Ah well, that's that then. I have no desire to buy any of these cameras as they provide no obvious advantage over a budget SLR aside from size. Thanks Jeff, Carey and Dan.
Canon really are being a bit naughty selling this camera with the old version of the standard zoom lens and not the latest STM model. Presumably they have a large stock of the older ones and decided to unload them with the EOS 1300D. This would put me off buying this overpriced camera, as the newer lens does not have a rotating front assembly and is a bit quieter and faster in operation.
NSingh: This might be a great camera for beginners at this price. So far I come to know, in DSLRs, Canon cameras produce great colors and Nikons are best at sharpness. I want a camera which have both the above qualities. Mirrorless are also good but having a DSLR is other type of feeling amongst the crowd.
If you are buying a Canon camera at this price level, the last thing you want is a load of extra lenses. Aside from the cost, continually changing lenses will soon introduce dust into the camera. Professional sensor cleaning can be expensive and dust getting into the viewfinder even more so. The basic Canon kit zoom performs extremely well. I wouldn't recommend fixed focal lengths, unless you have some special need. If you want anything better, look at the superior 18-135mm Canon lens. However, this will cost as much as the camerra body.
To save on money and probably improve the quality, how about trying the bottom of an old jam jar?
The only feature of the D5 that I need to know about, is that I can't afford one.
Phones are not especially good for anything much more than taking snaps. Most people (the general public) who own a camera-phone are clueless about using theirs properly. Those who shoot video, seem to think that everything is best filmed in portrait mode. I'm really not sure if adding an optical zoom is very important for the average user and in my case, I always carry a decent compact for a possible news event.
That said, I really can't see the problem with building in a modest zoom that operates in a sideways configuration with a prism or mirror system. I suppose it depends on whether or not picture quality is of the slightest importance to you. Many think digital zooming is great!
Looks like a nice piece of equipment. Price will have to drop a bit before I'm interested.
This seems to have more to do with marketing and slightly re-vamping an existing product to generate fresh revenue. The existing G7 is not a bad camera and the obvious improvement would have been a wider zoom range.
You'd actually think it matters whether a cheap amateur compact like this had RAW. This camera is in competition with the Panasonic TZ80 and will mostly be bought by tourists who will use it for point and shoot snaps. A lack of EVF is the only obvious shortcoming. When the price drops, it should sell quite well.
It won't be of interest to serious photographers concerned with quality. I'd say it's of more importance that so many low-end compact cameras are now being built with phone sized sensors, simply to allow ridiculously wide focal length ranges.
When I read something like "Oh Wow," describing a new product, it vaguely sounds like the kind of advertising copy I'd expect to find on Amazon.
Oh, hang on a sec, DP Review is Amazon under a different name. Silly me!
A very nice piece of kit, although not exactly a give away.
Peter Vancoillie: Really? Not a single shot with a night scene with distant lights/stars? I'm using a Canon 24mm 1.4 II now and the coma is terrible when I shoot night scenes (mostly northern lights and lightning), and I only use this lens for this (focus at infinity, largest aperture, high ISO). If there's anything I need to know it's how it performs this way, but it looks like every review is absolutely determined to avoid this. Vignetting, color aberration, blah blah, all things that are automatically corrected in software today and don't really matter any more. Coma can't be corrected, and fast wide angle lenses are popular for astronomers and landscape photographers like me. I really wish someone somehow would look into something that would really be a problem. We already know it's going to be sharp and will have great color and contrast. The only reason I would or would not buy/use it is coma.
Yes, I'd also like to see this lens demonstrated in a few astronomical situations where it's possible to immediately see how it performs around the edges at infinity. Strikes me that the test example used by DPR which shows a degree of softness on one side has a problem at the quality control stage or an inherent assembly fault. Why Sigma allowed a lens to go out for review like this is a puzzle.
It's overpriced, but you expect that with a Leica. What I really don't like is the dual color. Why can't it be completely black? Flash looks a little silly.
I wish I could see some obvious advantages over the Canon G7X or a similar Sony camera, but I can't. The price of the X70 is too high for what it has to offer. The build quality suggested by the pictures looks okay rather than outstanding and the controls appear to be badly positioned. As for the teleconverter this really seems like a pointless gimmick that will degrade quality.
Some people are going to like this camera and perhaps it should be judged by the results it produces and the product's reliability, but it's unlikely to sell in big numbers and is certainly not for me.
For all those fans of small gauge movie equipment, how about reviving 9.5mm? I'm sure some new film stock could be produced and a processing lab set up somewhere in the Far East. Of course an advanced 9.5mm camera with a snazzy flip-out display screen on the side might cost more than one of those new fangled pro 4K Sony models, but who cares? This could be just the thing to revive Kodak's past fortunes and bring back the wonders of well-love technology that so many now dismiss, because they obviously don't understand it!
LJ - Eljot: For everybody who looks at the Kodak super 8 and thinks "Who on earth came up with that idea:
Still a joke though!
VENTURE-STAR: Apparently, this thread is filled with disinformation and it would seem that many of us don't understand what we are talking about.
I can actually trace my own interest back to Standard 8, which was exciting stuff to work with in the days of really awful B&W TV. Super 8, which I've also used by the thousands of feet is long past retirement. Some budding film makers may think they can mimic the intro to Californication or produce hot, disjointed footage for pop videos that will win awards, but compared to average cameraphone footage shot by someone who really knows what they doing, it generally looks poor. This kind of "we know best" attitude also surfaces with enthusiasts who have to hang on to vinyl discs with their endless assorted problems, drink real ale and drive classic cars. It's all very pretentious BS.
Film has little to offer these days and even parts of Mad Max Fury Road were recorded using humble Canon EOS 5Ds. Quality rules folks, not nonsense.
"Aquilla non capit muscas" - probably :-)
brownie314: Other than Nikon, pretty slow year. For photography enthusiasts anyway.
Have to agree with Brownie. This was a pretty lacklustre show and while Nikon had a couple of interesting products, there was a real shortage of anything else worth bothering with.
Apparently, this thread is filled with disinformation and it would seem that many of us don't understand what we are talking about.
Much as I like the look of this product, I rather doubt if it will be afforadable (for me) in the near future.