Dave Oddie: Another digital camera without a tilting or articulated rear LCD.
I honestly don't understand why. Having the ability to use it as a waist level finder or for other situations is a real boon and with digital it is not anything hard to implement.
Arguments about robustness are spurious in my opinion. The forums are NOT littered with stories of broken articulated LCD's.
This is a niche product aimed at people want a rangefinder-like OVF. I guess that a majority of these people prefer not having a tilt screen. They don't need to justify their preference.
It would be silly for Fuji to add a tilting screen to this camera if their target market doesn't care for one.
There are many cameras on the market with tilt screens, including similar cameras from Fuji, so its not like you don't have options that fill your need.
Looks like it shows the same level of detail as my 12 megapixal LX100...
I'd prefer an updated 35/1.4 with improved AF speed.
Littleted: Very nice. Canon take note this is innovation.
Canon has already incorporated this camera's lack of 4K into its recent point and shoots. They still have to work on removing the ability to zoom however.
LFPCPH: Why is this mentioned here on dpreview ?
I think they put it here for the laugh.
beber: I think it is a great idea. I know the go-pro is not the first choice still camera, but I use mine a lot for things like trips to beach, or around the kids. Its a great close up fun camera. IMO photography should be as much about fun and enjoyment as it is IQ and perfect final products. Which is why I like the go-pro, its fun. Plus there is that old school film excitement of not knowing what your pictures look like until you get home.
With all that said this is awesome at $20, $30, maybe even $40.
At almost $200 this is just dumb.
If IQ is not critical to you (and there's nothing wrong with having that opinion), why not just use your phone to take photos?
How many people use gopros, but don't have a camera on their phone or own a point and shoot?
The even have a picture of an attachment to use an iphone as a screen..... since the iphone has a camera, everything below the iphone is redundant.
I'll wait for the Hasselblad version with wood finish.
AndersSJ: As far as I see, Canon is just following in the footsteps of George Eastmann saying, "You press the button, Kodak does the rest".
Worked pretty well for a while - as far as I remember.
Not sure how you conclude that from a wireless docking station.
The ability to automatically pull photos (or songs, data, etc) from a device when connected has been a standard feature on many devices for years.
Promit: Okay, let's get a couple of the common ones out of the way, shall we?
"Canon keeps making a great camera even better.""Finally Canon is acknowledging that their flagship sports DSLR still needs work.""Now if only Canon could fix the dynamic range in a firmware update.""Pointless, just buy a A7R II instead. DSLRs are dead.""This level of of commitment to pros is why Canon will never lose marketshare to other brands.""Good to see they're not charging for firmware updates like Panasonic.""Sony <whatever> is better.""Nikon <whatever> is better.""Overpriced camera that still doesn't focus well.""The best crop DSLR on the market keeps getting better.""I had a 7D2 and it was the worst camera ever made. Now I shoot with four D810s and thirty thousand dollars of lenses.""I had a D810 and it was the worst camera ever made. Now I shoot with the 7D2 and only these Canon lenses.""My iPhone still focuses faster.""No EVF, no point.""Nikon needs to release the D400 immediately."
As an owner of Fuji and Canon cameras, my Canons have worked better out of the box than my Fuji has even after multiple firmware updates. As much as I've enjoyed the Fuji camera and their willingness to release firmware updates, it would be nice if they'd learn to polish the product a bit more before releasing. There is only so much a firmware can fix.
A company like Canon relies on beta testers, actual working photographers, to work out the majority of the issues and to provide feature suggestions. It seems Fuji relies on its customers to be the beta testers, which would be great if firmware could change the hardware, move buttons, upgrade processors or af motors, etc.
falconeyes: The lens uses anomal dispersion of an organic material as first discovered in 1870 by Christian Christiansen.
It can be a very good lens with APO characteristics.
Nevertheles and even though the material is sealed by two ordinary glass elements, I'd prefer Canon specified the expected life time of this lens. After all, organic materials are prone to decay.
My point is that a lens has many modes of failure. Many compounds can break down or fail over time, organic or inorganic. Electrical connections fail, moving parts wear out or snap, etc.
I don't see any reason why Canon would not have addressed all modes of failure for all components (including the BR element) and highly doubt they'd knowingly put out an L lens with only a few years shelf life. If they're that incompetent, I'd stay away from all Canon lenses (BR element or not) because the BR element will be the least of your problems.
Chris Yates: No image stabilization even at this price? I suppose Canon realizes that people who buy this lens are switching over to the SONY A7r II system and would not need it the IS feature :P
Adding IS isn't done with magic. Adding a stabilizing element to an already complex and heavy lens design may have been undesirable for its intended use. It could have made the lens much larger, heavier, more costly, less sharp, or have more chromatic aberration.
You'll note that Zeiss didn't put IS in the Otus. They had a specific goal in mind and adding IS or AF would have been barrier to achieving that goal.
There are options for people who need IS at 35mm, this lens isn't one of them. But in its current state it will likely meet the needs of many other photographers. I suspect this will be a very popular lens.
The plastic casing, gaskets, and wire coatings are all organic.
I see the word stronger and harder being used interchangeably. The problem is that a substance can be 4x harder and resist scratching, but be prone to breaking from impact.
From the text they're saying the coating is harder. So I suspect the underlying glass is the same. While the coating may be durable, coatings don't add strength to the base material. So I wouldn't be using this filter as a ballistic shield, as the glass will break just as easily as before.
DPR should drop their A7R II from a balcony for comparative purposes.
(unknown member): Wow the crying in the article comments is hilarious. So much complaining from so few people, none of whom have any intention of buying the camera. I mean why did you all click on this article in the first place?
If you want to be sheltered from the comments from non-Sony users and prefer only positive affirmations about your future purchase, I recommend the manufacturer-specific forums.
eazizisaid: Haters after the long used 14bit argument, now uses the weather sealing to bash on the A7rii.
Just a question. Did Sony ever advertised this camera as weather sealed ? NO
So stop this childish non sense...
Childish? I see nothing but constructive criticism. What's childish is taking personal offense to criticism of a *tool*. Stop linking your ego with your camera.
Weather sealing is important to many people (just like DR is important to many). On my vacation last week, weather sealing was critical and I trusted in it to allow me to take photos I wouldn't have risked without it. Meanwhile, I missed no shots because of lack of DR...
If the A7 III has improved weather sealing you can thank those that demanded it. Similarly, if the next Canon product has improved DR, I will thank those that spoke out.
Snikt228: Disappointed in the lack of weather sealing (again). This really should be a priority in a $3200 pro camera.
I've seen an A7 II fried in a very light rain, hesitant to use my gear at all in any sort of weather
When Roger Cicala did his teardown he found that the only gasket on the entire camera was on the battery cover, and even that was a partial gasket.
I guess that qualifies as 'weather sealed' in Sony's world.
Bought a Sirui ball-head for $100 shortly after DPR's review of them and have been very satisfied. It was a substantial upgrade to my similarly priced Manfrotto head.
dedirg: can you tell me any reason to purchase e3-rt over this??
It appears this flash can act as a radio master, so I don't see any reason to get the transmitter. I have the transmitter and would have preferred to purchase this flash had it been available at the time.
Off hand, the only obvious 'advantage' is ergonomics. The transmitter is smaller and lighter. It also has a button layout similar to to the 600EX-RT flashes, so some might find it easier/faster to use if they are working professionals with a bunch of 600ex-rt flashes.
SnappyUK: I can understand banning flash photography as a way of minimising the negative impact it has on the enjoyment of others on the tour, but it bugs me that wherever you go, you are given the same old spiel about the ban being in place to protect the works of art. While flash lighting is bright, its duration is very short and I imagine it would take an awful lot of flashes to equate to the impact of the ambient light to which the artworks are continuously exposed.
The important phrases I see are:
"In the vast majority of pigments " (not all)
"almost all small camera-mounted flashes" (not all)
I assume the job of a curator is to ensure ALL the pigments in ALL the paintings survive, and NO flashes damage them. Protecting the "majority" from "almost all" is not a fail-safe policy.