This might be the weakest update I've ever seen. "Oh, weren't impressed by the last one? Well wait till you see what we've added this year..."
AngryCorgi: As usual, Canon puts out another camera that get's spanked by a 4-year-old Nikon in the IQ department. When will they think about either (a) purchasing Sony's sensors or (b) partnering with Sony in some way to improve their sensors to be competitive with what Sony has been producing for more than half a decade??
@fPrime: are you forgetting the Canon 1D3 debacle, that cannon tried to fix, but couldn't. You know, one of the things that, along with the sensor in the D3, drove so many (pro) sports cannon shooters back over Nikon? And what did we hear? "Yeah, you know, when the Canon was working, it was marginally better, but not really enough to matter." So you can called it warmed over or whatever you want, it's really not worlds apart let alone years ahead of Nikon's. Additionally, Nikon's system has frequently been praised for its accuracy in low light. And they just introduced an AF module that takes that a step further. I would agree that the D800 / prime issue was something Nikon didn't do right. But fundamentally, these PDAF systems are not night and day, apple and oranges, and Nikon isn't years behind. At least not in the PDAF area.
Nikon's AF tech isn't 7 years behind Canon. Sorry, not even close.
While it's true that Nikon has outstanding sensors as a result of their IP in partnership with Sony's, these modern sensors are all *pretty* good. I'm not saying that one could/should expect more from Canon. Probably should. But same can be said of Nikon in certain areas: If the precision/diagonal/group AF works out, it looks like a great system, better than Nikons's! And their live view / video stuff continues to be better. Nikon's live view is the most shameful thing on the planet, and has been since day one.
10 fps is pretty darn cool. But the wi-fi? In a "rugged" camera? If there's one camera that's likely to be taking pictures where a tablet doesn't exist and a cel phone doesn't work, it's /this/ camera. And they chose this feature over GPS? Hmmm.
Raw would have been good but there's probably too much internal processing to compensate for the lens. But video--please tell me there are slow-motion options available at lower video resolutions. Otherwise it looks pretty good. Not perfect, but a lot closer to it with that lens. And no, we don't need more megapixels.
TimK5: This is so useless! Where is the classic 24 mm equivalent!?!? Apart from the less than mediocre specs of the J1/V1 this is another reason not to get into that system.
3mm isn't going to be the difference in your photography.
I missed the part where this has /anything/ to do with digital (still) cameras or their lenses....