today, it's selling for $100 more ($1150) for a new one on Amazon. The pre-order price of the 16-35mm is about $50 more.
Um... a strong magnetic strip on the end of the lens cap... Not a good idea...
I can just picture forgetting the clip and dropping the lens cap in my pocket with the memory card full of a couple of day's worth of vacation pictures...
Also, remember to keep this out of the hands of any young kids. Swallowing strong magnets never ends well..
I have no problems remembering the scenes and narritive around my photos. Maybe it's because I'm not trying to force it or trying to capture every moment or every scene. I wait for inspiration and simply take a photo of scenes that I find unique or interesting in some small way. This allows me to experience the activity or moment without "having" to take a picture.
While there have been times when I would have wished to have taken a photo, there isn't once where I would have wished to have missed the moment....
Any camera bag list that does not include a Lenspen is severely lacking. They are 1000x better than microfiber cloth in my opinion. Every time I've use microfiber cloth it just smudges the glass, while the Lenspen gets it clean!!!
"'If they [the client] ordered 10 slides, I’d shoot 12. It was cheaper to shoot extras than to go back and reshoot."
If I understand this correctly, these are the leftovers of the photos that he took for his clients. Presumably, they got the best of the bunch. It also appears that he didn't catalog them in any way so there is no idea, unless you go visit, what the subjects are and how many of them are actually decent photos.
It's like someone having a hockey card collection where all of the popular and mint condition cards were sold off and the rest were thrown in a box.
Is it really worth the effort? After all, presumably the actual art pieces and the original photos provided to the clients still exist.
I have the DSC-HX30V and it is a mediocre to decent camera but an excellent video camera. I've taken high-def hand-held videos with it on a rigid-inflatable boat bouncing over the waves and the IS works wonders. Increasing the zoom range from 20x to 30x while keeping the same quality IS system would be quite cool, assuming Sony pulled it off.
On my last trip, I paired the HX30V with a Canon S95. The S95 was used for most of my photos, but the HX30V was used for zoom and videos. It was a lot lighter than carrying a huge zoom lens on my 40D and a video camera.
While most of the enthusiasts here won't like this camera, the HX30V has been very popular with everyday people who like to travel. I would expect the HX50V to be just as popular.