It is useless to create large tablets for poor productivity OS'es like iOS and Android.
User9362470513: Seriously, is this a joke? $10,000 for a mirrorless camera that's bigger and heavier than a medium format camera and is one of the ugliest beasts to be made in years?
I know everyone bands on about the cost of Leicas and I have no problem with charging a premium for their cameras given the build quality, images, heritage, lenses, kudos etc. And their cameras are generally small and practical.
But this is pathetic. Why would n't you get a D810 or a 5DS? You'd probably get better image quality, have a ton of change and you wouldn't have a hernia. Or get a Pentax MF? Or basically anything else.
A fool and their money are easily parted as they say.
@Anadrol You can't take this to an yacht, it will sink.
Catalin Stavaru: Mirrorless done wrong. You could easily fit a DSLR inside that camera shell.
@darngooddesign Many DSLR cameras have on-sensor PDAF, and there is no reason why a DSLR should have worse on-sensor PDAF than a mirrorless. The Canon 70D and 7D2 are good examples. And nothing prevents DSLR cameras to have an EVF instead of the OVF, but the reason why they don't is that the OVF is having a free infinite-resolution, zero-lag, zero-refresh-problems viewfinder.
Basically "mirror-less", like the term states, means trying to take out the mirror and separate phase detection sensor from the camera, in order to reduce its size. If you take out the mirror but keep the same size then it becomes a bit stupid. But however Leica probably did tests and their audience expressed the wish for a larger camera system. To each their own.
@Dheorl Such as ?
Mirrorless done wrong. You could easily fit a DSLR inside that camera shell.
mpgxsvcd: I am a little confused at why Canon gets a pass with this camera because they label it entry level or budget? The cameras from the competition are cheaper, better in every category, and smaller and I am not talking about the new cameras. I am talking about the ones from 2012 and even before that.
I still fail to see why Canon users insist on paying today’s prices for 2012 technology just because Canon has slapped a “New Model” sticker on it. They had the ability to make this camera in 2012 they just choose not to in order to protect their DSLR business.
If I told you this camera was from 2012 but “New in the box with a warranty” you wouldn’t pay $600 for it. You probably wouldn’t even want to pay $200 for it.
@mpgxvcd If I was in minority then Canon wouldn't have the largest market share in consumer and professional still cameras. But I am indeed in minority on this particular web site.
The main reason why people still insist on buying Canon cameras is that their pictures simply look better most of the time, after you get the pixel peeping and feature craving out of the way. I had some Sony cameras like the NEX-5n or RX100. While they looked great on paper, their output was simply bland.
Kevin Coppalotti: Now i know what happened to the east german camera designers from 50 years ago. they went to work for canon.
Fuji put dibs on them long ago.
Image quality, both RAW and JPEG, looks worse to me than the RX100 III. I think that all the sensor optimizations went towards 4K and high-speed video.
This being said, what I'm really waiting from Sony is color rendering improvements. Right now Sony colors are subpar, regardless of per-pixel image quality.
BeaverTerror: Why do we have to click a link on the home page, and then click a SECOND link before we can see the review? Which web designer made this moronic decision? Does DPReview make additional advertising income from the one extra click?
In order to show more pages, thus more ads and increase site revenue.
If only it didn't look like Frankenstein's arm.
Whitesands: It would be nice If when we CLICK review it would take is straight to review instead of clicking again....not a huge deal but it's a bit redundant.
It's a trick to have more pages and thus more ads displayed and more potential ad clicks. Plus Google is a bit dumb and favors these tricks, indexing more pages even if some of them are just gateway pages for ads and don't really have any useful content.
1/2.3" sensors just don't cut it these days. The image quality is just lacking as there are also too many pixels for the sensor size. At 8MP with larger pixel they could make a point, especially that cropping is not always needed with this kind of zoom. I don't really understand why all this craftsmanship put into a 1/2.3" camera. However it may probably work very well for video.
LukeDuciel: "He said that users of sensors with a similar number of pixels to 40 million had to use a tripod all the time to make their images look sharp, but that OM-D users could switch between using a tripod and not, according to the resolution mode set on the camera."
why i cannot see the logic?
I suppose that camera movement has a more pronounced visible effect in very high resolution sensors, in the sense that you can't get full sensor resolution benefit (eg. the images look sharp, but not 40MP sharp). This is somewhat logical, imagine what would happen if you would look at the hand movements with a smaller and smaller microscope. The movements would appear larger and larger.
SanPedro: Who do Canon think the target buyer is for this? It would make a nice wildlife/sports camera if the AF is fast enough and the add-on EVF is good value and not too bulky. But I guess it'll be something like the EVF-DC1. Which will make it look bulky and ugly.
I can also see it being popular as a general purpose family camera... travel, family events and suchlike, but with much better quality than a phone and less bulky than a DSLR, and more versatile than either.
I still can't get over why Canon seems incapable of adding a built in EVF to their higher end compact offerings. The new EOS M and now this... what gives? I've used the EVF on a mates RX100 3 and it works well given its size. Plenty good enough for a camera like this.
If the AF is slow then won't that 600mm reach be a waste of time?
Anyhoo, I still think it's an interesting camera so will be waiting for the review. But I can't see it usurping my RX10 for my needs.
The FZ1000 and Sony RX10 look bulky and ugly all the time. At least with this one you have a choice.
This is a really impressive achievement from Canon for this zoom range on an 1" sensor. Compare this with the huge Panasonic FZ1000 or Sony RX10. Looks about twice as small. I like the fact that Canon does not listen to specialized forum "customers" requiring a bunch of size-crippling features like EVFs and keeps their non-DSLR cameras as small as possible. A smaller camera means more pictures taken.
99% of the upsetting caused by the EOS M3 comes from the lack of an electronic viewfinder. If it had one, everyone was raving.
To me, the inclusion of an EVF means a larger camera, a higher price, and another component that could make the camera obsolete sooner because another EVF is brighter or has more pixels.
So the exclusion of the EVF is in fact a very good idea. Those who need it can attach it, and right now it is offered almost for free at Amazon Japan together with the camera (and anyone can preorder via a package forwarding company).
I personally think that the EOS M3 is a winner. The EOS M lens range is small but very high quality and perfectly chosen for the target audience.
Catalin Stavaru: I really really wanted to like this camera...but when I look at the sample pictures I see the same horrible color rendition that made me sell my Sony cameras. But in this particular gallery it's like the blandest set ever, color-wise. Not one picture makes me say "wow" and this is a full-frame camera. Something is really wrong with Sony, they are simply neglecting this area and then they wonder why people don't budge from Canon and Nikon.
@Zeisschen The fact that RAW can solve almost every color problem is a big misconception, in my opinion. Here is what Ken Rockwell said about colors, and unfortunately, given my experience, I tend to agree:
"Great color is what looks good when photographing real subjects, and I just can't get colors as good from this Sony as I do from my pro cameras. Color rendition is delicate and subjective, and critical when you get serious. You can't just tweak it in a computer; each brand of camera, like each type of film, interprets colors differently."
I really really wanted to like this camera...but when I look at the sample pictures I see the same horrible color rendition that made me sell my Sony cameras. But in this particular gallery it's like the blandest set ever, color-wise. Not one picture makes me say "wow" and this is a full-frame camera. Something is really wrong with Sony, they are simply neglecting this area and then they wonder why people don't budge from Canon and Nikon.