Black Box: Opinions are like... you know how the metaphor goes. And, just like the metaphor, this particular opinion should have been kept well hidden and only accessible to your doctor. It's SO (stereo)typical American. "We don't understand it, and that's why it's wrong". USA don't like MILCs. For you "bigger is better". You "don't get" MILCs while the whole world loves them.
MILCs are aimed at people who don't want to fiddle with buttons and rings every time they take a photo. Those who want their cameras compact. Those who rightfully think they'll look ridiculous walking around Paris or Tokyo bedangled with photo equipment. All of this makes sense to anyone who has at least once looked at the globe and thought, DAYEM, that's a big world!
Americans live and think in templates and cliches. A truck should have a 5.7L engine. A real man should have a BBQ grill. A serious camera should be big.
Trying to explain how wrong you are is useless - if you haven't understood by now, you never will.
"Americans live and think in templates and cliches..."
Are you American? Because your whole post is that, templates and cliches. Richard Butler is British, btw.
Yes, I don't think this makes any sense at all, but to a bunch of Nikon top execs. It's puzzling.
For the price and size, might as well choose a m4/3. I just see no point in this line of cameras.
And it only took them a year and a half to establish that
Samuel Dilworth: Years of easy growth during the boom in digital cameras led to laziness, lack of innovation, and bad marketing.
If you walk through a camera store (nowadays a rare thing outside big cities) and handle a bunch of cameras, the abiding impression is of consumer-electronics ticky-tacky. Nothing is inspirationally designed or made until you hit Leica – which few of us can afford.
Why are there so few well-designed cameras at mid-market prices? Arguably there are none.
At the pricey end, the Nikon Df might have been a huge hit if it had lived up to its launch campaign, i.e. if it had been massively simplified, top quality, and equipped with manual-focus aids. We’ll never know, since it was just another Nikon misstep.
Of course smartphones and economic malaise have taken their toll, but cameras aren’t dead – their makers are just dead to their customers’ desires. Maybe they’ll start paying attention when their sales fall.
I'm not sure what you call "inspirationally" or "well" designed, but I can think of more than a couple of recent cameras to fit that bill: X100 (and probably some of the ILCs in the X series), K-5, OM-D and a few others.
I agree there's far too many models and hence a feeling of déjà-vu and boredom with what seems to be a never-ending trickle of iterations.
But still, in any defined period if time, there can only be a few exciting or inspirational cameras that rise above the mass of me-too products, and we have seen those in some of the models mentioned.
Hey, don't you dare blame ME, Japanese camera makers!Ever since I took up photography seriously about 5 years ago, I've done my bit buying a few (clearly more than I need) DSLRs, MILCs, lenses, etc
Did I miss a question about Nikon's QA issues which have plagued two of it's most recent models (D600 and, to a lesser extent, D800)?
Sorry, not a fan of having to click 17 times to read an article.
Fantastic photo. Stanmeyer is such a great photojournalist.
HomoSapiensWannaBe: Will be interesting to compare with the Sony RX-10.
Yes, that's the thing. If you need a bag to carry it, it's not really compact enough for me.
RichRMA: The big question is, will someone pay what this thing and its finder cost, over an interchangeable lens mirror-less??
@ Rooru S: Yes, but I suspect it's the pocketable ones that garner more attention. The G1X is probably too large to compete in that segment.
Sony, stop churning out endless iterations of these bodies and start releasing compact lenses for them!
Zigadiboom: Being a G1X owner I was looking forward to a faster lens, better AF performance and macro performance. Looks like Canon have delivered here.
But why take the swivel screen and all dials away! Why??
Cramming a F2-3.9 lens relative to such a large sensor into the size that they have does deserve a pat on the back. Well done Canon. Look out Sony RX100.
The only good reason to remove control dials is to make a much more compact body, which this one isn't. Not sure what Canon's rationale was for this decision.
nathondetroit: Dear Canon,
I’ve been buying your G-series cameras for several years because of the excellent external controls.
Unfortunately, I’m sick of them. Slap on a huge sensor and let me menu dive!
-SAYS NO ONE
Kind of agree. I don't think I'd like using control wheels on the lens. It's a much more interesting package than the G1X was, though. I'm intrigued, although I suspect I'll find the body a tad too large for the kind of compact I'm looking for.
onlooker: I am not sure I get the outrage. It's supply and demand. Millions of photographers, few decently established middle-man galleries. Who do you think dictates the terms?
If you really think it's a ripoff and that 500px will get rich off it, then it should be a good business opportunity. Get together other like-minded individuals, secure funding, start a new company, and spend the time and resources to get established, then offer other photographers a good deal.
Well, it's still a rip-off.
Am I reading this right? The photographer gets a measly 30% while 500px pockets the remaining 70%???
"I personally prefer the X100's system of holding a button on the left of the camera and using the four-way controller to move the point (a preference my colleague Andy insists is a character defect). "
And I wholeheartedly agree with Andy. For the life of me, I can't understand how anyone would prefer the X100's system to engage the AF points. It's awkward, and you never find the button on the first try. Sometimes I even have to take the camera off my eye to look for the bleeding AF button. With the XE-1 it's SO much easier.
Also, nice write-up, but you guys better get cracking on the full review of XE-2 before it becomes irrelevant as soon as the XT-1 is released.
itchhh: This is what the Nikon DF should have been . . . . IMO.
@Plastek: Where do you get the "even more annoying body" from? This body looks WAY better designed than the Df's. No contest, really
Mark9473: "Not so good for JPEG shooters, Auto ISO users, and photographers who want to quickly capture a moment"
Isn't that like 99% of us? ;-)
Also, taking just the average of the bars on the scorecard gives me a 74% average, not 80%. I wonder how they arrive at the overall score.
I agree it's a significant camera, the first full frame mirrorless and all that, but it appears there was a need to give it an award no matter what the test scores say.
It matters in a universo where you have no idea who may buy any given camera and what they are going to use it for. If you don't care about it, fine, but don't go around feeling superior because you shoot RAW.Like I said, lots of amateurs and pros shoot jpg at the very least on ocassion, so pretending the jpg output doesn't matter is preposterous, specially in a camera in this price range.