As many others have said in so many words, I totally fail to see the point unless one is obsessed with closeups of nose hair or something like that. It is very easy to capture a pin-sharp image of any face by mounting almost any DSLR on a tripod and attaching a garden variety portrait lens.
For starters, this camera strap is ugly as sin!
Ugly as sin! Otherwise... Hey look, it's a camera!
louisjaffe: As owner of the Sony-badged E-mount Tamron 18-200 used on a NEX-7, I have to echo the previous comment: How lousy will this new super-zoom be? The 18-200 is only passable at wide-to-mid angle settings, and unusable at tele for any serious work.
I don't know why it's so hard for some people to understand that lenses like these are not meant for people who think super zooms are an incarnation of the Devil himself. For many, many amateur photographers, a lens like this will be a dream come true. Must everyone in this forum always trash everything that doesn't meet their exalted standards?!
oldman1234: Have several of the Sony camera including rx100....Migrated from Minolta to Sony. About 3000 in cameras 3000 in lenses..Guess what the $95 point and shoot does 95 percent of any of the highend camera. The present day digital camera has 20 more years to catch up with film......if ever
"The present day digital camera has 20 more years to catch up with film......if ever"
Baloney! Even pros struggled to capture low-noise photos in low light in the days of film. In a head-to-head test of low-light capability, even the best film camera would fail miserably because of the limits of film.
Most people who think a smart phone is a camera don't even know what RAW capability is. To each his own, but carrying a small, high-quality pocket camera at all times is the easiest thing in the world. Who needs a phone that deludes itself that it's a real camera?
Joachim Gerstl: Anyone still using Photoshop?
Dumbest question of the year by a wide margin.
I want a virtual toaster and I refuse to sign up for Adobe CC until they include one!
I think it's hysterical that some people insist that a MacBook Air doesn't have enough power for photo editing. I was editing photos in Photoshop on a 12" powerbook G4 for months on end more than ten years ago with no trouble whatsoever. By modern standards, that computer was a dinosaur.
But consider this: No laptop is ideal for critical photo editing because the brightness and contrast of the image change as the viewing angle of the screen changes. Because it is very difficult to position the screen at exactly the same angle every time you use the machine, it is almost impossible to edit consistently from one session to the next.
Do you all think Fuji is likely to add wireless remote control to the X-M1's capabilities in the future? And if so, could they do it with a software upgrade? To me, this is one of the most interesting new features now appearing on some of the newest cameras.
Jim: That study sounds like complete nonsense to me. I've never heard of anyone expressing ANY lack of memory of an event due to having a photograph present. If anything, the complete reverse is true. Nonsensical studies like this are a waste of time and money. I just hope it wasn't funded by taxpayers.
As an aside, why is this even posted on this website? Helloooooo.
When you photograph an event, you also HAVE THE PHOTO—which allows you to retrieve far more information about the event on demand than anyone could ever remember.
rdscibilia: This is better than the EOS M I bought for $299 how exactly?
The Fuji X100S is NOT better than your EOS M I. The M I is the BEST camera in the world and you are a GENIUS for buying one!
Cute... but a year's work?! I dunno...
$3,000 for such a camera is just plain nuts!
oselimg: Leica know something but the enthusiast and the pro's don't? It may be that Leica don't make these cameras for photographers instead they make them for the richest 3% which we have no idea about where they live or what they do. I can't imagine any hard working middle class going for it. Errm there is the third possibility too; Leica are trying to bankrupt "elegantly" for tax reasons.
Your opinion of the intelligence of the richest 3% is entirely unjustified. Have you ever actually talked to any of those people?
Fuji is releasing too many models, if you ask me. And why do so many wi-fi implementations fail to include the most useful wi-fi feature by far: remote control of the camera from a smartphone?
Cute, but calling these apps "must have" is taking things too far.
There is no question that a skilled photographer can capture beautiful images with almost any camera. Nevertheless, iPhone photography is for those who basically don't care about fine detail because there is very little of it in most iPhone photographs. Is smartphone photography lowering the standard of what is considered a technically good photograph? Definitely!
A thoroughly boring and uninspired design. Jony Ive should stick to designing computers.
In the comparisons between jpeg and raw, the raw images have obviously been tweaked but it appears that the jpeg images have not been. A much more meaningful comparison would be between tweaked jpeg and tweaked raw. While it's true that one can get more out of a raw image than a jpeg, jpeg's can most certainly be substantially improved with minimal tweaking.