What we are seeing is what it was clear we would see when the first MILC cameras emerged. The fact that closing the light path, between the subject and the sensor/intelligence, with a mirror is, long term, a completely crippling design. Doomed.There will be people who stick to dslrs and swear by them for decades after they are obsolete, just as there were press photographers who stuck to Speed Graphics long after their peers had switched to dslrs. Those voices are as inevitable as they are irrelevant.
All you people complaining about Canon don't get it. Canon is following a "milk it" strategy for camera equipment. It has been obvious for several years. That means turn down the investment level and pull cash out to put into other business segments. Here's why. They have high market share in a highly profitable but shrinking market. They are not anywhere near the leaders in the key underlying technology for the future (sensors) that is highly volume dependent. The have many other areas to invest in that are growth markets, not shrinking markets. That combination is the classic set up that says a company should follow a milking strategy for this segment. That's what they are doing. It is obvious and rational for Canon, even though it means that Canon owners will want to find another brand over the next 1-10 years.
captura: Much too big, and I don't need full-frame. When will Sony finally give us a NEX-7 upgrade camera?
The A6000 is the Nex 7 upgrade. Better imaging and much faster AF, plus improved menu arrangements. Sorry they charge less for it than you paid for your Nex 7. Them's the breaks.
The comments are so predictably tedious. Every superzoom announcement and photo set offers posters here the opportunity to see their ignorant snobbery in print. I guess this is the cheapest thrill imaginable, but so tiresome.
Nice pics. Good job DPR. IQ looks better than I might have feared. The only problem I have with this camera is that it is too big.
lacikuss: The only problem is the small sensor...
I'd buy this with a 1" sensor and same size. You Sony figure it out
A zoom of that focal length is available for the 1" sensor Nikon 1 and is about 4 inches long. So, not pocketable, but not gigantic either.
straylightrun: To all those wanting a 1" sensor, good luck getting a 24-720mm equiv lens that isn't the size of a bazooka.
Does 4 inches justify the term "bazooka". I don' think so, but that is the length of the NIkon VR 70-300 (810 equivalent) lens for the Nikon 1 which is a 1 inch sensor. Try getting your facts first.
The Squire: OK, let me do the maths.
1/focal-length rule for shutter speed = 1/20005 stops of IS means I can hand hold at 1/60 and shoot at 2000mm.Seriously?Believe it when I see it.
From using other superzooms, which have no problem handheld at 1200mm on a sunny day at iso 100, if Nikon has indeed improved the IS on this, as they appear to be claiming, then I'd guess you can shoot handheld at low iso (100-400) at 1/125 or 1/250th. 1/60 would be amazing IS, but not impossible, in my view.
This looks quite interesting. I'm worried that it will need either a red-dot sight (or a spotting scope) to find the subject at these super long telephoto ranges. Zoom out zoom in may work ok, if the IS is really much better than we've seen in earlier superzooms, but it is a pain and a bit tricky at the 1200mm of today's max zooms. Without a flash mount the external red-dot site options are pretty much gone (L bracket?)
Given the price comparison between this and the A6000 one is forced to conclude that Nikon doesn't really want to sell this camera in the US, where they have pushed the price up with mandatory features. It costs 50% more than the A6000 for less camera. That is a huge gap. So, why?Presumably Nikon thinks it can avoid "disturbing" the US market's infatuation with large cameras like its dslrs. This camera exists for Japan and Europe. To avoid making the US sub too mad at HQ it allows it to sell it but bumps up the price because "HQ knows best."This sounds like a "spiral down" strategy to me. Time will tell.
wb2trf: It would be interesting to see if the correction values matched any other commercially available lens, as a kind of fingerprint of another manufacturer's design left inside the lens.
I guess that the other implication is that the camera menus don't give you the choice of turning off lens correction, as, for example Sony does. If that choice were present, then this sleuthing approach to detecting its presence would be unnecessary.
My point was that if one found a menu in the Leica that allows turning off lens correction for some lenses, a menu like that in the Sony A6000 for example, even if the option to turn it off was grayed out (as you suggest it is for the 16-50 Sony which I don't own so can't test) then one would naturally wonder "why is this here set to, unalterably, 'auto' when you (Leica) say you don't use software correction?"
So, I suppose they have omitted that option, unlike Sony who has it in the camera and selectable for at least some lenses.
It would be interesting to see if the correction values matched any other commercially available lens, as a kind of fingerprint of another manufacturer's design left inside the lens.
quezra: I've always felt the "enjoyability" factor was a way to slip in a whole lot of subjective bias. And I still think this is the case after reading this, even though Richard seems to be leaning toward the positive. It's striking that this turn of opinion did not come into the A7 or A7R reviews, which have much more of these "features" Richard appears to be discovering for the first time in the A6000, including a much better dial setup. It's suspicious that the main thing happening between these cameras and the A6000 was in fact the A7S announcement and how seriously that camera was being taken by the film world... suddenly the mirrorless Alphas had to be taken seriously and it needed a shift in official line from DPR that justified it.
What is most interesting is this is the first review of a Sony camera where, on reading the negatives, I didn't immediately think WTF? so at least they are starting to avoid raising pointless quibbles.
I think the merely personal has very little useful role in a site like this. There is simply no way to know if the personal preferences of any particular writer align with one's own. So the information is useless. On the other hand this site, which presumably has the resources to develop new forms of objective testing, seems not to do so in any creative directions. For example, since optical testing is the oldest form of camera evaluation and is comparatively easy, we have that redundantly here with DXOmark and many other sites. Camera testing could use reports developed with some large moving machinery that would objectively test AF and AF tracking. This technology quality causes significant % of actual lost photos whereas, today, IQ differences within a sensor size grouping are very slight. Instead we are going to get mere subjective reports about AF, which I consider almost completely unreliable, except in a gross categorization way.
wb2trf: Apple's rewarded history is to think big. In this case the entire camera industry is geriatric and ready to be knocked over. Phone cams are taking the low end and mirrorless (all-electronic cameras after eshutters reach the high end) will knock out dslrs. Further, China manufacturing with Apple design can knock out Japanese, as it has in so many other areas. So, they could be looking to make a dedicated imaging peripheral, ie. a camera. Make it software e-compatible with all lenses, using merely mechanical couplers, if necessary. Lastly, the big untapped factor in camera design now is 3rd party software apps inside the camera. A few camera companies have timidly hinted in that direction, but the old guard camera makers are clueless about this. That is the big apple ready to be grabbed. So, I say , think big Apple, the camera industry is yours for the asking.
Mario G, I'm not sure if you seriously couldn't understand what I was saying, which I grant could have been clearer, but I thought was clear enough. What was intended was that it be fully compatible with all lenses. This requires a mechanical coupling, but not an optically active coupling if the flange to sensor distance is very short. It also requires software that provides compatibility, and of course, electrical contact compatibility.
Apple's rewarded history is to think big. In this case the entire camera industry is geriatric and ready to be knocked over. Phone cams are taking the low end and mirrorless (all-electronic cameras after eshutters reach the high end) will knock out dslrs. Further, China manufacturing with Apple design can knock out Japanese, as it has in so many other areas. So, they could be looking to make a dedicated imaging peripheral, ie. a camera. Make it software e-compatible with all lenses, using merely mechanical couplers, if necessary. Lastly, the big untapped factor in camera design now is 3rd party software apps inside the camera. A few camera companies have timidly hinted in that direction, but the old guard camera makers are clueless about this. That is the big apple ready to be grabbed. So, I say , think big Apple, the camera industry is yours for the asking.
The 1 System was an outcome of an internal battle between Nikon marketing and Nikon engineering in which marketing decisively won. At the time the 1 was planned, they thought they could just confuse the mirrorless market as a way of damaging it and exploiting it while protecting dslr sales. "Nikon says mirrorless is not about serious photography" is the message the 1 was designed to deliver. Unfortunately this was a very bad idea.
Mirrorless, entirely on its own, is relentless as a technology. It lowers cost for equivalent IQ. Ultimately deadly. Sony, by a factor of the 2 the largest sensor maker, is going to drive it until there is nothing left but phone cams and mirrorless.
Unlike the far more diversified Canon, Nikon can't afford a "portfolio" approach of treating cameras as a "dis-invest" cash cow. So, the 1 System is going to become a landmark mistake for Nikon: here Nikon bet on marketing when they should have had engineering build the best mirrorless possible. RIP
The price just makes no sense. Why would anyone pay $1200 for a 1" sensor when they can get APS-C in the A6000 for $800. Would anyone lose that much sensor IQ to go from 11fps A6000 with AF (and even more PD points) to 20fps.
The only thing that makes any sense here is making a 70-300mm OIS lens for the system. That lens might be very nice for birding. But, again the price/IQ question is at best a "maybe" at $999.
If one cares about Canon in the camera market, there is nothing here that is encouraging. From external evidence it appears that Canon had decided that, for a diversified company such as they are, it is time to "harvest" in the camera market, ie. treat it as a slowly shrinking cash cow not worth investing in. Given the current market dynamics this would be a classic prescription that a management consultant, internal or external, might make. Of course such portfolio strategies can never be discussed inside the market that is being treated as a cash cow, such as in this interview. In fact, however, the pattern of this interview is about what I would expect if this "milking" was indeed the Canon strategy, as I guess that it is.
When business is headed down for strategic reasons companies always underestimate how fast it will go down and how low it will go. In this case the strategic issues are that phone cams are hurting all segments, but particuarly P&S, and mirrorless is slowly hurting dslrs. The mirrorless status is similar to that with cell phones a few years back: the adverse impact of mirrorless on Canikon is just starting. I'd expect to see several marginal players per year exit the business over the next two years, companies like Olympus, Panasonic, Rikoh. Then Nikon is most vulnerable: they are most dependent on cameras, they source their chips from their competitor (Sony) and they are in denial about the impact of mirrorless, as shown by the Nikon 1 being a "try to confuse the market" strategy. Canon looks like they have already deemphasized camera development, about 2 years ago, and are pursuing a "milking market share" strategy. That's smart business. All in all, expect winnowing.