Len_Gee: How is it that many "own it" or say they've " had it " when it hasn't even been released yet? I don't understand how that could be so.
One might infer that not everything on DPR is entirely accurate.
If you read carefully, there's a lot of information here. There's lots of interest in the D750 (like there were so many other exciting products at the show). The D610, which costs less than the D750, should appeal to people who want to spend less. We hope what happened with the D600 won't happen again but can't promise.
Some people who use DX cameras have already moved to FX. Others would like to and there are also some who aren't interested. Listening to customers seems like a good idea. Most importantly, we haven't ruled anything in or ruled anything out.
Why not wait for some real users (not DxO) to try this camera and see if the image quality is better or worse than the Sony? From what I've seen so far, it's not even as good as the Sony, and if that's the case, who cares if it is innovative?
How much barrel distortion? How far do the pixels have to be moved to get straight lines? How soft are the corners at the wide setting? Are all four corners equally sharp (or soft)? How much less dynamic range vs. the Sony? These things are at least as important as how fast the lens is or whether it has a viewfinder. After all, that's the point of buying this type of camera instead of something much less expensive.
Looks good, although those space ship caps don't really seal out dust. One of my Olympus cameras would get a little Mercedes emblem on the lens, from dust passing through the cap. Now, if the filter can remain on the lens when the cap is closed, this is truly a breakthrough.
I think you're making too much of the location of the tripod thread. These cameras are about convenience and if you're going to carry a tripod you can just as easily carry a bag with a bigger camera.
Wes Syposz: this is getting sillier all the time, nobody talks about image creation and creativity, the equivalency of F-stop at different format is for calculating DOF and nothing to do with the metering system, if one wants to change the DOF, all one has to do is to change the distance to the photographed subject, problem with so called BOKEH, chose different background, too much silly discussion, reminds me of Monty Python episode Department of silly walks...
That's Ministry of Silly Walks, not Department.
I think the answer to most of the comments here is: "to make it cheaper" Or, if you are a Nikon fan, "to make it less expensive." It's not a D700 with a better sensor because the D700 was a $3000 body. It should still be an excellent camera and good value for the money.
I wish they had done this with the D700 shell but if they did, it would be a lower resolution D800 for almost the same price. It wouldn't attract full frame buyers on a budget and for everyone else, it would be one less D810 sale for every D750 sold.
Ken Rockwell owns 5 of these.
One thing I do love about Canon. They show the product and next thing you know...it's available! No road maps, just deliveries. Of course, retailers will need to say it's in short supply but knowing Canon, they'll actually deliver. (One reason retailers love Canon.) This efficiency comes from being big, but even Nikon has gotten much better at actually shipping their products.
olypan: Another day, another Canon top of the front page ad-rticle.
I just wish Nikon would advertise the D750. It looks like a great camera but how are they going to get the word out without an ad on DPR? I keep looking but I can't find an ad for the D750.
Greg Pavlov: I would really like to understand this: why the 5-6 articles about this "pocketable" camera "with a "large" sensor when during the same show Panasonic released a camera (DMC-GM5) that is smaller, has a larger sensor, includes a built-in viewfinder and accommodates multiple lenses? Compared to that, why is this Canon "One of the exciting new cameras here at Photokina?"
They're both cool but which one do you think will sell more and be seen as a dramatic upgrade for large numbers of owners of existing compact cameras?
Not to mention that the Canon piggybacks onto the success of the Sony. Canon doesn't have fans like Sony and Nikon but they sell more cameras.
The problem is that the number of people who care enough about image quality to spend $600 is tiny compared to those who used to buy inexpensive point and shoots. At the other end, SLRs may be un-trendy but they do everything except fit in your pocket.
The second problem is that the best current cameras are more than good enough, meaning the only remaining leap in technology is lower prices (D750). What makes photo enthusiasts so incredibly valuable is that we will buy, even when what we already have is doing a great job.
The cutting edge stuff is cool, but In the end its all a numbers game. Phone replaces P&S; more megapixels for less money. Once again, technology is eating itself.
Chris Yates: I wouldn't boast about a 1.7 lens
My Leica M2 had a 50/3.5 Elmar and that was a bit slow but fine with 400 ASA film. Now that cameras have 100,000 ISO we need much faster lenses.
RStyga: I love the fact that it is marketed as a digital-rangefinder-feature camera; that will kick Leica's butt to move a bit towards better-featured products and perhaps slightly lower prices.
I don't think competing on price is in Leica's future. Or its past.
Alphoid: I'm not sure if the premium Tamron thing will play out. Virtually all of their lenses fail with moderately heavy use, and they don't really honor warranties. That's not the kind of reputation higher-end consumers would go for. Moving up-scale from there would either involve dramatically shifting economics on their low-end craptics, and starting to make things out of materials which don't fail with a bit of use, starting to honor warranties, etc. It would break economics on everything they make, and it would take years for reputation to catch up.
Price leader is where they are, and probably where they should stay. Or a clear split in branding.
I'm skeptical too but if Sigma can make a world class lens absolutely anything is possible. It might make sense for Tamron to re-brand some lenses so they're not confused with their 12-800 super-duper zoom or whatever they're making these days.
brownie314: Finally - Canon came to their senses and purchased a sensor from Sony.
How right you are.
nunatak: can't wait for DPreview to ask Nikon Execs all the tough reader questions.
And they'll answer them in great clarity and detail, in the Nikon tradition.
Rod McD: These lenses have been discussed in the last couple of days in the Fuji Forum. There's a fair bit of interest in them.One unresolved question is why the 90mm f2 is as big as it is. SLR 90-100mm f2 lenses from the film era had filter diameters of around 52-55mm. The AF Nikon 85mm f1.8 covers FF and still only has a 62mm filter. The Fuji 90mm will also be AF, but only has to cover APSC, yet it appears to be a monster of a lens with a filter size of 72mm. Unless there's some hidden technical reason within, it appears to be a bit over the top. Where's the APSC advantage? Certainly too big for me.
And no 1:1 macro lens with a FL longer than the current 60mm?
Well, at least they'll be good. Stuff that produces the best image quality tends to big, except for rangefinder cameras in the film era.
gunkan: A real alternative for the Canon 16-35 Mark II. If the 15mm 2.8 is good, is going to hit hard. The Nikon 14-24 2.8 is simply too far optically, but Nikon 16-35 f/4 is not and is very pricy.
You're assuming the Tamron will be significantly cheaper and really good, even at 15mm. And that you won't need to try 3 or 4 to get a good one. And that there are no compatibility problems. But I think they were wise to limit it to 30mm because the Nikon and Canon 16-35 are not that good at 35mm.
If the Sony sensor is so great, the G7X should equal or surpass the G1X2 in image quality. Or maybe sensor size does matter after all.
Rob Sims: Two (obvious) things spring to mind. Firstly Canon have done a great job of trying to out do the RX100 spec for spec, and seem to have achieved that for the most part (for photo, not video): Size - tick / Lens - tick / Controls - tick / Sensor - tbc!
But given that these cameras are design finalised several months, or even years ahead of production, I wonder what the reaction was in Team Canon when the RX100m3 turned up sporting a built in EVF.
I figure Sony designed their camera because they found a small market segment they could dominate since nobody else was there. The viewfinder (which I think is a great feature) was added to prove they could, and because they were running out of features to add.
Canon looked at the Sony, saw it was a hit and decided to make something with similar image quality, but cheaper. They let Sony do the market test, so they wouldn't end up with another EOS-M.