justmeMN: Canon estimates that, this year, they will sell 9.5 million compact cameras, and 7.0 million DSLRs.
Not bad, for a company that does everything wrong, and that everyone hates. :-)
I've used Canon and Nikon cameras for many decades. They both make very good professional products, Canon makes pretty good amateur products. Both are relatively unpleasant profit driven corporations and as a photographer, I certainly owe them nothing in the way of support. What's wrong with bashing stupid hype when they treat their customers like morons?
Yawn - boring!
It's another "okay" camera that does have some shortcomings when compared to a reasonably priced SLR. Even if it produces nice results and has good reliability, the focal length range is very poor. As for a wide aperture - big deal. Most amateur users will rarely use this, or the high ISO rating.
There's no mention of image stabilisation or comments on the viewfinder in this brief preview and the price, even if it drops, is much too high. No doubt, it only uses very expensive chipped Panasonic batteries?
VENTURE-STAR: I don't doubt this is a superb camera and I wouldn't mind owning one. However, the price tag puts the instrument way out of my reach and carrying it around and using it in public places would be a liability from the point of theft and accidental damage.
The question is - would it actually improve my photography and the answer has to be no.
I'm not going to add anything more. I honestly have nothing against Leicas apart from the price!
HowaboutRaw: I'm sure we'd both agree that a degree of common sense is essential if you want to visit many of the more interesting locations that lend themselves to good photography. My original point was simply that a camera like this is realistically outside my price range and I don't think that owning a digital Leica, - athough I have owned a couple of 35mm Leicas in the past, is worth considering. Nice as this camera undoubtedly is, it won't make me more creative and I would personally be very concerned about walking around many city areas in the US, Europe, or anywhere else with $8000 hanging around my neck and goodness knows how much more value stuff like lenses and maybe a second body in my bag. Not for me I'm afraid, even if the camera in question was half the quoted price!
HowaboutRaw: That's okay, I've only been to Beverley Hills a couple of times. However I would mention that on my last visit to LA, the idiot at Alamo LAX gave me road directions which took me into the nearby Watts District. The place where I stopped to check my directions was the same place a German tourist had been robbed & blown away in his rental car the previous week. There are very dangerous places everywhere. You could easily run into serious trouble by visiting the Brixton area in South London if you wandered around with an expensive camera and a casual attitude.Maybe you've been lucky but there are very real dangers out there and I speak from experience. And BTW, if you ever visit somewhere like Jo-burg, the hotel staff will almost certainly warn you about showing jewellery, phones or cameras anywhere in public.
HowaboutRaw - I don't live in Beverley Hills, so I don't see people routinely showing off in their status symbol sports cars. However, I would challenge anyone to walk around the streets of Johannesburg or Rio with a very expensive camera around their neck and no bodyguards.
I hope they've taken a fresh look at correcting verticals, as this function was once pretty good, but became next to useless on recent versions.
On this basis, I must assume that any future pictures I take with my SLR using the self timer will belong to Nikon?
I don't doubt this is a superb camera and I wouldn't mind owning one. However, the price tag puts the instrument way out of my reach and carrying it around and using it in public places would be a liability from the point of theft and accidental damage.
Everything indicates that this is a pretty awful, pointless piece of equipment that has little to offer anyone who is serious about taking pictures using a modern digital camera body. At £480, they are having a bit of a laugh I'd say!
When putting something over the front of your Leica's lens, make sure you rub the back of the camera against a rough wooden worktop at the same time. Glad it's not my equipment!
Excellent video. Before I started watching, the questions in my mind were lenses and reflection control. Both were well answered. I wonder what would happen in an emergency if you were carrying two substantial cameras in such a confined space? Would they get in the way of an ejection or escape?
Lokio: Is this going to be an extra special review?
It might be if the control dial was properly indented, the lens had a more adequate focal length range, the camera felt better in your hands and the price was lower. A larger basic SLR can be had for far less money and it has many advantages. The Sony is for people with too much disposable income, who are more interested in flashy gear than photography.
Yawn, no. It's just another veiled promotion for this quite nice, but somewhat flawed and seriously overpriced camera. Please move on DP review!
DigiMatt: DPReview are you or will you be paid by Sony to promote this camera? Your Sony marketing machine seems to be in overdrive.
Digimatt, you have literally taken the words right out of my mouth and I have just come on to say exactly the same thing. Why is DP Review wasting so much time on this overpriced pocket camera? Do they have some kind of a hidden arrangement with Sony?
As a picture taking tool, it's not as good as several considerably cheaper DSLR cameras. It is also way too expensive. No doubt the new version has the same very annoying control wheel with no indents and the short zoom is ridiculous.
This camera really only has size going for it. For all you well-heeled photo equipment buyers who are more concerned with the appearance of gear than actually taking pictures,, enjoy! I think I'll pass.
This might be an okay camera for some users depending on price, but it's unlikely to make any inroads against existing 4/3 products. As somebody else said, it's made by an obscure company and trades on a hollow name.
In reality, Kodak missed the boat about 15 years ago and they couldn't see the writing on the wall. They are virtually a deceased company who now belong to photographic history.
In the UK, it's your right to take pictures of anything in a public place, including the police, celebs and children. However, common sense should tell you that in this paranoid age, it's never a good idea to specifically take pictures of other people's kids.
There are a couple of exceptions to taking pictures in UK public places such as certain birds and the police in some circumstances, where they can later prove you were engaged in an act of terrorism.
This is the way things should be in any country that passes as a democracy.
It should be the same in the USA, which used to be the land of the free, but things have changed for the worse in recent years, as Redred Photo points out and it's surprising that he's on this site when he so dislikes photography in public places. Most picture taking in public places is usually not for profit, but so what? Who gives a toss? I assume RR Photo is also against all forms of security surveillance and video monitoring?
It's fairly clear from recent TV documentaries that Hungary is a backward country. Not only in financial trouble but also in the grip of fairly extreme right wing elements Why Hungary and for that matter Romania were ever invited to join the EU is a complete mystery and sadly, I can't see any good reason why anyone would want to visit these places, especially keen photographers. Perhaps it's not surprising that so many Eastern Europeans want to live in Western Europe?