Peter Bendheim: Amazing how many people don't have the attention span to read the article.
It's not about the X series cameras - their sales are strong.
Guess it's a good opportunity for the keyboard warriors to come out the closet and do the sensor/x-trans/focus war dance. Guess that haters will always hate.
I would agree, for all the hand wringing on here about Canon and their tentative steps into the mirrorless market, its worth remembering that Canon are by far the most successful camera company in operation today and their own CEO has intimated that they are reluctant to enter a market that is the most rapidly shrinking of all digital camera markets.
Valterj: Fuji cameras are expensive! Drop the price and sales will increase!
For example, Fuji X-T10 + 18-55 = 750 €
@Jim As I mentioned elsewhere, this statement is ambiguous, if you read the transcript fuji are specific about where sales are growing across all their market sectors but for x series just 'strong' this will be channel sales as well so hard to determine retail. Given the whole digital camera market is on the decline and that mirrorless is shrinking the fastest strong may perhaps mean that they have maintained their numbers. The fact that x series sales is not something they are specific about says a lot.
i wouldn't be so bullish about the rather ambiguous statement about sales being strong. Ive read through and Fuji are not shy in being specific about where revenues and profits are growing, calling out specific increases yet their only comment on X-series is that they are strong.. they also arent specific about whether this is channel or consumer sales, generally they will talk to investors about channel sales, which as Samsung demonstrated with their tablets, is often way off the retail sales figures, due to reseller marketplaces its not that easy to identify accurate retails sales anyway. the only way apple manage this is because they control >90% of their sales channel. Digital camera sales are overall down and they admit in the transcript that this is because people are moving to higher end models but arent specific about any of their own. Digital camera sales are on the decline, Mirrorless the quickest of all, if they are maintaing market then they have done well..
Cobra Wing: Either one of two things happened here . . . something is either wrong with how these images were taken/processed -OR- this camera produces some of the worst images I've seen in a very long time.
you are clearly seeing something I'm not. I viewed these on a 27" 4K calibrated monitor and they look OK to me. The jpegs definitely look poor but details look perfectly fine to me, especially when you consider this is a kit lens. Ive seen much worse samples than this, The recent Fuji ones spring to mind. Id say these were average at worst.
Snapper2013: These are AWESOME!I'm going to order my Canon EOS M3 Today!
theres several posters here telling us these are bad.. maybe its your monitor ? why are these bad ?
RaghavBaijal: I am a Sony A6000 shooter & will be really honest. This is quite stunningly bad image quality here. The A6000 with the 16-50 PZ kit lens can perform better.
I am inclined to believe that this has something to do with a bad lens? Especially considering that most folks who flock to the EOS-M system, do it for their Lens Quality alone. There is not much else to be offered by this system (Which competitors don't offer) apart from Sharp, Competitively Priced Lenses.
I hate posts like this, you start by making a quite ridiculously overstated claim that the image quality is not just bad but "Stunningly" bad.. really !? picking on something you say is a strong point that "folks flock to" and saying it's "something to do with" that. Why are they bad? you dont even tell us its just an unqualified statement.
where is ther reasoning? stunningly bad... Why ? explain. These look pretty good to me sharp, good contrast and colour, especially considering this is a kit lens.
Stunningly bad post.
SnakePlissken: As usual, there is nothing more odious and sneering than DPReview posters commenting on a new product. SMH.
I totally disagree and so do the stats, Canon has never been as big or successful, particularly in its home market, than it is now and there are still all these nay-sayers. I think imagining that the Canon can be compared to the panasonic shows a distinct lack of knowledge when it comes to video applications. The problem is far too many people base everything on a spec sheet (e.g. panasonic can do 60p so it must be better) without really knowing what the spec actually means. The canon has a much much higher throughput capability and has full intra-frame rendering the panasonic is a camera that does serious amateur style footage, the canon is a consumer cam that places a foot firmly in professional videography. Intra frame rendering also allowing it to be a hybrid of stills and video camera similar to the red scarlet but 10 times cheaper. Its amazing how many people all of a sudden become videography experts overnight
HBowman: The lame attempt of Canon to go hunt on the RED scarlet playground. Not even close. The (pro) convergence already exist and her name is RED, but it come at a villain price. (and pros are using/renting it for years now, so nothing to write home about ...)
This is good at an ergonomic level but might be aimed at reportage (amateur or TV) only (tiny sensor, tiny stills, slow lens).
A red dot and a fan exhaust... this thing is just a marketing trick, like the author of the article. Anyway he got his long due cold shower with the realistic reply over here.
This is the ultimate rich soccer Mom cam-coder. (but we all know they use Iphone and Ipad to film).
If i were you, id stick to turtles; avoid critical commentating and spelling, you suck at both.
Not sure why there is the need for the obnoxious, sneering tone. These are camcorders not opposing extremist religious factions (I do sometimes wonder though, its usually sony v canon v nikon anyhow...). I feel you comment needs some perspective you are saying a $2000 camcorder is poor in comparison to a $29000 camcorder, nice work sherlock. Thing is i'm wondering who is more likely to understand the market and the potential for this camcorder regardless of the existence of vastly more expensive equipment aimed at an entirely different market... would it be HBowman, anon of the internet, or the worlds largest and most successful digital imaging company...
mrcultureshock: This article shows an alarming lack of objectivity by DPReview. Praising a $2500 camera when there are better and cheaper alternative is nothing short of advertising for a camera company whose innovative well has all but dried up except for the high priced professional markets.
And this is to Canon... when are you ever gonna wake up? Why create another camera line for video and stills when you have your DSLRs? Don't you see what your competitors are doing? They are destroying your reputation as one of the main players that started the DSLR video movement. The XC10 is just another bulldozer that's digging up what's left of your legacy.
why so angry ? and so wrong. I would wager everything I own that Canon know more than you do about what the market wants, their direct customer feedback relationship is legendary and its responsible for many cameras that the fan boys wrote off but that proved themselves to be market leaders. Canon's competitors aren't destroying their reputation at all, Canon have their largest share of the camera market for many years and their lead in japan is continuing to rise. I read people criticizing them for not taking mirrorless seriously but the mirrorless market is on its backside with many tales of woe, and is the fastest shrinking sector of all camera markets (down over 20% last year) this is why i trust Canon, they have maintained their market share because they focus on what normal consumers want and not fan boys and because they don't chase fashionable markets like mirrorless without checking that its worth doing or not.
matty_boy: Interesting but i think its taking the subject far too seriously. A year ago dpreview published an article that made stark reading for those of us trying to make a living out of selling cameras and accessories. Interchangeable lens cameras are on the decline and despite a rapid rise initially mirrorless is plunging the fastest - down 20 odd percent in the year to feb 2014. The fact that Canon seem to have raided the parts bin and opted to ignore a couple of key markets says a lot more about mirrorless than a bit of editorial and few fan boys thinking too much about things and wishing Canon's demise, people have been wishing that since well before the internet arrived. Compact travel zooms and DSLRs/lenses mainly Canon and Nikon, are my bread and butter in 3 stores i own. Canon are clearly doing better than everyone else judging by my stores and m43 and other mirrorless brands main problem, other than lower sales, is that they just dont shift enough lenses and accessories. thats my 2p
Alexis your point, if there is one, is very elusive. I do sell gear online and it accounts for about a third of my business, the margins are not great but they arent great period. I wouldnt say my online sales are representative i'm an almost exclusive reseller of a particular filter system but based on raw numbers, theres not a lot of difference i sell fewer compact cams online but the split between manufacturers is the within single figure percentages of online sales. I assume you are saying that online sales are different which may be true but, back to the point. As a retailer i have to try and understand what is popular, mirrorless is OK but based on my own experience, which is partly in the real world, Canon's latest entry is no surprise to me, it seems to hold parity with the market. Ive already had many more enquiries about the new Rebel models than I have about any mirrorless camera i have ever stocked.
I never claimed my interpretation was anything other than based upon my own store activity. I will say that I have no reason to believe my experience is really *that* exceptional as the feedback from the channel seems to tally with my own experiences but i'm not claiming so. Global market growth figures (or shrinking as it may be) are there for all to see.
Aside from that why are forums populated with these vacuous nay-sayers who are quick to dismiss others' comments they clearly don't agree with but offer absolutely no standpoint or argument to the contrary whatsoever... other than the assuming that because they are an anonymous nobody on the internet that their "It's not" carries enough of a convincing argument. It Doesn't.
Interesting but i think its taking the subject far too seriously. A year ago dpreview published an article that made stark reading for those of us trying to make a living out of selling cameras and accessories. Interchangeable lens cameras are on the decline and despite a rapid rise initially mirrorless is plunging the fastest - down 20 odd percent in the year to feb 2014. The fact that Canon seem to have raided the parts bin and opted to ignore a couple of key markets says a lot more about mirrorless than a bit of editorial and few fan boys thinking too much about things and wishing Canon's demise, people have been wishing that since well before the internet arrived. Compact travel zooms and DSLRs/lenses mainly Canon and Nikon, are my bread and butter in 3 stores i own. Canon are clearly doing better than everyone else judging by my stores and m43 and other mirrorless brands main problem, other than lower sales, is that they just dont shift enough lenses and accessories. thats my 2p
Cipher: Canon should look at Fujifilm. Even though their cameras aren't the best at AF and need to use specific RAW converters to get the best result, they have a loyal following. IMHO, CSC are not about getting the best IQ. It's about enjoying photography. I know my E-M5 can't compete with my D700 & D800 IQ-wise. But it's the camera I want with me when I go on vacation or family dinners or just going out to do some casual shooting.
I am an independent store owner in the UK with 3 stores. Fuji are far from a success story by any measure, we can usually tell this from the discounts that come into the channel. If you look across their product range relatively high retail prices are discounted significantly within 6 months, they also make many incremental releases - the XE and X100* range are great examples of this. Compare this to Sony who rarely pass on any significant discounts to retailers the RX100 was amazingly stable over a period of 2 years. I think the other problem with Fuji is they have gone after what I would call the forum market, purists who yearn for minimalist prime only systems aimed at the true photographer, the problem here is that most people we see in store look for much more general solution, even in higher end kit. Canon really hit the sweet spot here, they clearly understand their market. Also, build quality isnt great based on returns but we arent the broadest sample you could choose
Vivid1: Couple this camera with a 17 or 24 T/S and you have a landscapers dream... IF it lacks a stop or so of low ISO DR - it will be absolutely no dealbreaker (Landscapers can do multi shots and studio photogs don't need it)
One thing is for sure - this camera IS creating quite a splash - the way this thread has grown is total proof.... I hear people who are non photographers, talk about this 50Mp monster. So congrats to Canon for being the first to break the 50Mp barrier on 35mm format.
Why is there a default position that wide == landscape..? I have several professional landscapers as customers and one reasonably well known one and in my experience a landscaper is much more likely to make a 70-200 his bread and butter than a ultra-wide, which do have their place but definitely not the default
cinemascope: Canikon are probably very well aware their days of silly pricing are numbered, and it seems they are both trying to milk the upper 3k price bracket as much as they can, while they can... Nikon also removed the "pro" features from the D750, so they can artificially justify keeping the D810 above the magical 3k a little longer... At least Nikon does spend on R&D. Maybe Canon thinks they're the new (L)eica?
I disagree, when fuji want £1359 for an XT-1 / kit and olympus £1499 for their EM-5 II plus kit lens both the Canon and Nikon look eminently affordable especially with the Canon offering pseudo medium format resolution. Like it or not, the manufacturers will always make that must have feature available on the model that costs just that bit too much mainly because it works. Even the supposedly market disrputing Sony FF cameras will set you back ~ £1600 and when you buy into those types of systems you have to be prepared for new iterative releases every year to 18 months, making your camera out of date (even though it doesnt really matter) within 2 years of purchase. If you are hoping for some kind of radical change to this sort of pricing then you will be disappointed. The car market is exactly the same...
Fuji, king of the incremental upgrade. XE-2, X100S -> X100T and now this and thats just the X series stuff, the compacts are even less distinguishable.
Graham Austin: The low light images look great.Would have been nice to have seen some pictures that aren't shot above ISO 800, what are the lower ISO results like?
I think 2/3 EV is optimistic but i dont think its quite the 800 vs 150, its certainly noticably different if you shoot different systems
Boss of Sony: Yep, same old crappy sensor. That's why I got rid of my x100s. Will stick with Sony from now on. Retro looks are for superficial, materialistic consumers.
In a surprising personal turn of events, I agree with Boss of Sony, Fuji RAW files and RAW conversion in general means that RAW files are not really RAW files at all and i have never cared for the smeared fuji look to images from x-trans based cameras. This processing in part accounts for the claimed High ISO ability but it is also well documented that Fuji cameras tend to mis-report ISO quite badly its not clear if the two are related but there are claims they are. This is decent camera but its very expensive for what you get.