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!
I would beg to differ about Microsoft only remaining barely dominant. If Windows 10 is released as a free upgrade, it will secure their position for some time to come.
Yes, Samsung, Sony and LG share the same display screens, Apple buy in their components from many suppliers and most cameras use the same chips. Many cheaper Canon and Nikon cameras use optical components made by Sigma. So what?
My original point was the comment that companies like Canon price their goods at what the market will stand, as opposed to a fair value. If you've ever visited the Far East, you will be astonished at what some expensive items sell for there, even allowing for US or European taxes.
Of course there is R&D, staff, marketing, distribution costs, etc,etc, but that is hardly the issue. Large companies like Canon simply charge whatever they can get away with for their goods. We are not forced to buy their products, but you can say the same about Apple, Microsoft and many other organizations who establish a dominant position and then exploit it for all it's worth.
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.
tabloid: The truth is that nobody knows where their camera is made, until they look to see the small print.I suspect that they will have a factory in Thailand/China, and a factory in Japan.When its beneficial they will increase production in one or another country depending on the state of the currency …simple.
But who actually makes the parts that go into your camera anyway? From what I've been told by two different camera engineers, the lens cells used in the cheap Canon SLR zooms are almost certainly produced by Sigma and they are the same as those used in similar spec budget lenses produced by Nikon, Olympus, Pentax, etc.