Kelton Sweet: Love these... and I'm surprised that they are staying in such a mundane type hotel/motel. Some are average type shots, but most are MUCH better than the average photos taken by joe-public.
I wonder if they were yet rolling in the $$$$ in 1965.
Dan W (above) stayed in the same hotel as the Stones in '66??? wow!
I'm not a Stones fan, but I appreciate their era of pop history.
It's true. This was no motel, though. My father booked a stay at the Kahala Hilton, a very nice place.
My father confirmed the reservations for 2 rooms before we left from Los Angeles but when we arrived, they had only one room for us. They blamed it on the Stones, saying they (and their entourage, I suppose) stayed longer than they had originally planned. Who could blame them, the place was beautiful. We "suffered" with one room for a night until the hotel found another room for us.
I remember seeing the Stones on the beach. They didn't look especially attractive but they had lots of girls with them. I was envious.
We also visited 3 other Hawaiian islands. It was a fantastic trip.
My family went to Hawaii in 1966. We stayed at the same hotel in Honolulu as the Stones. I remember seeing them, even rode in an elevator with one of them. I didn't know who he was, I just knew he was not Mick Jagger.
I should have taken photos.
I'll keep my D10. The 20 probably has a better sensor but the 10 is 2.8 at the wide end. I've gotten some decent underwater pics with it and it does surprisingly well on land.
Timmbits: So a phone has less noise in low light. Let me change carriers and phones right away!
@DPR: I don't need this inconsequential information on the main DPR site. I understand that you are trying to launch this connect thing, and maybe spin it off, but annoying a photographers audience with putting connect into their feed may not be the best way to grow readership in your new venture. And BTW, the settings do NOT stick! If I tell it to not show "connect", it eventually comes back, even with "make default". I'm sure this is within the scope of the competence of amazon's programmers...
Don't read it if it doesn't interest you. Simple.
Shamael: Seriously, when does Nikon starts thinking about furnishing a new kit lens for that sensor. This 18-55 is a bit crappy and starts taking dust. A new, better kit lens could be one more reason for old customers to change to a new body
The 18-55 lens is "a bit crappy"? No, the kit lens is sharp (and light). It's a great value imo.
King Penguin: Am I correct in saying that if 35mm film was digital it would be 21mp......then this camera is an affordable digital version of film. As for high ISO, in film days to get 800 ISO you had specialist film and that was grainy........I very rarely shoot above 800 ISO and I'm sure most other people don't either. Most of the time I shoot on 100 ISO, occasionally increasing it if I need an extra stop or two.......I can't be alone in this, can I?
I'm sure you're not alone but the cameras of the last couple of years can shoot at iso 1600 and 3200 with excellent results. I don't hesitate to shoot at those iso's when necessary with my D7000 and NEX C3.
Alan Brown: was it a Billion dollars to send this to Mars? (vaguely remember this figure in a news broadcast.. might be a whole lot more. )
Great inovations and technical skills to get it there .. no doubt abut that. But you can't walk here on Earth in the daytime and feel 100% safe.
begs the question....
A lot of funny/witty comments here (and some ignorant ones) but I really did LOL at yours!
Sarge_: This camera changes nothing; Nikon makes the best DSLRs, and Canon makes the best compacts, with Sony leading the 'tween' market with the NEX... With respect to IQ, that is.
Panasonic makes some good compacts, too but you got it about right.
tmurph: The only thing that would worry me is the size of the screen, I mean its a good size but if the camera is good to carry around in the pocket, and it certainly looks small enough, the screen, being so large, would be prone to scratching. Or is it scratch resistant? doesn't say in the spec. Other than that I think it deserves a chance, so I await the proper review to come.
Just put a thin glass protector on it. They work well.
rpm40: People- if you want a camera with a tilting lcd, a viewfinder, a hot shoe, a grip....this isn't the camera for you. They didn''t make a mistake in omitting them, if you ask me. If sony added any of those, it would be an identity crisis for a model that has a well defined purpose- the smallest, most streamlined camera they could make with a big sensor and fast lens.
If they made a camera with all of those features, it would not be a compact. Rather, it would basically be a resurection of the R1. I think it could be a cool camera, but the original R1 did NOT sell well. Maybe if this is a success, sony will follow up with such a camera? Take this rx100, add a hotshoe, EVF, NEX tilt screen, grip, and maybe a zoomier lens (the original R1 was 24-120 eq.), and voila! Sony R2. Then again, you'd be closer in size to the G1x or X10.
It's all a matter of preference, but me- I think this one's a winner.
Agree with Miwok. Tilting screen on NEX is great and would have been a great addition to this camera.
howardroark: Wow, great pictures. Thanks to everyone at DPReview for their hard work. Image quality and ISO performance are both beyond my expectations. Canon has created a new segment of the market and the mirrorless bodies have a totally new kind of competition.Corner to corner sharpness is excellent from every image in this gallery. A full battery of testing will reveal whatever weak points the lens has, but it looks like they will be hard to track down. This lens even beats my 15-85 EF-S in some regards.If this is the price we pay for starting at 28mm (eff.) rather than 24mm (I personally didn't care, but certain people couldn't stop talking about this point) then I'm glad Canon made that choice. I wouldn't sacrifice the quality they've produced nor additional money to get four extra mm.
What Howard said!