zakaria: Great work dpr. The XT 1 is a beautiful camera but still expensive. I wonder how the mirror less cameras are expensive and near the price of some wonderful full frame cameras. Still wondering why manufacturers of mirror less cameras insist on the small size of the body whereas the lenses are huge.
1. The price is determined by the market. Every company will try to get the highest profit they can with any product, so they will price the cameras as high as the market can bear.
2. There are also both large bodies and small lenses available for the mirrorless systems. Anyone can find whatever feels great in their hands.
THIS does not make sense, not Gursky's Rhein II. At least Gursky has created something that did not exist outside his mind. Images of the light pillars in the Antelope canyon is something that every tourist takes. The tour guides will even throw a handful of sand into the light for you.
I can't see how light source less than 1 inch wide could possibly be discussed in terms of softness. Without a modifier, you'd have to keep it just 1 inch from the subject. What's the point?
Robert Soderlund: In the last balloon picture, doesn't it take few milliseconds for the sound to reach the flash at a meter or two? How did it fire in time?
That's why in the photo the rubber is shown already shrunk, rather than at the very instance of rupture.
Saasmul: Have we already reached April? - I thought a wide angle in combination with an arms length always ended up with a too big nose ;-)
If a shot is taken from the same distance (arms length), then the nose distortion will not depend on the focal length of the lens. Only the amount of the visible surroundings will be affected. At least for a rectilinear lens.
oldfogey: Please Note: My DPR Nov. 2009 suggestion to Olympus - Now I hope they look me up and at least offer me a free body for making the suggestion!
"An Ultraresolution Consumer grade SLR from Olympus?Nov 19, 2009
Now Hasseblad have done it - offered an ultraresolution camera which combines 4 images shifted by 1 pixel to generate full colour resolution matching the sensor resolution. The only drawback is the need to keep the camera and subject completely motionless during the process. Clearly Olympus (and Pentax/Sony) have to make a response - they already have sensor shift image stabilization - all (?) that is needed is new firmware to enable a similar mode of operation in their consumer grade cameras - and why stop with full pixel shifts - why not 1/2 pixel shifts? Providing a lense with the needed resolution is mounted and a sufficiently stable tripod is used we could see the introduction of a practical under $1k 40mp landscape/still life camera."
Actually, I am sure this can be done hand-held within a large range of exposure speeds. The IBIS compensates for the camera shake pretty well – Olympus has already built a stellar reputation on it. And many subjects move slowly enough that the feature is practically useful. Not in every single case, but often.
vladimir vanek: OMG, now everyone's going to produce "selfie" cameras to support that ill idea to shoot oneselves. Human vanity must have gone a long way to reach today's levels.
Vanity has reached mythical proportions already in the antiquity: recall the original Narcissus.
The tripod mount is not gold, the lens mount is not, and the flash mount isn't either. Totally not a deal!
red fuji: Egypt was definetly more prosperous in the old days under British rule than now under the Isalmic rule; sorry to say.
By what criteria?
Leaving "Nikon" on the lens cap makes it look cheap...
Boss of Sony: Apart from video, I can't understand the 4/3 sensor thing, especially in a camera this size. Sony is making the same size cameras or smaller, with APS-C or full-frame sensors.
This camera was created bigger on purpose for better handling. There are plenty of miniature offerings in the system, esp. the GM-1.
Please bring it for E-M5 too!
Peter Evans: @DPreview
Could you possibly find an interviewer whose speech is at least in some way intelligible?
@Barney Britton Would you be so kind as to find an interviewer who speaks clearly?
MrPrime: These are nice cameras but they are simply too expensive.
Remember the film days - low cost cameras with decent lenses, light weight, no batter charger to worry about. Entry price was low because nobody figured a lifetime of film expenses into the equation. And the short lifecycle of digital cameras means a $1000 compact camera is worth half that in a couple of years. Too expensive, waaaaaaaay too costly. A smart phone is a must-have and if it comes with a decent enough camera the step-up cost for the cameras shown above is simply laughed at.
These compacts have to be good enough to replace an SLR to get long term traction, and they aren't there yet. But they are getting closer.
There is no need to sell or replace a $1000 camera after a couple of years. One might want to, but there's really no need, as the IQ of the current cameras is already very high. My last film point-and-shoot was a Minolta Freedom Zoom for about $200. If you consider savings on the film and processing, a $1000 camera will have lower cost of ownership after about 100 rolls of film. If you shout about 2 rolls every month, it's only about 4 years of ownership. My first digital camera actually lasted 7 years before it got stolen, otherwise I probably would still use it.
I wish they would allow to shift the sensor for real...
Peter Gordon 01701: So why would anybody buy a D610 body with only a few hundred dollar difference? I am thinking I should sell my D610 and get the D750 as I like the articulating screen and the wifi plus other features.
Because when you are on a budget, a few hundred dollars could be a significant difference?
DrLogic: No stabilization for Sony? The extra reach is useless without stabilization... And this is a very large range kit lens - the single IQ compromise range somebody takes on a holiday to replace a whole a whole bunch of lenses, so they aren't likely to be using a tripod. Doesn't make sense.
The specs only lists FE mount, no A-mount. So no Sony IBIS cameras can mount it.
chiane: Why do 95% of super zooms start at 18mm?
Because 28mm equivalent field of view is a common stop among the focal lengths. Adhering to it makes it easier to assemble lens collections that do not duplicate focal lengths.
pleytime: Why would anyone buy a camera, other than a cheap pocket one, without a viewfinder?
Because not everybody cares about viewfinders
This one should be spelled "cannon" rather than "canon" :)