hotdog321: Unexpected, but I'm dying to see the DxO Lab results on the new 16-35 f/4. If it is truly sharp, I'll be relegating my 16-35 f/2.8 version 1 to backup service. I'm a photojournalist and usually stop down a bit anyway when using the 16-35 and, combined with the IS and the low light capabilities of the 5DIII, this new lens might be a winner. We'll see.
I ordered one, hoping that Canon has learned that an L lens really should have sharp corners. They priced this lens correctly, which is a good sign that they "get it".
There's no substitute for trying the lens yourself but if DxO gives it a poor review, it's safe to assume the lens is superb.
As long as they couple this with the release of new lenses they can make a Peter Max version for all I care. But I still think they wasted an opportunity. Add one or two differentiating features and a limited production run of, say, 400,000 and you have the long rumored Rebel Alpine.
Great to see these are past the rumor stage. Hopefully this 16-35 will be an L quality lens which the 17-40 is not.
DotCom Editor: Yeah. Where's the viewfinder? No chance that I'll hold this camera at arm's length to see the image composition on the LCD. (Nor would I do it with any other camera, either.)
Not having a viewfinder is a valid concern since many Leica users are older. They have the money; it's that simple.
On the other hand, one thing a busy surgeon or top-tier attorney does not worry about is whether the 6-element Summicron is better than the 7-element version. They don't fret about stuff like that. You really think somebody buying an Aston Martin says "Where's the value? I could get ten Honda Accords for this much money."
Just Ed: A definite fashion statement. Socialites who want to project an image of wealth, style and engineering savy should definitely look into acquiring a model "T" to hang off their shoulder (red badge facing out).*
*(This is sarcasm)
If it was a true Model T, it would only come in black (also sarcasm).
Amazing stuff. In a world overflowing with professional photographers, this guy really IS a pro.
BRPWS: and what about the employees Calumet screwed. It seems to me that bankruptcy for companies like Calumet come at great cost to the people who worked and supported them as well as customers. How many times does a company have to go bankrupt for them to stay out of the business altogether.
In many cases, only the name survives. It's funny when somebody says they bought a Zenith or Magnavox because grandad had one and they were always great quality.
Anything's possible and this sure proves it. Calumet could turn out to be the crown jewel in C&A's portfolio of distressed properties.
Sergey Borachev: Canon really really need to put sensors that are competitive in their cameras. It seems all their cameras are DR challenged, from compact to FF. Time to consider buying Sony sensors and just give up on making your own sensors, Canon.
You are absolutely right. But you can't blame Canon for saving money by using their own sensors when people just keep buying the stuff.
FriendlyWalkabout: As a rule I don't like reviewers letting their personal feelings effect the review, but as a canon guy myself I have to admit my frustrations with canon could be reflected with similar words. Why on earth would canon put all that dated crap behind the newest and best zoom lens in the compact world?
Because they don't want to spend the money, purchasing a sensor from someone else. They figure this camera will never be cheap or sell in huge numbers regardless of what sensor it has.
The irony is, the market for high end compact cameras isn't that big because most people are more concerned with whether it fits in their pants pocket than the fact that the sensor is five times larger than a small, stylish camera that won't spoil the lines of their clothes.
AngryCorgi: Congrats to Samsung. They just tied Canon for the most recycled APS-C sensor. This is their 11th camera with a variant of their 20MP sensor, Canon hit #11 with the EOS M2 carrying a variant of their 18MP sensor.
Futility is a popular trait amongst some companies, to the point they seem to be competing at it.
With all these models, it's good to know someone is counting the exact number that have the same sensor. I don't know what Samsung's strategy is but Canon continues down a path of futility because consumers buy lots of their cameras. More than anyone else's.
artistguy: Does anyone using an iphone actually have an attention span long enough to do long exposure photography?;)
It does seem counter-intuitive that someone would go to the trouble of setting up a long exposure shot and use a phone but I'm sure someone will want this.
Rage Joe: After years of dealing with digital images I have come to the conclusion that dynamic range of the sensor might be the most important thing affecting IQ. It affects every lens you use.
Lacking DR makes life difficult. Number of megapixels/ sharpness and high ISO is good enough with most of the sensors/ and lenses. Of course color depth is important too, but when lacking it is not as obvious as lacking DR.
I love DR :)
Certainly the greatest weakness in current cameras. Even Ken Rockwell has figured this out. ISO sensitivity at 400,000 is enough for most folks; sharpness is already on a level with medium format film. But dynamic range that makes HDR, layers and multiple exposures unnecessary, ideally with localized capability; whoever gets there first will have real breakthrough.
Sad Joe: So the D4s is slighly better than a 3 year old Canon 5d3 which sells for well under 1/2 price - wow - must change all my kit - NOT. Guys don't be suckered - BOTH Canon & Nikon could bring out VASTLY better cameras for the same or less money - but won't as they wish to DRIP FEED us improvements and get us to keep updating our kit. Only fools with money to burn follow their lead - and don't give me the 'pros update all the time to stay ahead'. Rubbish - real - I have to make money - pro's are VERY careful about spending money….
If you buy a D4s, you'll find a use for ISO 30,000.
bigdaddave: Didn't think there'd be much reason to upgrade my compact from a G1X and it seems there isn't.
Canon should have done better with this upgrade. Once again the sensor is lagging behind the opposition
Unless your compact is a RX100 there is a big difference. But its in image quality, not features, speed or ergonomics.
Jogger: Canon should just start using Sony sensors; they have fallen so far behind, its not even funny.
Or, one might surmise the market has spoken and state of the art noise isn't much of an issue for the people buying all those Rebels. When consumers start returning their Canon cameras because there is too much noise in the shadows maybe Canon will get better sensors.
deep7: This extreme shadow noise test, especially compared to the Sony RX100, seems bizarre. If you have to pull your shadows by four stops, you've basically stuffed up your exposure! The bridge example, in particular, is totally unrealistic. I have the original G1X and have never, ever seen this sort of noisy shadow effect, even though the exposure compensation dial lives in the negative region (Canon really want you to overexpose every photo, for some reason).
Highlight recovery with the original G1X is pretty useful too, as it works very well on blues, bringing skies back to life which you were sure were just going to be white or grey. If the two G1X models have the same sensor, dynamic range is not a problem at all.
Why get realistic now? I just read about the new Nikon at 400,000 ISO. Seems it beats the old one at 200,000, hands down.
Retzius: So this camera is $800 and the viewfinder is $300 and the lens hood is $30.
I am left with a $1130 point and shoot with a small sensor thats still not pocketable.
Or I could get a Canon SL1 for $450 and the 40mm f2.8 for $150.
I now have a $600 interchange lens SLR with a built in viewfinder, large sensor, the ability to change lenses and its still not pocketable but it is small.
And guess what? The SL1 with lens weighs LESS at 500g than the point and shoot at 530g.
Everyone has their own priorities and it's surprising how many feel the need to make decisions on behalf of someone else. Thank you for telling me that nobody cares what size a camera is. I didn't realize that I didn't care.
The SL1 gives a lot more for the money, no question. Attempting to make the 40mm lens zoom could be disappointing, though. You could carry a bunch of other lenses but still not as convenient as a camera with one lens--which is part of the appeal of the Fuji.
cs hauser: The review spends a lot of time comparing the Canon G1X-II to the Sony RX100-II. But it's unfortunate that the reviewers were so pre-occupied with Dynamic Range and Noise comparisons... that they've essentially ignored basic image quality. I'm talkiing about the advantages of having a physically larger lens and a physically larger sensor to render superior pixel-level sharpness.
Even when the cameras are normalized to the same image size, the Canon G1X-IIlooks far superior to the Sony RX100-II. This fact is plain to anyone who spends 30 seconds looking at the RAW studio comparisons at print sizes.
The review concludes that the G1X-II and RX-100 II have similar levels of image quality. But that's only true in terms of Dynamic Range (and by extension, noise). In terms of sharpness, the G1X-II is in a different league altogether.
It's true. I would dearly love to have a smaller, lighter, slicker, prettier Sony RX but under good light conditions it doesn't take photos that are as good as the G1X.
The inference is that Sony's technology is so superior it completely offsets the difference in sensor size. Unless the G1X2 is worse than my G1X, this is not the case. Now, a G1X2 with a Sony sensor would be sensational.
Thanks for the thorough and quick review. Much more useful than that supremely obnoxious kid in Hong Kong who made a video of himself trying to stuff the camera into his jeans' pocket (check out the YouTube, if you can stand it).
It sounds like the original G1X, except with close focusing. Noise and clipped highlights have never been strengths for Canon. The problem is that by placing so much emphasis on these, it makes that other thing--image quality--seem a pretty minor consideration.
No doubt this camera is worse than the Sony, if pushed 4 stops or used at ISO 12,000 but if somebody is quality conscious enough to buy a camera like this and they keep the ISO reasonable, I'd be surprised if the image quality isn't noticeably better than the Sony. My original G1X has all these faults and more but the RX100 had less detail and much softer corners. I tried a second RX100, too. Looks like nobody's gotten it right but I'll take noise over blurry corners.