Let's have the whole story about this banding business. I go in horror.
TrollFree: is this going to be any good for landscapes and seascapes?
How about elephant stampedes? Will it be any good for elephant stampedes?
Is this a prison? A lunatic asylum? A government office block? The Ministry of Truth?
Sabatia: This is the camera I have been dreaming of since I started looking at m4/3s four years ago and even since I made the switch two plus years ago. Small and light with outstanding image quality. I'm a serious outdoors person, hiking, biking, xc skiing, winter mountaineering, etc. I'm also a serious(sold many framed prints and had hundreds of images published) nature photographer who just won't lug all the equipment any more. I tried the GM1, but too too often couldn't see the screen or the level line in the sun. I've also owned Canon S95 and Pana LX5 and LX7, but wasn't satisfied with the image quality. I've considered the LX100 and the RX100, but love the versatility of changing lenses, particularly since I already own a small pile of m4/3s lenses, including three primes and a macro.
Right on target.
This camera system fits my requirements like none other.
By the way, TechRadar and Imaging-Resource have reviews. They applaud the image quality.
The A6000 is not a DSLR.
But the price makes it intriguing!
What camera should I buy if I am to view images on a 72-in 4K flat panel, whilst enjoying enough surplus pixels to do some reasonable zooming? My burning desire is to reproduce the experience of a slide show (Kodachrome 64, Nikon F, FTn, F3, N2000, Nikkor lenses, Leica IIIg, Summitar 1.5, Leitz and Zeiss projectors).
I just can't have any more 13x19-in prints in my life.
DanK7: Sorry - I'm having a grammar moment. "If its manual control points you desire..." should be "If it's manual control points you desire...." Now back to solving world problems.
Ahh. Someone cares.
I take a stringent exception to the 47th "HA."
armandino: Ok went out and bought one today, I was pretty pleased with the IQ I saw online and I had a pretty good idea of what to expect from ergonomics and performance as I owned pretty much every single Canon DSLR worth having.Just a quick comment: one thing I absolutely LOVE from Canon as a pro user is that there are never surprises. Every iteration is built on top of the previous one, conservatively and thoughtfully. See the next post for more:
A superb post. Thank you.
lakel4444: As a teen, can't decide between the 7d mark ii and the 70d.. help?
Weeeel, the 70D costs $999 clean, $1350 with the 18-135mm, and the 7D II is $1799 clean, $2149 with the same lens. You could decide on the basis of price.
Lassoni: uhh.. some painting is suddenly landscape photography?
Well, the liberal aristocracy. They're fesses.
Please let us have no talk of cracks. Call them fesses if you must.
bigdaddave: Numbers 6, 7, 8 and 9 won something?
I must dig out some of my rubbish shots and submit them
Prixnobeldefoot: Some of the pictures are interesting.However, I find it sad that none of those have a "natural" look.I know Photography is a visual art, but I feel that nowadays people tend to value more visual effects than content, you have to make it appealing to the most people possible. It has to pop out...
Like #3, let's give them a sunset, some flowers, add some contrast and saturation and done. It's well executed but it's s been done a million times. I find it rather cliché.
I like #1 and #7 because they're intriguing in a way.
Ahh, yes. It's j-school, that's what it is.
<quote>controversial is just a bullcrap word </quote>
nicolaiecostel: Number 6 looks like it's made with an iPhone and instagramed. 9 is not a landscape, it's a bloody tree and nr. 8 and 7 are architectural photographs. 1 is inexplicable, nr. 2 is a picture of a lady taking a hike. I mean, c'mon !
Glad you broke the ice, Nicola. Of course, we all have to be kind, but none of these images is my slice of liver.
I agree completely.
smafdy: But when will they deliver a Full Frame model?
HowaboutRAW: "But it also made the camera seem a little delicate, and fragile."
Seemed plenty solid when I handled it.
NB: Magnesium can feel a lot like plastic.
"However, it does seem a bit blasphemous to put the revered 'Summilux' name on a lens that isn't an f/1.4, and sometimes is closer to the brightness of an Elmarit than anything else."
The above quotation is preposterous. I suggest that the author use the newish 50mm M f/2.0 APO Summilux (8,000usd) and not get lost in the names, but concentrate on results.
You're a good sport, HowaboutRAW.