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I guess I'm an old-fashioned, outdated oddball.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.
AllOtherNamesTaken: According to Lenstip, the Tamron 15-30 is sharper, 1/3 the price, is stabilized, and has 5 times the warranty:
"When it comes to the duel with the Canon EF 16–35 mm f/2.8L USM II the Tamron wins hands down. The Canon was able to compete successfully only in the frame centre, on the edge of the frame it was definitely worse. Still it is possible to use filters with it, a quite important asset in this class of parameters.
To sum up the boasting of Tamron about the superior quality of their new lens proved to be true. The company managed to present a device which compares favourably with its rivals, is cheaper, has optical stabilization and a 5-year warranty period – it would be difficult not to recommend it. Independent producers have been proving for some time that they are no longer specializing in cheap equivalents of brand name lenses. The Tamron 15-30 mm is an excellent example of that strategy."
You give up 4mm, but you gain alot
Curious to see some more reviews down the road.
The Canon 16-35/2.8 is, and has always been (let's be honest) lousy, and the 17-40 is worse. The comparison, if one is to be made, is with Canon's 16-35 f/4. It has sharp corners, image stabilization and you probably won't need the 5-year warranty.
But none of this has to with the 11-24.
rrccad: what's just amazing is that there is no in camera correction for this lens because the profiles aren't out for it yet.
this is direct OOC - no distortion correction or anything.
In the era where manufactures are getting lazy with designs and leaning on software to correct for CA, and massive amounts of distortion and STILL charging alot for a lens, it's nice to see such a well corrected lens.
especially one that has never ever been done before as far as a ultra-UWA? and a zoom and constant aperture at that.
3K for such a lens? esoteric glass always costs.
It's really unfortunate that everything you've said here is lost on most people who grew up in an era where you rely on a computer to fix lens problems that should not have existed in the first place.
mlewan: I do not get it. Are newer software versions not supposed to be better than the old ones? NX-I seems to be a scaled down version of NX2 or even NX. Capture NX-D is a shrunk version of Capture NX2.
At the same time Apple takes its time to release "Photos" which will be an "Aperture for Dummies" product.
What is going on here?
Ok, I realise that it is costly to adapt software to new platforms and APIs, but should there not be at least some advantages with the new software?
mlewan - Yes, newer software is supposed to be better. And it's understandable that people automatically make that assumption. Sometimes it's true.
These showrooms in big cities are incredibly expensive but it might attract some interest. It looks like a Hallmark card store without the cards.
Everlast66: The first thing they put money into that will still have value in couple years time
Not unless they own the property.
SmilerGrogan: Please do your part to keep Ken Rockwell-isms out of DPR. If you're going to use the term "coma" please also use the right term for sunstars.
It is my understanding that the correct term is "diffraction spikes."
Rockwell is uncalled for. But we're stuck with him and pearls of wisdom such as jpeg files being superior to raw, lens sharpness does not matter and long lists of things "real" photographers do or don't do.
But if it wasn't Ken it would be someone else. Like Fred Picker implying he had something in common with Edward Weston and Paul Strand. Ah, the good old days....