Serious Sam: Between the D750 and 7Dii, there is a $500 difference and from what I can see it is easily justified...FF, WiFi, Tilted And better LCD, a proven phase system..... just to name a few.
Of course there are sadly too many Canon shooters that got suck into the system and now has lens stock that prevent them from moving away from the system.
I wrote lately in an Australia forum that Sony has change the pricing and product cycle of FF cameras it seems Nikon is catching on....just not Canon. I wouldn't be surprise though as friends in channel tell me Canon are as arrogant as they were ten years ago.
Finally DPR, we have heard enough about Canon in the pass few days already. Please talk about something else.
I already have a FF, I am going to buy this. Why do people get so upset if you buy the camera you want? Don't want or need wifi or tilt screen. I don't like sony if that's okay with you. They feel cheap and my past experiences with them have been awful. I already have many Canon lenses and accessories so why would I want to sell all of it and spend more money on something I do not want or need?
To all the angry people it's simple, don't buy it, I'm sure your iPhone will blow it away. How and why do you get so mad at a camera?
Jogger: "There is also a new M8 co-processor which is coupled with a barometer and allows for accurate tracking of changes in elevation. "
And this is critical for phones because???
"So, when you out there shooting, you know storm is coming by reading barometer"
I just use the weather app. :-)
No lights used, he just uses "erase" in Elements. :-)
Tim Gander: I wrote a review of the original BeFree and I was impressed except for the fact that where the tops of the legs pivot at the shoulder, the castings are painted inside the joint so sooner or later you have flakes of black paint being ground out of the joints. A bit disconcerting, and annoying to have bits of black paint dropping out. I guess it wears off eventually and the flaking stops, but seems a shame. Otherwise, not a bad little tripod. Not worth the extra for carbon fibre though. Just one thought, if a carbon fibre tripod does get destroyed, carbon fibres which break away are just as deadly as asbestos. Not sure many people are aware of that.
Just don't grind it up and breathe it for 50 years.
No viewfinder, how do you hold these things still at arms length or find your target at 1000mm or even 700mm?
I love my M.
JJLMD: Canon and Nikon are tomorrow's IBM and Kodak unless they undergo an extreme makeover. I rekindled this hobby in earnest about 2 years ago after decades of disinterest. When I started researching gear, I started researching only Canon and Nikon but it didn't take me very long to realize that Sony, Fujifilm and Olympus were making the most exciting products. Look, there are still people who still see Cadillac as THE prestige brand so it'll take awhile but there's no doubt in my mind that Canon and Nikon are on the same path as IBM and Kodak. These companies were once dominant and during their reign, it was unimaginable they would fall all the way to the bottom.
Hmmmm, google "Sony bankruptcy"
beavertown: The worst investment ever made by Tameron. Who owns EOS-M?
Even the population of the unwanted Nikon 1 system is much higher than the EOS-M.
I love my M, this lens will make it more useful when out and about and when I need to, I can use my L lenses.
:-) Challenge is for "T" horniness! Sorry couldn't resist.
Daniel Stehura: 12.8 megapixel........... What year is this? Slackers at Canon pumping out another under pixeled camera. Great Internet camera just don't blow up past 8x10. It's as big as a f 150 Ford truck, rather gross in Size and design. For a small Camera the Sony RX 100 II Has better image quality, Sony uses Carl Zeiss Lenses the best. Canon lenses are #3 after Nikon. I would have to have 3 beers to drink this big clunky boxy camera pretty. The Pixel count is from the year 2000!!!! What in the next 10 years they will be up to 20.2 Megapixel...... Good luck Canon for milking the pixel count for your profit taking. Nikon D800 is progressive and my 18x22 inch Epson 3880 shots are Razor sharp like a Ansel Adams print, Well Almost lol
A lot of people don't want a tiny camera, you can use a phone if you want tiny, therefore phone cameras are better than the sony. Also, phone companies honor their warranties unlike sony did on mine.
I don't care for small cameras like the sosony. I don't care what features it has. I have an iPhone if I need small. Who carries a camera in their pocket anyway? My phone is smaller than the rx100 so that makes it better.
MarcMedios: This camera is a real game changer. My main objection (shared by many pros I know) was the lack of viewfinder. First, who wants to look like a soccer mom focusing and second, impossible to really frame and focus in most conditions. The pop up viewfinder destroys all of those objections in a second. Also, it doesn't eat valuable real estate on the top of the camera. Add that to absolutely no shutter lag, a quality lens and a 20mp sensor and you have the beginning of the end of low-end pro-wannabe cameras. Thank god it costs $800 meaning a lot of soccer moms and mammarazzis won't buy it. Next step, a 5:1 zoom, perhaps 24-135? That would be a killer combo
Hmmmm, nice try. Not a good out.
"Thank god it costs $800 meaning a lot of soccer moms and mammarazzis won't buy it."
Huh? Why would you care who buys it?
Jennyhappy2: Sure seems to be ALOT of interest in the RX100 III, over 1,000 comments on the First Impressions Review...nearly twice as many as the G1X II which was posted a week ago. Hasn't even been released yet and looks like Sony has yet another hit on their hands.
And just how does that affect you? Billions and billions of McDonalds hamburgers have been served so that makes the sony look like a loser now.
What is is? Maybe they should hire someone to take a better picture.
Okay, that was fun, clicking and holding on photo while moving cursor around in circles makes him look like he's driving over bumps. But what else do you do with it? It looks nice though.
How do you tell if someone is lgbt by looking at them or are we supposed to ask?
Why does Europe get the grip and not U.S.?