VENTURE-STAR: This lens may be a mechanical improvement over the original and I'd be surprised if it wasn't effectively silent. However, for the increase in price, it really should have image stabilization.
Solar Eagle - Yes, quite right about the price for this lens and the old one. Perhaps I was hasty with my comment about this It's actually the almost identical Yongnuo that uses the same lens elements and possibly comes out the same plant that is half the price. That said, I have seen the Canon Version II for much less than the current US Amazon listing. But, the point I'm making is that this lens (which is a reasonably good performer) really should have stabilization as not doing so limits it usefulness. Would you be willing to spend another 20 dollars to have this important feature, or is price simply more important?
Sorry Neuf, I can't agree. This is now a standard feature of most bottom-end digital compacts and a feature of the cheap and cheerful Canon 18-55 kit lens which is actually quite a good optic. Without this, the 50mm lens becomes far less useful for hand held available light situations.
This lens may be a mechanical improvement over the original and I'd be surprised if it wasn't effectively silent. However, for the increase in price, it really should have image stabilization.
Guidenet: It's certainly not just Canon nor just Nikon but all companies in this global economy who have let their quality control slip below the bar, in my opinion. Do we forget Fuji's X10 wonderful white orbs, as an example. Took a while to iron that one out. We can't reward these type failures, I believe.
Even as a Nikon loyalist, I'm probably never considering a D6xx line of cameras and there's other cost cuttings I won't support. I'd never buy a Nikon lens where the hood was optional. Not going to reward them, period. Fixed or not, T6 cameras should maybe be ignored for a while. The only way we can protest is to vote with our wallet to let these companies know we're not interested in beta testing their gear and don't like the idea of gouging us $30 for an optional hood which costs 85 cents to make or $25 for an optional $2 lens pouch which should be in the box. I wish Fuji owners hadn't purchased X10s to reward the white orb issue. I certainly would not have.
We have short memories.
I totally agree with all Guidenet's comments. The manufacturers of electronic products in general are more than willing to put the latest products on sale without fully testing them and quality control is starting to slip with almost everything, as the lowest possible manufacturing cost is considered essential. I also agree about rip-off price lens hoods that cost a few pennies to make and as for chipped batteries, that's another issue, rather like printer ink cartridges.
Biowizard: Very little info here behind the pics ... What resolution sensor? Lens fish-eye or rectilinear? Focal length? Sensor physical size? And so on ...
Pretty pic, though.
I have to agree with Biohazard. Very poor technical spec, especially when it comes to lenses and the main site is no better.
Provia_fan: Looks like a great package but no RAW, so for me it's a non starter once more. I have been tempted by the HX series, I think they can be great for street but I need RAW.
I have a Pentax MX-1 and although its JPEGs are excellent and overall image quality excellent, the JPEG engine still commits a bit of a murder when converting RAW data to JPEG. So I shoot RAW and use Silkypix or Adobe Camera RAW.
And from what I have seen from Sony, being also a long time user, you definitely need the RAW file. I have learned over the years to never judge what a camera can do from the JPEG file alone, because in particular with the smaller sensors, they let you down a bit.
I'd say the simple message is that you get what you pay for and you shouldn't expect too much from a dressed-up budget compact aimed at non-technical amateurs who are impressed by massive zoom ratios. Personally, I'd be more worried about the quality of the stretched optics that having RAW.
Guys, this is a budget improvement over a camera-phone for most users, not a top end Nikon or Canon SLR. If you are worried about having RAW and all sorts of other stuff, you are looking at the wrong equipment. I've shot several newspaper pictures with a cheap IXUS producing jpegs, simply because it was in my pocket at the time and quality was adequate rather than startling. This Sony camera is hardly something you would plan to use for any award winning session. But who knows?
The spec is not bad and the suggested price reasonable. But it has the appearance of something made in East Germany during the 1960s and is not helped by the large rather ugly kit lens. Perhaps it will look better when shown in a black finish as I would certainly not want this camera as shown for unobtrusive shooting. As for amateur 4k video, are Nikon serious?
What an amazingly annoying item to have waved around in front of you at a music concert by some cretinous imbecile who has no consideration for anyone behind them, who might become rather annoyed.
On the other hand, they do look rather like telescopic police batons and might have some self defense value I suppose?
Sorry, but I can't see the attraction for such a clumsy retro styled item.
Who is it aimed at? Joe Public wants camera-phones, while more serious snappers who use this site generally want quality SLRs and wouldn't be seen dead with something like this. Polaroid cameras really belong to history.
The expensive TL70 really doesn't have much to offer anyone and is probably being assembled for next to nothing in China anyway. No thanks!
It seems like a reasonably good camera, but a Canon EOS 100 SLR with a fixed (but interchangeable) 24mm pancake lens and slightly better sensor does most of the same stuff for a fraction of the cost. The Fuji only has USB2, no image stabilization, probably needs an adapter to take filters and probably requires very expensive Fuji brand batteries. I really don't see the attraction to this product.
VENTURE-STAR: Who are Konost? Do they have any kind of track record? Where are the company located? Can they seriously compete with the big players?
Even if this re-invented Leica is a good reliable product, you can bet it will be priced beyond the reach of most serious photographers who always prefer to stick with established brands.
I'm a little sceptical about all of this!
The number of dead end photo equipment proposals really can't be overlooked like the Nimslo 3D camera, 8mm Polavision and plans for CCD units that would fit into the back of film SLRs.
Having ideas is one thing, but turning them into a commercial success is another. Even big companies make mistakes and these unknown people are doing little more than promoting ideas, which are not exactly revolutionary anyway.
Who are Konost? Do they have any kind of track record? Where are the company located? Can they seriously compete with the big players?
No complaints about these products, but Canon will need to lower the price a bit to compete with broadly similar cameras from Nikon. I also hope some affordable replacement batteries become available, as the ones provided by Canon and most other manufacturers are a rip-off and copies generally perform just as well, if not better.
JohnK: The model holding the camera in these photos should have had a manicure, fresh nail polish and hand makeup. IMO, the unappealing appearance of the hands is a distraction. Or is it an editorial comment? :) IMO a photography website should do better than this.
As for the camera, I live in the U.S. and have two L lenses I'd like to shoot with a Canon MILC, why not sell it in U.S.? Are they ashamed of it? Is it not good enough for the demanding U.S. market :)
Maybe the reason for Canon not giving North Americans priority to buy this camera is something to do with economics and they recognize that the Eurozone and Far East are bigger potential markets for products like this? Whatever the reason, who cares? Wouldn't it be more interesting just to discuss the actual camera here? If Americans are so desperate to buy one, I'm sure they can do so quite easily online, probably tax free with an international warranty.
This camera certainly looks promising and depending on street price, I could be tempted, once it's been on the market long enough to establish if there are any major shortcomings or problems.
That said, I can't help thinking that the design of the hinged screen is just a touch clumsy.
This just seems to be another compact digital SLR with a hint of styling borrowed from the OM-1 film camera of the 70s. Can't say I'm blown away by the OM-D. It's certainly too expensive at the current suggested price.
VENTURE-STAR: As we've seen recently with Apple phones (that cost just a few dollars to make), goods are simply priced at what the manufacturer can get away, not what they are actually worth. All present day companies are driven by an unending quest to maximize profits.
Although I am not a fan of Microsoft, I was reasonably happy with Windows XP and continue to use Windows 7 as I don't like anything about 8. I suspect 10 will have too many pointless bells and whistles. If Linux was better, I would swap immediately. Nothing to dislike about Macs, apart from the price! But really, there's not a lot of choice, is there? I've been using desktop computers almost daily since the 1980s, but as for mass purchasing decisions, ermm, well, no, I'm afraid to say.
Go and buy one in the Far East, if you want a real deal!