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.
Provia_fan: Yes, I hope the next iteration of this camera or of any other camera comes with a optional pterodactyl, because I'm sure in the future I'll need it. in fact I think the camera is lacking in everything, does it even take pictures?
(hope someone sees what I am doing here) :D
Just saying, people stop being so picky, this is a great camera, great image quality, what else would a photography want? OK, and espresso maker would be nice, but think of the battery life and the heat coming from the thing for a moment!...and that pterodactyl!
I think consumers are justified in being skeptical about Fuji's approach with x100. The price has been pushed back up to RRP but what they have added comes into the pterodactyl category as mentioned. Its a good camera, it takes good pictures but its expensive when the IQ is compared to much cheaper cameras, each to their own i guess.
b craw: Idk, I always try to entertain stated metrics and embrace the inevitable subjectivity in this roundup business. But, I'm looking at the studio test scene results and it seems the 28MP BSI of the NX1 is markedly better in terms of stills IQ than the GH4*. Add to that the very impressive AF and 15fps in the NX1. Of course the GH4 is the king for video. But the 4K NX1 looks to be very capable as well for video. So I'd reverse the recommendation: NX1 just edging the GH4.
*it should be noted the X-T1 is better than everyone here at high ISO JPEG's - gorgeous.
Go on explain why it's silly? No need to get over sensitive young man. Fuji raws are processed and Fuji cameras do report ISO incorrectly massively so in the case of the xe-1, check yourself. They are idealists cameras because they are based on the purist/ fanboy principles of just photography with prime lenses they don't cover the bases required to win these sort of tests, rightly or wrongly..and their photographic capability is arguably not on a par with the best in class. I don't hate Fuji, I'm not a big fan but i think I made that clear and I think my conclusion of why it would never win this test is perfectly reasonable, I also respect your right to have a right hissy fit and I'm pleased you like it when people make reasonable comments with justification rather than just calling someone clueless without any justification other than the power of being an anonymous unqualified nobody on the Internet, thanks !
the XT-1 is a matter of taste, personally i'm not a fan of Fuji noise, their processed RAW files or the fact that they tend to report ISO incorrectly giving a false impression of their capabilities. the Fuji is an idealists camera and its limited in its capability, thats why it would never win this sort of group test
40daystogo: Once the LX series ceases to be a true pocketable camera, then it is up against cameras that are fairly small but not quite pocketable, such as the Sony A6000 which has an APS-C sensor. If you use the stuido-compare function of the above review, you'll see the A600 blows the LX100 out of the water.
Its easy to cast off this question as academically flawed such as "what lens are you going to use with the A6000 that will keep it small" but in the real world this thing is already big, have you seen it ? i have i think its optimistic of DPR to say its only slightly larger than a G12, its not pocketable and once its not pocketable a lot of the academic arguments go out of the window. Also, the price, do i tie myself to a fixed lens or do i get a slightly larger body that i can use with a vast variety of other lenses? i can see the appeal of the LX100 but lets not try to claim its perfect. For me, its too big without enough benefit. maybe if it was Full Frame but there are better options for the same money if critical image quality is all you care about, if its portability then personally, i still think its too big
Jogger: Just wondering if this video sponsored (i.e. paid for) by Canon? The description is not clear.
I agree, this review was far too biased, they should have shot the 7D II with Nikon, Olympus and Sony lenses so we get a more objective review...
PerL: So people go crazy because a real pro thinks the top of the line 1Dx is a bit better. Some nasty reactions here.
pathetic reactions is more accurate. I think there are some here who's ego can't take the fact that she is a pro photographer.
GPW: A newspaper reporter is hardly a pro photographer.
i think the other thing these photography snobs are forgetting is, this is the kind of camera aimed at the kind of shots she takes professionally. action shots. I'm sure some of these posters here making their pathetic claims that she isn't a professional were also commenting on the preview of the 7DII saying it was only any use for action of photo journalism. I'm still laughing at the comment about photo journalists vs pro photographers. Who do these people think they are ??