This looks to be a very nice camera!
forpetessake: And now a trivia question: name at least one superzoom lens that isn't a cr@p.
@forpetessake: Is that enough, or should we go on?
Anirut J: For me, this lens would be a heaven-sent. I do a lot of photo-journalism type of work where it's all about military exercise actions, moving in from far away and suddenly running into confine space. Everything gets so dynamic. I don't have all that time to change the lens. (I've done a lot of lens changing while running with the troops.) I've lost a lot of photo opportunities because of lens change, let alone dust getting onto the sensor.
I know full well that the IQ will be so-so, if not out right bad. But, hey, there's no such thing as a free lunch. We'll have to sacrifice something for something.
But ... what about Pentax mount? Will there be any? Or, will Pentax get Tamron to do a re-badged? Keeping fingers crossed.
Yabokkie, just admit that sometimes, it can be easier to take one camera and a very versatile (yet not super-sharp) lens. Finding such a situation should not be so mind-boggling.
How this revolutionary camera can get an 80% to the D600's 87%, I have no idea. Somehow, I think that oil splashes show up on RAW files, too. Sure, maybe it was reviewed before that debacle, but then why not change the score? OK, let's instead compare the A7 to the D610. The D610 has more buttons and JPEG might be better. But the A7 is the smallest full-frame digital camera in the world, and is (along with the A7r) the only true full-frame digital "mirrorless" camera. Shouldn't that count for something? It's like if someone invents a hoverboard that only gets 1 kilometer or 1 mile per charge...so you give a much higher score to a regular skateboard. It doesn't make sense to me.
So far, everything sounds fantastic. Its abilities on paper beat all rivals. I will definitely get this if it's as good in real life as it sounds and if the price is reasonable. Judging from the 18-35mm 1.8 (which I believe should cost more than this), I have high hopes.
Madaboutpix: Wow, those specs and first impressions sure sound auspicious! Still shooting my trusty old K-7, I suspect that now it's about time to stop skipping upgrades and start some serious saving-up for a K-3 body. I may have to wait, perhaps for years to come, but finally I hope I will get one of these. It may not make me a better photographer, yet I'm definitely itching for this tool.
As for all the fretting about the Ricoh logo below the K-3's LCD, the recent announcements, both in the camera and the lens department, make me fairly hopeful about the future of the K-mount system. Pentax's new owners may be best known for their photocopiers, but they strike me as people who care about photography. And yes, as such, they might actually be kind of proud to display their company name on a Pentax-branded body ...
@teeb: I think by "copier", they mean actual "photocopiers".
Biowizard: Beautiful camera - lousy English ...
"and no FEWER than 1000 prototype parts."
@Stollen1234: So Leica is like the Qur'an, huh?
Good ol' Marc Newson...the man who shouldn't have a job but somehow still does!
new boyz: welcome back to the game, canon.
New Boyz is right. Canon is coming "back into the game". Canons were losing their edge. Their sensors were old and reused, and there was nothing new from them that others hadn't done before. Of course, sales will continue because people think Canon is the best, even if it's slipping.
It's sort of like the United States. It's still far and away the most powerful nation on earth. However, it has been slipping recently, so if it were rejuvenated, we could rightly say "Welcome back" to America.
Francis Carver: "Photographers can also remotely use Live View mode, as well as review and rate their images."
Well, the way I read this... you can only watch remotely what you shoot in LiveView while taking stills, not video. Otherwise they would not have specified that PHOTOGRAPHERS can use LiveView instead of everyone, including those shooting video clips, right?
Amazed still that as far as Canon goes, the maximum frame rate in 1080p is still only at a lamentable 30fps mximum refresh rate, whereas others have been delivering 1080p60 enabled digital cameras for years. This practice on the part of Canon is getting to be rather numbing, really. No idea what the video recording bitrate is, either.
Too bad about cheapening this 70D by having a 3-inch touchscreen on it. The OVF will not work at all in video mode, and then if you want to use a simple LCD VF so you do not have to hold the camera away from your body and squint at the screen, you cannot use the touchscreen feature, either. Ouch!
T3 is spot on.
I wonder why people complain about touchscreens. Unless it takes up the whole back (which is only the case with one or just a few cameras) and you like physical buttons, you still have the choice to use the touchscreen or the physical buttons. The touchscreen only gives you more features...and in almost every case, you can also turn it off if you want. Is going into the menu and turning off the touchscreen such a huge hassle?
Cane: There's a whole lot of people posting on here about a camera they have never touched who have more opinion than brains.
This is a fantastic camera to use. Great photos, great quality, and believe it or not, you can actually take pictures without a viewfinder!
Oh, and for those that think they are creative types, yet think cameras should only be black, I've got news for you. You aren't.
And to those who have used it (not bought it, but used it) and still think it's crap, what do you have to say?
These look like generic P&S cameras. They could be made by Vivitar or Polaroid, or whatever factory in China grinds them out.
That writing on the front advertising the megapixel count is really impressive. And so 2003.
Guess what. This IS a generic P&S camera, which some non-professionals looking for a relatively cheap pocket camera might actually buy and might - though this might be shocking - enjoy.
I know that you are completely taken aback by the adjective "stylish", but seeing as how this a press release and not a review, "stylish" is probably seen as more appropriate for a press release than "generic". Yes, I know. Marketers can be devious sometimes.
Also, many things of high quality are made in China - iPhones for one (although I'm an Android guy...and many of those are also made in China...maybe even in the same factory). I know that "China" is synonymous with "low quality", but a factory built to Japanese specifications with Japanese robots and a strict, monitored assembly line might in fact produce things the same in China as it would in Japan. I fail to see how just being on Chinese soil makes all of these identical machines function worse.
Just keepin' it real.
I wonder why some people are so outraged to see the details of a camera they would never buy anyway. Guess what...some people are going to buy small sensor cameras. And many of those people want more megapixels. And some of those people will also want bright colors.
Not for you? Then move on. When your favorite company produces a camera that you would otherwise buy but it has way too many megapixels for you (and you're too lazy to go into the menu and turn it to a lower megapixel setting or think the interpolation to fewer megapixels will somehow destroy your image), then definitely feel free to rage as much as you like.
Jeff Peterman: Amazing how our expectations have changed. To me, these are grainy and over saturated compared to modern digital images!
I feel the same way. It seems to me that the love of film is due more to nostalgia than actual quality. I'm sure film-lovers will say that's not the case, but I'm just throwing my opinion out there.
Carl Crumley: McCurry used a digital camera BEFORE he clicked the shutter on that last role of Kodachrome: “I wanted that reinforcement, to be able to see it on a two-dimensional screen...” – Steve McCurry, National Geographic photographer, on shooting the last roll of Kodachrome film produced by Kodak, during which time he took each photograph first with a digital camera. From Shutterbug Magazine, October 2011: “McCurry took no chances shooting the last roll of Kodachrome. To make sure he had exactly the right moment for each photo, in focus and at the right exposure, he first used a digital camera.”
Unfortunately for film enthusiasts, the fact that he used a digital camera first just goes to show how much more versatile and user-friendly digital cameras are.
Wow! A gimmick for a gimmick! Pentax has become a master of gimmicks.
I think that people who think of themselves as "real photographers" are fanatic about optical viewfinders.
Look at the paragraph and picture above. Here's one quote:
"It's lost that camera's flip-out screen but has lost bulk in the process and has retained that rarest of things - an optical viewfinder."
OK guys...be honest. What good is that? Can some "real photographers" tell me? It's a tiny viewfinder with a parallax error and has no shooting information on it (all problems the LCD lacks). Now look at the photo. A guy is inside a relatively dark room (not outside at noon on a clear day at the beach with lots of glare) and he's still using the tiny optical viewfinder with a parallax error instead of the back screen.
Seems a bit silly, don't you think? Alas, I can never be a "real photographer", because I often use LCD screens on cameras, and I think that flip-out screens are more important to have than optical viewfinders. I know. I'm such a noob.
raztec: Great job in image quality, but when are we not going to get a dumbed down camera from Nikon? Why can't they put the best AF and video features in this camera?
Those who buy the D800 want the resolution. I want a light weight DSLR for bokeh and fast and accurate focus. And I want a rangefinder style FF camera with interchangeable lenses for everything else.
Seriously, is that too much to ask?
"And I want a rangefinder style FF camera with interchangeable lenses for everything else. Seriously, is that too much to ask?"
Yes, that is too much to ask...from Nikon, for a low price, that is. I'm sorry to tell you, but rangefinders are an old technology. It's like wanting to ride a horse on the highway. If you only want rangefinder style, but not a rangefinder, go with Fuji. If you want a small full-frame, then go with the RX1, or wait for a Sony full-frame NEX. A true full-frame rangefinder will not sell as well as a D600, so the price would obviously be more. It doesn't make any sense for Nikon to make such a thing. If you want to pay thousands of dollars more for poorer sensor quality, then go with Leica.
Zvonimir Tosic: And when Nikon introduced V1, many spewed on it. Same sensor, same resolving power. Pity the resolving power of the brain of today journalism is at its all TIME low.
First of all, it's not the same sensor. The RX100's sensor is better (as many reviewers have said). However, you're right if you mean only that they are the same size.
Here's the thing. The Micro Four Thirds system came along way before the V1, and those cameras take better pictures and have more lenses. Nikon was way late to the party on that one.
However, the RX100 is a COMPACT camera, with one great lens, though without interchangeable lenses. It can easily fit in your pocket with zoom lens attached (as its lens always is). The V1 cannot fit in your pocket with a zoom lens attached.
It's the same size sensor but two completely different outcomes. The sensor size was not the reason why the RX100 was a success. The fact that they put it into a compact camera IS the reason why it was a success.
(PS: I'm not saying that TIME magazine is particularly credible or that their opinion(s) should be taken seriously.)
I wouldn't get it, but I think that the look is at least better than that of the V1. Importantly, it has a hand grip. The only problem is that that adds to bulk. This isn't going to be a pocket camera.
Unless you need the features like the super-high frame rate (for a short burst), I think that the Sony RX100 would be better. I wouldn't buy interchangeable lenses for any camera with a sensor smaller than M4/3. To me, it wouldn't be worth it.
But anyway, I do have to say that I was pleasantly surprised with the look of this one compared to the last one.