DanK♂ FP6900: I looked at some image comparisons in this review and other sites with FujiFilm X-A1 and this and I don't know who would be smart enough to buy this overpriced POS with subpar IQ. When you can get better IQ in a smaller and cheaper package why bother with this at all? Yes, there are more features and lens options with this cam, but I personally don't need all that.
Re-read your comment, and you'll realize that you answered your own question.
Gesture: Kardashian family just made a bulk order!
the Karadshians are famous because people apparently like them. So it's not just the Kardashians that are stupid.
ManuelVilardeMacedo: Somebody should have told Casio people who take selfies don't give a damn about cameras. They do selfies because they have smartphones with front-facing lenses. They won't buy a camera solely to take selfies. That'd be too fussy.And no - the fact that this camera has a mirror doesn't make it an SLR...
The world is a big, diverse place. And your comments clearly illustrate that you have only been exposed to a tiny portion of it.
People in some parts of the world were taking selfies with their pocket cameras (sans articulating LCD) for quite some time.
People do buy cameras solely to take selfies. It's not a huge market, but Casio has pretty much been dominating it as of late.
'female specific S-shoulder straps'
Don't forget that some men have boobs too.
In about two years, I'll be able to take photos with similar resolution without a robot, with a single frame, on my phone.
Leandros S: Is this a new PR gimmick? First, you propose something outrageous, get lots of press coverage and then make a generous-seeming offer to placate the complainants? I say that because anyone with half a brain should have realised that 30% was not going to be an acceptable deal. It's hard to think that the backlash was unexpected. And if they had started out with offering 70%, would that have seemed okay? Or would you have wanted to push for 80%? Ask yourself the question.
Most people would have been pleased with 70% from the start.
Perpetual license? Probably not.
BarnET: $349 and €399 for the powerzoom. That is one weird exchange rate.I don't like €399 for the 25mm either.
That is way too close to the 25mm F1.4 panasonic which actually says leica on the front. The 20mm has a very good reputation and is cheaper. So I think olympus has overpriced them. Here i was thinking olympus was heading in the right direction with the EM-10 prices.
The 20mm focuses slowly and poorly, especially in low light. But it's good enough for me to not want to spend the additional $$ on this new 25mm.
acidic: Ducks and rabbits are delicious. I hope the kids get to enjoy them soon.
True, but a younger dog would undoubtedly be tastier than the one featured in the photos.
Ducks and rabbits are delicious. I hope the kids get to enjoy them soon.
What a sexy lens. But I won't be getting one. I still use my 5D2 for portraiture. Coupled with the lowly $400 85mm/1.8, it does just fine, thank you.
This one sounds nice though, especially for a portrait lens for a travel system. But come to think of it, I rarely traveled with my 85mm when I lugged any of my FF kits around.
Still a drool-worthy lens though.
larrytusaz: One page--again, ONE PAGE would be nice. Next, next, next, next--what is this? (Hint: view it on a tablet or smartphone with a browser in "mobile viewing" mode, something like Opera Mini or Dolphin Mini.)
I'm not complaining about the adverts, I get why they are necessary. I also get why the page is laid out the way it is. Like most businesses, DPReview is a revenue-driven site. Money talks :-)
"If you end up scrolling aaaaaaaaall the way dooooooooooown you wind up in a dead zone right at the bottom of the site, away from all of the links to other things you might want to read."
Yeah, away from all of the adverts and such. :-)
Also, requiring readers to click click click results in more page views, which advertisers are willing to pay more for.
FinDERP: These articles are laid out so badly!
Hire a web designer, seriously
Umm, do you volunteer at dpreview? Or are you salaried?
kimchiflower: Photography is Nikon's only business (as far as I'm aware, and unlike Canon), yet they didn't win anything, not even a runner-up.
"Photography is Nikon's only business"Photography is only a part of Nikon's business. Look at their website.
"Only mass consumers buy into that."Marketing something to the masses is not a bad business decision. Without their money, you would be paying much, much more for their "serious" cameras.
I sure hope this camera has a lot of art filters.
fugly fugly fugly
That is all.
Michael Ma: I got a physical letter from Adobe in the mail saying watch out for fraudulent charges to my credit card in the future. Any one else get that? I'm surprised that all of you didn't. With that said, features in Adobe CC rock. Little annoying things that they probably held off on, are all here. It saves me significant time in my workflow on a daily basis.
The updates are so good in fact, on some days, I forget to worry about my credit card being used randomly by a stranger because Adobe forgot to encrypt their information.
I got the letter, but I'm holding off on CC for as long as I can. My current workflow with software I own, free of payments, is just fine for the time being.
Had Adobe released CS7, I very likely would have upgraded. Not like they need our money or anything. Oh wait a second... they do.
"and a 160-degree angle of view that can be customized for tighter 140- or 150-degree angles using the iON iOS or Android app."
At least with a GoPro, such angle-of-view adjustments can be made with its frustrating onboard interface. It's not always practical to use the iOS or Android app for adjustments.
T3: The line "it's in my hands again" seems to imply that today's digital cameras have taken photography *out* of the hands of photographers. But, of course, that's absurd. Today's digital photography gives photographers more control over their images than ever. And I don't see how stripping out features puts photography back *in* your hands again. That just seems like you're putting *less* into the hands of the user.
Maybe it's an all manual SLR, with no auto focus, match needle metering, and a one-frame image buffer that forces you to wait a second between each shot.
I have several FF Canon bodies, as well as several Oly and Panasonic M4/3 bodies. Some of these are bloated with an insane amount of options and menu items. But you know what? I set the camera on 'M' or 'Av' and 90% of the time, the dual dials (and/or wheels) and shutter button are all that's required for a pure, it's-in-my-hands-again experience.
And if I should decide that a higher ISO is needed, it's very simple to change, much more so than swapping out my film to a faster one.
The menus are only a problem for those who cannot resist playing with all of the bloated options.