I just want a real photo editing app/program (they used to be called programs when they were serious).
If my iPhone and iPad have 2gb of RAM (I know, that's not a lot, but it's enough), then please make an app that can actually process photos. I want color sliders, raw editing, and all the other tools.
Yes, I know it will have to be slightly watered down, but not much. I promise I won't run other apps at the same time. ;)
Just give us a real photo editing app, someone.
MikeFairbanks: I'm not a fan of flat graphics. I like textures, shading, etc. It looks more professional. All the software and web-based companies have continued this gravitation toward flat graphics that look as if anyone could draw them.
I suppose they are going for sleek, simple, etc., but to me it portrays a "we get our graphics cheaper by not putting in as much time."
Anyone can draw straight edges and add color to a box for an icon. Textures (shading) is difficult, and is therefore something graphics folks should embrace, not run away from.
My two cents.
If the icon didn't have that little dot (which I assume is the flash or something), then you wouldn't even know it's a camera. I think the original is much better.
I'm not a fan of flat graphics. I like textures, shading, etc. It looks more professional. All the software and web-based companies have continued this gravitation toward flat graphics that look as if anyone could draw them.
junk1: Awfully short for macro work.
Short for macro work if you are trying to catch living things, but if you are shooting coins, stamps, dead bugs, flowers, etc., then it's great.
I'm wondering this: Can the lights be controlled wirelessly like the rest of the camera? If you can sit back with the ipad a dozen meters away and mount the camera where the bug might be, then you could get some amazing shots.
That is a clever idea. I'd love to see samples. I haven't read the whole article, so perhaps samples area already on hand.
Something like this could really boost M sales.
MikeFairbanks: I don't understand how this camera is any different than the last few entry level models.
I as asking seriously, not as a way to hate on Canon. I've been shooting a lot of Canon products for ten years now, from point and shoots to my current 6D (and a lot in between).
Is Wifi the only thing separating this camera from the previous entry level model?
MikeFairbanks: Another thought: Apple and the Android makers could really take over if they decided to go ahead and thicken up their phones and then stuff more technology into them. I could be completely off (I'm not trained in marketing), but it seems that the technology is available to put a one-inch type sensor into a phone with a moderate zoom lens and still have all the phone features. The phone would be thicker, but not any bigger per say.
They could be manufactured and marketed as a premium product. For example, the iPhone 7p (for photo). It's a couple hundred more, but functions just like a Sony Rx100 series while still enabling texting, calling, and all the other apps we use on our phones.
I'm not sure why every phone has to get thinner and thinner. Why not make them thicker and add functions? That's my opinion.
I think we agree. Thicker phone for more sensor and lens, bigger battery, and finally have it all in one package that lasts more than one day.
I don't want my phone to be a Supermodel. I want it to be athletic.
They can keep making skinny phones, but it would be nice to have that other option.
I don't understand how this camera is any different than the last few entry level models.
villagranvicent: Put some nice primes on this camera and I bet nobody will be able to see the difference in IQ vs a 7Dmii or 80D or any other APS camera.
No 4K, no 25fps, no 500 af points. for $499 who cares?
Can the Panasonic handle low light as well? If so, then you're right.
Don't leave them in the rain. I did today (G9x). Darn it!
Another thought: Apple and the Android makers could really take over if they decided to go ahead and thicken up their phones and then stuff more technology into them. I could be completely off (I'm not trained in marketing), but it seems that the technology is available to put a one-inch type sensor into a phone with a moderate zoom lens and still have all the phone features. The phone would be thicker, but not any bigger per say.
My opinion is that they should promote the M-series a lot more than they are, and say in advertising that it can take any Canon lens made. Then, include the adapter in every M sold so that customers can enjoy a small mirrorless camera with all their lenses. The M-series is really good, but it just doesn't get promoted for some reason. Even DP Review hasn't reviewed a single one of the four models. It would also help to include more M-primes than the (one?) they have. I know people like zooms, but zooms take up a lot of space.
Imagine if they sold an M-series camera with three small primes in the package. I'd love something like that. Maybe a 20mm, a 35mm, and a 50mm, and make them as small as possible. Include a leather case that could hold the body and three lenses. Everything in one little kit.
I think it would sell, especially if advertised frequently.
I bought the Canon G9X on Thursday (today is Sunday) and have taken about 500 photos. This thing is a winner. It's the cheapest of the bunch (unless you count the old Sony RX100, original version).
The reason I chose the G9X, despite its smaller set of features and functions, is that I already have a good DSLR (Canon 6D) and a few lenses for when I want quality photos or for when doing the occasional paid portrait session. So it seemed to me that what I really wanted was a very small camera that could exceed my iPhone 6s Plus.
Things I like about it:
* It can fit in any pocket, including a shirt pocket. It's smaller than you think.
* Fixed screen: I prefer it to be fixed so it doesn't move, break, or add to the thickness.
* Touch screen. Wow, it really makes getting through menus and choosing focus point a quick job.
* It actually can handle lower light than I thought it would. It's a capable camera.
* It was cheap for what it is.
* Smaller than a phone. Wow.
Isn't there something in between this idea and Google Glass?
I personally would love a pair of glasses that coul take photos or video, but not be identifiable as such. I understand the worry, however, as many people would abuse the technology. Personally, I would take the glasses off in sensitive areas (restrooms, poolside, etc.). I would like it for the convenience.
But how long before someone ruins it for everyone else? Not long.
Google Glass' problem was that it looked like it was built in someone's garage with a big box attached to one side of a pair of glasses. It looked like, well, a computer was stuck to a pair of glasses. Would have been better to have the glasses wireless and the computer in the pocket.
The privacy concerns are legitimate, however, which is probably why Google Glass looked so obvious. Thet weren't intending for them to be inconspicuous.
JackM: Wow. I didn't even know acid throwing was a thing. I hate uncivilized people.
Hypocrisy isn't limited to western civilization. It's a human problem. Take a look at the so-called communist countries. They abandoned communism one by one, but want to save face by continuing the branding. If China is a communist country, then the Great Wall was built in a couple weeks. Neither story holds up. China is capitalist, but claims communism, so that's a healthy dose of hypocrisy right there.
Then there's the Middle East that follows a prophet who treated his wife as his equal, but whose followers rarely do.
But western civilization is the same way, true.
And as far as evolving: culture is not the same as species. The humans in one part of the world are not more evolved than others. We are all the same species, and on a global/universal level, the actions of any human is a reflection on the species. Our species needs a real step in evolution so that we're not self-destructive. Or perhaps that is what was intended. In that case, carry on.
It's common (the acid throwing and other horrific acts) in some cultures, especially cultures in which people are supposed to stay within a certain class (or caste in some cases).
Plus, even in the developed world there are atrocities we commit that are just as brutal, but don't seem like it because we do it using buttons and switches instead of face-to-face.
About human cruelty and the earlier question of "What century is this?"
It doesn't matter what century this is. We aren't a different species than those who walked the planet 200 or 2,000 years ago. We are no different. We just think we are because we made machines and because we can communicate more efficiently (though not necessarily more effectively).
It will take another step in evolution before we see a significant change in human behavior, and that might not happen for a long, long time.
Only through a step in evolution can we hope to have world peace, and who knows if there's enough time for that.
villagranvicent: Why "photojournalism" has to be depressing and show people at their worst? cannot be something happy just for a change.
Everyday I have plenty of opportunities of taking shots of kids begging for money on the streets. I need to grab my 35mm f1.4 to get that watery eye shot with shallow depth of field through my window. I hope it rains to add more to the depressing atmosphere, if not I can always added later in PS.
But there's your answer, Zdman. People buy calendars with photos of puppies, flowers, the grand canyon, smiling grandmothers on the front porch, etc. Norman Rockwell in photo form.
It's a different market.
It's like me asking why race cars are have all those stickers and flashy colors when nobody would buy that. They want solid, clean-looking cars.
It's just a different market. A happy kid splashing in a pool isn't news. We see it all the time. But human suffering is not as common (for most of us). The lady with acid thrown in her face is depressing, but is important because it tells a story and can possibly lead to a positive change.
A dog jumping for a Frisbee is nice, but what story does it tell?
Were these all shot with Sony equipment? Regardless, what gear did they use?
That was a great video review. Short and sweet. It's definitely appealing.
What is the physical size of the next zoom lens that people might purchase? It comes with the 12-32 (which is equivalent to 24-64 on a full frame--very useful range). So is the next zoom something that starts at around 32-100? And is that lens small? Might be a really cool travel setup.