photospots: I see one major issue with the Motorola X 2014 (http://www.gadgetindex.info/MotorolaAS/Motorola-X-14.html) as a camera phone and that is the lack of MicroSD card. This a major issue if you just shoot a good deal of pictures and videos. Then you would have to sync them elsewhere pretty often as 16/32 GB storage is quickly used by a little bit of pictures, videos and what you have of apps on the phone.
it's /not/ the only phone with this limitation, but we all know what you meant. :)
Ozyxy: where's support for my 60D and 5D Classic and SX50?
Canon is not really interested in consumers who do not buy a new camera body every 18 months. Anyone, like you or I, who dare use a camera longer than that is dead to them.
I wish there was a Live-Tweet session of this Review In Progress "Allison is switching to P mode now." "She's writing a note." "Ok, there goes the shutter and...it's a photograph!!"
WACONimages: 1502 posts... about this camera. That must be kind of a record this year...
It is not a record. It's just that now they are not splitting the comments across 4 or 5 different posts.
sebastian huvenaars: Darker then a black steer's tookus on a moonless prairie night...
Drifting along like a tumbling tumbleweed.
Josh152: LOL Canon is talking about the impossible and DPR is hoping for a wifi printer.
I think your responses here are indication of a great need on your part.
[[ DPR is hoping for a wifi printer.]]
You need a history lesson and a two detailed lessons on understanding humor.
Joed700: I would like to see APS-C cameras to disappear. During the film era, we only had 35mm SLR and point-n-shoot for most people. The APS-C breed was introduced at a time when chips were still quite expensive/lack of technology for FF DSLR. Today, FF DSLR starts at around $1600 price range while APS-C are around $1000 - $1700, which is ridiculous. The existence of APS-C somehow made the FF (old 35mm equil.) into a higher class. I don't think it will cost that much to produce FF compared to APS-C. It's just an opportunity for camera manufacturers to make more money. Point-n-shoot has it's place because they are compact and good for traveling while the APS-C are about the same size as FF DSLR; APS-C also lacks shallow DOF; not a desirable option for isolating your subject....
[[The whole point of sharing my experience is that I wanted to inform people who still believe in this myth that APS-C is just as good as FF is false....]]
Your ability to communicate this is, sadly, quite lacking. Go back and read what you actually wrote.
Also, your latest statement is completely false. In many, many, situations, crop-sensor cameras are just as good as full frame. In some situations full frame has the advantage.
Your over-generalized comments do nothing to bolster your argument.
Rob Bernhard: The premise that niche markets benefit all photographers rings hollow. Niche markets benefit well-heeled photographers. Woe is you if you are a photographer on a budget.
[[But my entire post was about new technology moving to lower tiers.]]
What current in-production cameras that cost $300-400 have seen benefits from the move by manufacturers to sell more expensive cameras with large sensors?
1 camera in the entire article, the one using a 1/1.7" sensor costs $350. The same 1/1.7" sensor the article points out is a dinosaur and is going away.
The very last sentence of the article states: "...photographers willing to spend money on a compact..." Spend money does not mean "not spend money" or "have a limited budget" it means SPEND MONEY.
Camera companies have responded to the loss of the point and shoot market by making more expensive cameras and selling them to fewer people. That does not benefit everyone.
[[ at under $300-$400 the enthusiast compacts that both I and the DPReview article mentioned are far below the price point of a comparably equipped DSLR ]]
Mentioned cameras: LX3 - Out of ProductionX10 - Out of ProductionXZ-1 - Out of ProductionCanon S Series - S95/S100 - Out of ProductionRX100 (Original) - $500R1 - Out of ProductionDP1 - Out of ProductionCoolpix A - $1100GR - $700RX1 - $2800X100 - Out of ProductionX100S - $1300G7X - $700LX100 - $900G1X II - $750LX7 - $350RX100 III - $800RX100 II - $650X30 - $600
[[I believe the reality is the opposite of what you have said.]]
I never said anything about image quality. It is good of you to invent something to argue against though. Quality photography has been done with far less technology than is available today.
I am talking about the bottom line. Real money. The quality cameras on the lower end f the market are going away. This is not good for consumers who enjoy photography on a budget and who benefited, over time, from new technology moving into the lower tiers.
There are no enthusiastic compacts that are available at a "far lower price point" than a DSLR.
[[APS-C also lacks shallow DOF]]
That statement is complete nonsense.
The premise that niche markets benefit all photographers rings hollow. Niche markets benefit well-heeled photographers. Woe is you if you are a photographer on a budget.
With the "Quattro" name, they should not stop with only 3 cameras. ;-)
Sal18: Where's the interview??
@fuego6 Are you blaming me for the content?
orion1983: Looks as if SELFIE-features are most important nowadays...apart from all other technicals. Ridiculous trend.....they should stick with their cell phone to make precious selfies which the world is waiting for!
[[Looks as if SELFIE-features are most important nowadays.]]
But if the selfies-crowd drives sales, isn't that a good thing for Olympus and, as a result, current Olympus owners?
I never understand why people have a problem with camera companies trying to attract new customers. Just because you don't use a feature/function doesn't mean you are suddenly forced to by the release of this one camera.
@Sal18: Click through the photos. The text under each is the interview.
JDThomas: Oh, the Leica haters are out again. Leica cameras are ALWAYS going to be expensive. Why are you surprised? Get over it.
This is the same thing they did with the M9. They put out an M9-P and it cost $1000 more. Even used they are going for about $1000 more than a regular M9. This M-P isn't a shocking release. I was actually wondering what took them so long to release it.
If you want a cheap (but fake) rangefinder go buy a Fuji. If you want a real rangefinder save up and buy a Leica.
[[The ironic thing is I'm not complaining about the Leica haters.]]
This is, of course, a complete lie. Also, you don't understand what the word irony means.
[[But I guess considering that most people that are complaining on camera forums are below average intelligence I shouldn't be surprised.]]
As you are complaining on a camera forum, I find your response delightful. Thank you.
Couldn't you follow your own advice and get over the existence of the Leica "haters" as you call them? There are always going to be people who find Leica's premium pricing absurd. Why are you surprised by this?
Kettle called and left a message. Something about color swatches...
Bokeh Monk: As a Canadian, I find this offensive! I would have thought that the RCMP would have set up a sting operation or something… but now that the the Federal Gov. has told all these Canada Post workers their all out of a job, it's almost what you'd expect to see, workers 'saving for their retirement!