nunatak: the imaging division is still losing money, and camera sales are projected to get worse. i wonder if Chase might motivate the imaging division to shut down?
They have some interesting technology that somebody else could make use of.
And I wonder what that other 16% is. 72% medical/scientific (profit) and 12% imaging (loss) leaves 16% for something else. Pearlcorders?
These are just copies of the much sought after, ultra-rare Leicastick (catalog code: zelphee) that was made in the 1930s before the outbreak of World War II.
whyamihere: Thank you, DPR crew, for another excellent write-up. I think the conclusion page properly sums up a number of concerns I have with the A7 series, which has prevented me from investing in the system.
First, I know there's only so much that can be done about shutter noise, but there has to be a way of dampening the focal plane shutter mechanism used. For all the 'flappy mirror' nonsense of mirrorless fanboys, the A7 series has the loudest shutter I've ever heard.
Secondly - and this is only briefly addressed - is the lack of accessible lenses. I speak not so much to the lack of a native line-up, but rather the costliness. You can tell me all day long that the 35mm and 55mm primes are sharp as sharp can be, they're still both $800+, which is inhibitive. Nobody would pay $800 for a 35mm f/2.8 for a DSLR without being laughed at.
Lastly, as is well documented, the raw files. Just... why? I mean, I have my theories, but none of them make practical sense. This just needs fixing.
A lot can be done about shutter noise but strangely, it's the cameras with the mirrors that flop up and down that have "silent" modes.
tom1234567: Whose,s interested
joyclick: has the looks of old Yashica rangefinder and similar ones of the days gone by,sad it only has a tiny sensor for its size.
It really does look like a Yashica, Canonet or similar. Nothing wrong with that but with so much emphasis on retro and luxury, the finish is nothing like a Leica.
Except for the first, these look so familiar. Maybe it's the photo of the camera and lenses that made me think of a camera brochure.
cgarrard: I think the X30 is easy to dismiss if ...
A. You haven't used itB. You tend to believe whatever is popular on forums at a given time...C. You don't want to use it
Otherwise, the crowd that..
A. Have used itB. Believe experience vs forum popularityC. Want to use it
... Have a much different opinion of the X30! :)
Had the X10 and X20. Both fun to use. Nice ergonomics. Plenty of exposure options (too many, but better than too few.) Loved the manual zoom. Extremely nice looking camera for a reasonable price. Relatively compact. Image quality was the only drawback.
Marty4650: I think Fuji's timing is way off.
This would have been a great camera 4 years ago, but today it gets badly outclassed by the Sony RX100 or Panasonic LX100 cameras. For the same $600 you could get a very nice Panasonic GM1 with a very nice compact lens. Still, the X30 is beautiful, and is cheaper than the better alternatives.
However, it should thrill anyone who is happy with cell phone results. So there might be a market for it. But I really think the ship has sailed for high end compacts with smaller sensors.
The results look better than a cell phone but the fact remains, bigger sensors still give better quality. The amount of effort and energy devoted to pretending this isn't so surprises me.
A slick camera, fun to use, more than adequate for many things but built around a small sensor.
Sounds good and it's not Microsoft; always a plus. The logo appears to have been designed by the Microsoft though; the sophistication gives it away.
JaimeA: It is hard to believe that in this time of advanced camera development this camera does not have stabilization of any kind.
That's the beauty of digital photography. With a virtually unlimited number of shots and no processing cost, if you shoot enough three's bound to be a good one. (This is meant to be a joke.)
maxnimo: If this camera had a 50mm equiv. lens I'd be far more likely to buy it.
I guess I'm an old-fashioned, outdated oddball.
Did you know...cameras with fixed lenses are, by design, not for people who prefer interchangeable lenses. But, being an old-timer you probably had that figured out.
Somehow, expecting a camera that modeled on a classic rangefinder camera to be good for video seems unreasonable. But I would agree that if someone wants a zoom lens, this would be a less than ideal choice.
arra: Canon on Canon body = sharp from edge to egde and low noise. Canon lens on Sony A7R body = poor edge to edge sharpness and low of noise even @iso100.
So there is no correlation between ISO and visible noise. Interesting.
He doesn't say much, but most of DPRs questions are things you can answer yourself. What do you think of using a Panasonic product? I don't work for Panasonic. Don't full frame cameras still offer an image quality advantage? We don't make full frame cameras. What's the high-res mode good for? Things that don't move. Do you think you might have more megapixels in the future? Well, there is more to image quality than high megapixels....
Franz Weber: Silver award is enough.Have you considered how utterly high the gold price has risen?If dpreview gave every camera a gold award they would be bacrupt in no time!Those claimouring for a gold award should donate some of their own gold to dpreview.
I think of the awards as a frequent flyer program. By the time they call all the metals and precious stones, everybody gets an elite award of some kind.
lightandday: GOLD GOLD. GOLD -- Richard -- it's not to late to change your mind !
All you have to do is read DPREVIEW 's review and you'll give it GOLD !
Richard please give it a try and see how comfortable GOLD feels !
Would it have any bearing on how the camera operates, what it does or does not do, if it received a different award?
People spend $25,000 for an old Nikon 220 degree fisheye that isn't good for anything; now that's expensive. Actually, they were supposed to be great for photographic inspection of the inside of pipes.
But about this 11-24. Why not just rent one or wait for a Canon rebate in the fall? At least that's $200-300 off the price.
If you do buy one now, for $3500, it will always be worth at least $2800-3000 used. The value of a $3500 camera body will drop like a rock, and used Sigma and Tamron lenses won't hold much value either.
ChowMonkey: This looks rather silly.
Nothing silly about it. From a distance, or on a security camera it could be mistaken for something else. Nothing silly about that at all.
Please, DPR, do a comparison test to see if camera straps or camera holsters repel more women. And what about those truss-like harnesses for long "lenses"?
mjordan1: Please, please! No more reference to "fluorine" coatings. Fluorine is a gas at room temperature and very reactive. The coatings used are " fluoride" coatings e.g. calcium/magnesium fluoride, both of which are ionic compounds and not elements like fluorine.
What we're dealing with here is the marketing of cameras, so the standards for accuracy are pretty low.
Sarge_: I just wish there were a way to convert the optical effects to what you would see from a medium or large format sensor, to eliminate the distortion.
As a pro who shoots a lot of architecture, that's my biggest beef with shooting wide on a 35mm body; there's not much value as things get so ridiculously distorted.
Has anyone found any filters or software in general that can overcome the 'wide angle' distortion from these wide lenses?
I find combining 2 or more shots using the 24 TS or if absolutely necessary the 17 TS looks more realistic than these ultra-short lenses. There is one possible use for excessive perspective distortion; if the client wants to make a studio apartment look the size of an exhibition hall, an 11mm lens should do it.