AngularJS: That's funny the A7r2 is not even out yet, but 15 people already own it!
Software should've detected that.
Reflects badly on our comment community.
Dave Oddie: I don't understand this article appearing on DPR.
Why is there an article that speculates about the dynamic range possibly being greater and that BSI may well be appropriate despite the larger sensor etc?
Why not just wait until you have reviewed it and tell us the facts?
Seems rather pointless to me.
Light leaks?! LIGHT LEAKS ARE THE ULTIMATE FOUL-UP.
Specify please -- which model had the light leaks?
Yes, crappy RAW and shutter blur are AWFUL.
How about the a6000? Do they have any lenses for it yet?
Average User: Size of lenses doesn't really detract from the A7 series...especially the A7r for the reason that there are high quality 1.8 primes like the F1.8 55 and the F2 28 that are quite small...admittedly the fast zooms are going to be much bigger, but with the number of pixels, zoom gets to be less important because there are sufficient pixels to crop and still get really good images. It's also a little dumb to say that because you have to carry a big lens for a particular purpose, you should always have to carry it and you should also always have to carry a big camera body. There are things my D750 does better, but as a light versitile camera for scenery type uses night and day, the A7r has been awesome and the A7RII will be even better.
"One of my advantages is low standards."
Ha ha, yes! I have fun still with a common Canon SX110 IS ($208, delivered).
It's rarely that I want a 30x40 crammed with detail. But when I do, for the nonce I can make do with stitching.
It's a backgrounder, folks, a backgrounder.
Tom Hoots: I have had image quality problems with a G1X, a G1X Mark II, and a G7X, all bought right when they were first released to the stores.
Quoth the raven: Nevermore.
There is just no way that I'll spend that kind of money just to wind up doing "beta testing" for Canon. Maybe after it's been out for a year I'll start thinking about perhaps buying one of these things.
This is discouraging.
Canon, are you listening?
ZAnton: They would better do an on-chip PDAF, instead of those stupid FPSes.RX 100 needs a longer lens. 70mm is way too short.
>I had four Nikon DSLR's
I meant "SLR's."
utomo99: I wish the lens is faster. F 5.6 is too slow now
>people want a VF especially on a zoom camera (All cheap bridge cameras have EVFs...)
Canon is thick. They're not in touch with their base.
Azbeen: Please Sony.....create an RX10 'Landscapers' version with a 20-100 (equiv) lens !
Then I'll open my wallet !!!!!
20mm is to adore.
When I got my Nikon 21mm f/4 back in the 60's, I was in wide-angle heaven. A beautiful optic.
Twenty or twenty-five years ago (maybe closer to 30!), I had four Nikon DSLR's, but I kept reaching for those Olympus clamshells, the XA and the XA-4. Even David Eisendrath liked to have fun with them. The image quality wasn't so good as Nikon's, but the convenience benefit was compelling. That's why my favorite digital camera is the RX 100. My other nine digicams can gather mold as far I'm concerned. My next digicam will be the RX 100 III or RX 100 IV. Then I might think about the FZ1000, RX10, and Stylus 1s, garnished with a ZS50 and an LF1. The kids can enjoy the ones I'm not actually using.
Pat Cullinan Jr: Like to have some scoop on "pinpoint focusing." Is this just a marketeer's selling phrase, or does it denote a discrete technology?
Thank you, Ross.
Yes, I'm intrigued.
ShutterNot: Interesting feedback. Most interesting how lots of folks concentrate on the folks who would have liked a built-in EVF. So they label them complainers of no significance. Makes you wonder why so many object to those folks who prefer viewfinders. Intimidation practice ?
With a significant zoom attached to this camera, for many it's easier to stabilize the camera if it has a viewfinder. For me, stabilizing holding the camera is necessary at the long end of the zoom.
From my own experience, a removable viewfinder is also a royal pain in the rear. Eventually you end up leaving the removable viewfinder at home and then stop using the camera - as in my case.
"With a significant zoom attached to this camera, for many it's easier to stabilize the camera if it has a viewfinder."
That's the thing.
IvanM: Does it have the new Sony 'stacked' sensor?
grimlock361: I am sorry canon but its now obvious you are capping the performance on your cameras. Digic 6 but only 3.2fps in servo. I am afraid to see the raw performance or does it even shoot raw. Not to mention the lack of an EVF. Why stop there when you can make the battery, strap, and the box it comes in an optional accessory. Remember it can't perform to well or people might not buy a DSLR so cap the ISO at 800 as well. Dishonest, low down and crappy business practices.
What is exceptionable in what Rishi said?
thomas2279f: Not much of a difference technoilogy wise than the previous model and like Nikon - they're still stuck at full HD...
There was (or is) a Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark II, announced Feb 12, 2014.
sh10453: Been a Canon guy since the A1, late 70s, have since purchased at least 2 dozen Canon pro cameras, including FF DSLR's.I am ready to say goodbye Canon, & hello Sony.No native VF is a deal breaker for me. I can't follow a fast bird at 600mm looking at a screen on a bright sunny day!$250 for the VF?1 f/s RAW?3 f/s?It's a shame that Canon is sleeping.A crippled camera with a large sensor is very limiting, although it's fine for those who will use it indoors for portraits)!For a smaller, pocket size one, I opt for the Panasonic DMC-LF1. I love the view finder on this tiny camera, and it has Wi-Fi, NFC, etc. as well, at the price of the Canon VF.For a 25-600mm, I'll opt for the Pana FZ200, f/2.8 all the way to 600mm Leica lens, and 12 f/s, although at a much smaller sensor.
Here is a recent sample photo using the LF1, reduced in size and resolution for the web (from a few days ago; notice the caption):
The FZ200 is problematic at the long end. See
Search on the page for "Difficulty achieving sharp pictures at the long end of the zoom."
Sir Punk: 4K is the biggest gimmick ever, who needs to shoot videos in 4K when there are so few TVs out there that support it?! Is 1080p not enough for you guys? Also this camera looks like a NEX
4k TV's will be appealing to still photogs who want to show photos to family and friends, like an old-fashioned Kodachrome slide show.
Props to you, Reesh. You stand up.
You can get it for < $500 on the web. Only always deal with sellers having an approval rating of 99.8% or 99.9%.
Dougbm_2: 28-200mm?I think this is a misprint. Should be 28-300mm.Just wish this was a 1" sensor as the 1/17 sensor is just too small and outdated for this otherwise nice camera.Actually if it was 24-200mm and 1" I would probably buy.
The Olympus website says "28-300mm (equiv. 35mm)."