matthew saville: I try not to do math on Saturdays, but this appears to offer some savings compared to a 4K Gopro and one of those Feiyu gimbals. Correct?
Yes, exactly, the GoPros have an integrated option - I don't like how the DJI requires a smartphone as it is yet another device to charge... I don't look forward to having a drained smartphone while I'm out and about...
Unfortunately you have to tether your smartphone to the device - there is no standalone/integrated screen.
oluv: does anyone have an idea if this might be made wearable somehow.
i need a gimbal but for headmounting or similar. I found some solutions for the Gopro, but I think I like the complete solution like this more.
Thanks for any suggestions.
Feiyu FY-WG 3 is a wearable gimbal.
Neat, but I would prefer if it were standalone and did not require a smartphone.
JameOl: Would be nicer if it was a phone holding platform, just a stabilised handle with connector, not a camera.
There are several gimbals that can be used with a weight compatible device... another one is the Lanparte HHG-01. These devices are microprocessored controlled so its not hard for the device to self-calibrated provided the camera being stablized is light enough for the motors to compensate.
D610 User 1867: Did anyone actually rent from them?
I remember checking out their website and finding them to be quite expensive for weekend rentals. It was a lot cheaper for me to drive to Toronto and rent from Vistek or Henry's, so I never bothered with them.
I'm surprised they're blaming Canada Post—don't they have insurance for that? Not that I'm defending Canada Post.
Canada Post is awful and occasionally late, but I've rarely lose a package. I don't think theft is endemic at Canada Post, perhaps the thieves were targeting specific shipments...
Almost a winner ... no built in flash is a killer for me.
I have the LX-7, one thing I don't understand is why the buttons on the lens barrel are so easy to move - Panasonic should introduce switches that "lock" in place so they're not bumped to the wrong setting so easily.
A hardware mute button is desperately needed.
R Thornton: One more product nobody called for. Like the shape though. Now, Nikon, put something spectacular in it for the price already!
Waterproof cameras are one of the few differentiators left for a traditional camera over a smartphone.
Smartphones have cannibalized the digital camera market, so being able to use it in harsh environments / underwater is a major differentiator.
I hope it's more waterproof than the AW110 ... AW110 has horrible reviews of it leaking like a siv.
RogerCooke: All well and good, but I miss the LX7. I am a very satisfied user, and its cratering price should have earned it a spot in the line-up
Yes and considering it is on sale at B&H for $299.99... The LX7 is a HOT deal right now.
Where is the Lumix DMC-LX7?
OpticsEngineer: I had my company buy a Lytro to evaluate for metrology uses. So I have used one quite a bit. For the first two months I agreed with all the comments about too low a resolution, just a toy. But then I had a strange experience. After reviewing my test shots, I went to the Lytro website and played with varying the focus on some of the winning photos in their contest. That was fun. I spent about an hour on that. Then I came over to Dpreview and looked at normal photos I knew were well composed and good. But somehow, all of a sudden, they all seemed dull. Flat. Lifeless. All you could do was look at them.
It is quite challenge to create a photograph where you plan ways the user can interact with it. It opens up entirely new ways to be creative.
On the technical side, I can share that when you zoom in, the range of refocusability becomes much less. The Lytro is best used zoomed out. Then you have about 9 diopters range of refocusability within a single photo.
Nice way of getting a free toy.
RX100 is a good camera, but with no hotshoe ... I'm actually leaning towards the LX7. Also, doesn't the LX7 have a faster lens?
I think they forgot to hire a designer, this camera is pretty ugly.
GMack: An 82mm filter is going to mean this thing is huge! Don't know if I'm willing to buy another round of B+W filters for an 82mm lens when most of the Nikkor f/2.8 lenses are 77mm filter sizes. Have to wait for the IQ tests to show too.
However, another nice thing going for it is that Tamron USA has a 6 year warranty on their lenses over the 5 year Nikon USA versions. Good luck with the gray market on either as neither will get fixed by the US importer now under warranty. Sadly, Canon lenses are only one year still which is screwy on some $10,000 lens of theirs. Not much faith in them it appears. I would expect more out of Canon by now.
Still need ND filters, UV filter, and Polarizing filter. A hundred bucks or two if you need to buy everything.
genxseven: $1299 seems expensive. Even with image stabilization, I'd rather buy a Canon 24-70 for basically the same price.
IS adds weight and cost to the lens; Canon probably did not add it due to those factors.
Tamron on the other hand needed something to one-up Canon (otherwise why buy Tamron)? Therefore they included IS.
shakabra: One thing that I never ever understand in these camera reviews.....is that no one ever talks about PRINTING. I mean, you don't even need more than a 1 megapixel camera if all you do is post photos on the internet. All this tech talk and stupid arguing... and not one mention of the final output: THE PHOTOGRAPH!!! 10 years ago, no one ever argued about which film or chemicals were superior. Now look at you. You are all tech geeks yet you have all lost sight of what photography is all about. the D800 has 36 megapixels and not one mention of what the prints look like.
Seems like printing is still one of the weak areas of digital photography, at least printing in the home. I have yet to find a reasonable inkjet that won't clog on me after a year or two of service.
Maybe it has to do with the poor quality printers Canon seems to dump on the market year after year? If Canon made more reliable inkjets, perhaps people would equate their cameras with quality as well?
Would expect more for 29.99... Maybe 9.99 w/ free ship?