Olgierd: For $300 I'll buy 10-18 for my little EOS-M. Small and fairly light, cheaper than EFM 11-22 and available in US. Good option to take while I'm hiking.
IF size and IQ isn't important.... go for it. (The MTF chart for the 10-18mm is a bit ugly. you get what you pay for):
keeponkeepingon: Lars or Chris from interrealtime:
It would be really great to know how this differs from or compares to the alternatives.
For example cortex camera has been out for some time now and gets better reviews on the app store:
Chris from interealtime
Thanks for the detailed response. I may have to try both apps.
Lars, it would be great if you put some comparison shots in, it would be nice to see how these compare.
Lars or Chris from interrealtime:
Normally I think of a good kickstarter as one that creates something new that we would not have in any other way. This kickstarter is just trying to create an also-ran "me to" product that does the same things that others do or have done in the past.
An example is the Pix Star frame. It's the same price, much bigger (10 inches) and has the same or better capabilities. You can email directly to the frame or have the frame itself "Access more than 20 online providers and view pictures from web albums, including Picasa, Facebook, Flickr, Smugmug, and more"
Not mentioning current or past iterations of this same technology really gives the impression that this is just a big fat advertisement (or just very lazy journalism).
Regarding wireless, in our case my folks ISP had already provided a wireless router that they were not even using. We just had to put in the password and they were up and running.
Some of the folks using the camera report that the histogram disappears when you set the exposure.
Is this true? It would seem kind of boneheaded to make the histogram disappear when you actually need it?
Diver2: Cameralabs just posted review. Wow. AF is truly there! Exciting to hear his - and dpreviews - findings with other lenses than the kit lens. How about 55-210 (plus 1.7 extender)?
Thanks for pointing this out. I just skimmed the review and found his impression of the AF a bit disappointing.
While continuous mode AF delivered as promised, according to cameralabs regular AF lagged behind Panasonic/Olympus, especially in low light.
JaimeA: It is not only the horizon line adjustment that is made possible by the level gauge, but with the dual-axis, the vanishing point at the horizon, thus its importance. (Additionally, the gauge is used to line up one shot with the next when doing high-resolution stitched, wall-size panoramas handheld.)We now use it often and spend less time in Photoshop. Our production of travel and architectural photography is soaring. We were shocked by its omission in the a6000, making it useless for us. We presently use mostly mirrorless cameras (especially the NEX-7 and now the Fuji X-T1) and come back with superb results. Tiny, they are not intrusive or threatening anywhere where the presence of DSLRs means banishment. We leave with treasure-troves of images. These days of technological wonders and magic it is possible to take truly beautiful, publishable photographs formerly unimaginable, anywhere if you use discretion, something the tiny new cameras permit.
Can't you just use the gridlines on the viewfinder to line up you panoramas?
mosc: DPR, did you miss that optical viewfinder thing on the top? All the mirrorless cameras you list don't have viewfinders! The D3300 is an APS-C sensor (a good one at that) with a viewfinder. Compared to an A6000, it's priced pretty well (D3300 is $150 cheaper). If you're going to compare it against mirrorless cameras at least note that an mirrorless with a viewfinder will set you back at least as much.
You really want a reason not to get this camera, talk to people about the old A65. Same sensor, cheaper, built in wifi (and GPS if you're into that), full coverage viewfinder, faster shooting, etc
The sony 35mm F1.8 iand 50mm F1.8 is cheaper than any Canon or Nikon prime with IS.
The 16mm prime is cheaper than anything in that range offered by canon/nikon.
Everlast66: 14,000?I don't believe that many people bought this camera?
That's how many were put out in 3 months. According to amazon it's been in the top 100 cameras for 522 days......
And why wouldn't folks buy it? It's one of the (if not the) best superzooms in that price range.
The K-3 is considerably smaller than the D7100, so your point is kind of invalid.Here is a size comparison of the two - http://versus.com/en/pentax-k-3-vs-nikon-d7100
It's pretty clear that it has a smaller body, as well of smaller lenses available.
Yeah and when you combine the D7100 with a Nikon pancake lens it's nice compact package.
keeponkeepingon: The flash and white balance pictures were shot with:
smc PENTAX-DA* 50-135mm F2.8 ED
The compared to pictures were shot with
smc PENTAX-D FA 50mm F2.8 Macro
A zoom and a macro seems like an odd lens to use for your tests? Have you shot any other tests with a macro lens?
It just seems the faster lens would have an advantage shooting at F5.6 (2 versus 4 stops from "wide open" compared to a F1.4 lens). The olympus F/2 was also used for the panasonic tests in the past and I wager responsible for a lot of M43 sales (it's a very very good lens) but all the olympus samples are now shot with the 45mm F1.8. I'd wager the pentax 50mm F2.8 FA is the slowest lens used in any of the dpreview sample shots.
The flash and white balance pictures were shot with:
Thanks for posting this! Better late than never (this came out over a month ago):
It's incredible that some of the folks posting here are opposed to the recall system? In our case it worked. My dad (a "senior") has enough eye problems as it is; because of the "system" we were informed and got this addressed before it could become an issue.
Canon M? Fur Real?
I passed on a $197 new Canon-M (with 22mm prime) because I thought it was dead dead dead dead.
I was thinking of using it for close ups when I have my 55-250 on my T2i at soccer. (Scott Kelby recommends 2 bodies for sports versus a do everything zoom) but I was like, stop throwing money at dead platforms (also a K-01 owner, the cost of the EoS-m was significantly less than getting a 22mm F2 equivalent lens for the K-01)......
PicOne: Why am I confused on this matter? Ok, it's 12mm. 12mm is 12mm. BUt how does a 12mm offer the same angle of view (98.9 degrees per above), irregardless of the sensor's crop factor (eg. M43 vs. APSC, etc?)
webster and wiki says irregardless is a word irregardless of the dpreview grammar police's opinion:
I'm was a bit disappointed watching the videos and felt mislead by the title.
Maybe instead of "Drone flight documents Alaskan ice caves" you should rename the article
"A few seconds of video from a RC quadcopter flying through caves interspersed with a ton of video of the quadcopter flying mostly outside of caves".
john Clinch: Today on the 21 march 2014 days after the review was launched the cost comparison is wrong. Well it is in the Uk. The RX 10 is £849 from WEX the A6000 and 18 105 f4 is over a £1000.
I don't really blame dpreview. But i suggest they leave cost comparisons up to us as prices change so fast. More so for cameras than lenses
This is a US web site and in the USA the price for the combo is $1248 which is less than what the RX10 is selling for, $1299.
I'm really curious why Jeff thinks the A6000 would be worse than the RX10?
Looking at the camera the first thing I notice is the controls on the left hand side forcing two handed operation for frequently used functions such as image review/playback.
One thing I don't get about the one system is that the smaller sensor size does not seem to translate into much smaller camera size. Sony's NEX 3n is smaller than the V1 and V2, about the same size as the J1 and the 16-50 power zoom is almost the same size as Nikon's kit lens. So you pay just as much (or more) for a smaller sensor in the same sized package. The main difffernce would then be the AF but with the A6000 sony seems to be catching up on that front tool.
I'm always amazed how well lightroom works with my 808 jpegs. It almost (not quite) feels like working with a RAW file. Has anyone else had that experience and how does working with the 808 JPEG files compare to the 1020 RAW files?
Just a Photographer: Why should we still use Eye-Fi cards now in most places we can use a 4G network?
Next to that in todays world not only your phone has wifi already, but most (consumer) camera's have wifi too.
Few years ago these cards came in handy, but nowadays aren't these eye-fi card mostly redundant? Its only a matter of time before Eye-fi will be out of business.
I'm not sure what world you live in but in the real world most cameras do not have wi-fi and most of the world does not have 4G, and even if it is available data caps make it impractical for mass photo xfer.