A mysteriously beautiful image! Even the name of the island holds some mystery. I would like to see more of what you're doing with the "A".
In 2013 I owned the predecessor P7700 and got wonderful images from its small sensor, but it seemed too slow for anything moving - especially kids and sports. In December of 2014 I bought a P7800, partly because it was going for $349 as a refurb. I like the new EVF for framing, but not so much for chimping. The colors are off, and it's not very sharp. AF seems better this time. No complaints there. But write times are still nowhere near satisfactory. If things are happening, I have to use jpeg or many shot opportunities just pass me by. I still love the image quality and body design. The 28-200 lens at 2.0-4.0 is unrivaled in my opinion, and makes the P7800 worth the $349. If nothing larger than A3 is needed, the P7800 delivers.
Compared to the $41,395 Brikk's 24k gold DF, this is really a steal!
I wish the P7800 slides in your report would've been a P8000 with a faster processor, at least. I've recently spent $514 on a D3300 refurb kit instead, and it runs large circles around my old P7700, which had the same processor as the current, now aging P7800. Why they couldn't keep the P Series moving with the field of competition in advanced compacts, is my question.
Another class of photographer for whom this camera might be a very good value, is the older person looking for an easy carry, and minimalist quality imaging. I've yet to take an image that can't give everything I want through a few steps in raw processing. And I'm using the scene and Auto modes almost exclusively for family and travel. The older generation digital cameras I sold off to pay for the D3300 kit and second lens, were much more fiddly.
Is this supposed to be a cute little fashion statement with toy filters? That's the impression made on me. For photo results in a compact form at the same price, I'd rather an earlier Sony RX100 model. Obviously there's some sort of niche for this Pentax among those who are a third my age.
Those photos aren't going to win me over to a Nokia.
Is it just my eyes, or are the Nokia W/A details superior to the Canon's?
As individual budgets are stressed in a number of nations, perhaps more are realizing that a camera is not a "need". A mobile device, however, is. And the imaging side of those devices for many, is sufficient.
A somewhat mystifying and beautifully composed photo! Having read others' comments so far, I also misinterpreted the intent of the subjects. My impression was also that they were attempting to photograph the moon or night sky. The photographer's context and explanation made a great photo even greater for me. Either way, it wins.
Great work. Wonderful color, composition. Outside camels provide leading lines to center. Sense of light is wonderful, even though sun is high. Just-right saturation. It's so good to get a break from the usual over-processed look. Congratulations on a great entry.
Beautiful light and shore silhouetted trees.
I bought lots of new cameras, read the manuals, tried learning all of the unique raw conversion software features, then sold them and bought new. I did that for ten years. This month I decided to stop doing that. Am I smarter or dumber now?
Zoron: Like if u want a D900 retro style......and no criple bs pls
I sold the FM2 as a Nikon dealer in the seventies. That body design was much more compact, closer actually in size to Nikon's current compact P7800. This camera's a handful.
zapatista: Well, constant f2.8 is nice, I wonder how is does vs. an FZ200.
I add another + to previous comments in consideration of the Fujifilm X-S1 for this class. Its specs, handling and IQ are certainly up to the levels of this super zoom group and its reduced price now makes it very competitive.
jcmarfilph: "Last week, Richardson left his Nikon DLSR at home and instead took his iPhone 5S on a trip to the Scottish Highlands. Unsure at first whether it was a good idea, Richardson quickly realized that while his iPhone wasn't exactly capturing "visually profound" images, he didn't feel like he was settling for second best, either."
I doubt if that is not intentional. Why would you leave the most important tool you are using in your professional job?
Any crappy phone can produce these appealing images at web size and the credit should go only to the photographer because of his eye for composition and not to the iPhone.
Nice photos for the Web, but for what other possible end use?
In-camera Art Filter: "Dynamic"
ISO 400 was necessary to obtain DR 400. Reminds me of the look of Tri-X film developed in D-76 many moons ago.
I celebrate this color, long before the garish days of Velvia, followed by over pushing saturation and vibrancy sliders.
A number of those commenting wonder why one would buy either of these cameras. I bought the P7700 at $389 from B&H. That's the cost of one lens for a system camera, and I don't have to haul a bag full of bodies and lenses in the field to be versatile. The slower performance is more than made up for in the image quality. When I want the performance of the DSLR I use the DSLR. Lately it stays home and the P7700 goes out in the field. It's that good.