thx1138: dpreview clearly sets the bar low on AF performance. Not one of those frames is acceptably sharp on the face. Sure the hat is acceptably sharp in quite a few and it's clear the AF has been caught out focusing on the front of the hat not the face.
I'm happy with the NEX 7 and A7r. I'm primary Canon 5D3 and others but needed lighter weight for travel- old and rheumatoid arthritis. I still like the Canons, but I heard the same complaint's about the NEX series and lenses. Still I found both the sensor and lenses first rate. Got full benefit of the 24.6 C sensor and Zeiss lens.sam wit A7r and 36. it's different from what I was used to, but okay. Mirrorless focusing misses it on moving targets, at some angles, but I can live withit, I.e. In many ways I prefer manual focus sometimes. I added the A7r for obvious reasons,it's small and lightweight and imaging is first rate with the Zeiss 24-70 and the fat sensor. There are quirks in places, but with 50 years of Nikon, Leica etc, Sony is batting major League. There is a shortage of lenses in the E mount. But I'm having a lot of fun using the collection of Leica RF lenses with both the NEX and A7r --get an F1.1 50mm in focus on the A7s ... Cool. Add a few lenses.
Maaku: $2300 and no charger?
I already have the charger, actually 2, but it's the same damned battery as the NEX-7 which is otherwise a great camera. People bitch about the Canon 5D2 and 3. They're good for roughly twice th frames. But most cameras or lenses have some shortcoming of little consequence. One thing that mattered to me was size and weight. The NEX-7 served well as a travel sub for the 5D3 and the 7R should make a good sub and more.
Galbertson: With Metabones for nikon f mount to e mount, i had read in blogs, there is no apeture control. I an only assume this incorrect, my older nikkor manual lenses certainly have apeture dial/apeture control. Anything i am not understanding? This would be on a7r.
If you are dealing with older lenses,you should be fine just setting the aperture that way -- assuming you don't plan to open wide then stop down, I.e. It's manual.
Newer lenses usually are missing both f stop on lens setting as well as DOF marks,. I use Leica lenses, vintage and modern lenses, on my NEX-7, because it's relatively easy.
It was a factor in my buying the 7R - not yet here. It might be more difficult if you use the Metabones Speed Increase. I haven't tried it yet.
lylejk: Other then the weird looking dudes with their arms raised (lol), this is a fantastic way to capture panos. Guess the dudes can later be cloned out of existance. ;)
What the hell, I figure if Jonas Pfeil can answer questions here, I'm inclined to look at the links etc. and see what's there. It's pretty interesting. Don't know what I'd do with it, but I'll think about it. Fwiw I don't dive etc, but Jonas this sounds like a natural for underwater, e.g. Coral reefs. Given any thought to water tight enclosure with place perhaps to hook monofilament?
Alsone1: Sounds good but needs 4K @ minimum of 30fps given that 4K tv's are now appearing everywhere albeit at a (fast reducing) cost.
Personally I couldn't spend this much money on something I feel is already out of date.
I bought a 52 inch projector Hi Def set 13 years ago while networks were still debating 720p vs1080i and oddly it's wound up at 1080p. DVD format was still debated, blu-ray vs HD - turns out DVDs have a hard time competing with Streaming. My early adopter friend spent $11,000 on a large screen plasma before the HDMI standard. And many said network obsession with high def was crazy because no market had been demonstrated. Whether there's a mass market for 4K might be argued, but broadcasters and other content providers buy equipment on replacement cycles and 4K was high on the industry list at NAB shows with a lot of gear aimed at that segment, from production, sending, transmission, editing to receive end. I wouldn't try to call a cycle on it, but 4k would be is immense use in a significant number of areas outside consumer demand. It's coming quicker to affluent consumers that we believe. Some cinema cameras, Red, Black Magic, already there for quite a while.
Daxs: Got my 70D!It is better then you think!Simple! When you start taking pictures you don't want to stop!And all these negative comments just, just making me laugh! :D
The one thing I wish commenters could do -- but intend no criticism about -- is how does this compare to manual focusing which is what I grew up with on Nikon Fs. The reason I say that is because some autofocus lenses/cameras don't really allow easy switch to manual and there are times you suddenly discover auto is screwed. With Manual, frinstance, if someone walked into a frame, it didn't as a rule affect focus unless you wanted it too. AS an old pro said a few years ago, autofocus is nice, but be sure you got something on the backstop when there's money involved. It's like 10 frames a second seems dynamite unless your drive missed the critical millisecond. Ten frames a second (twice the old Nikon F motors) still leaves a whole bunch of open space if each frame is 1/1000 of a second.
prodrone: Do not want to sound negative, but looking for a mid-range camera and this thing costs much more then of the old trusty Sony A65 (2011), Canon has less megapixels, slower burst, no IBIS, no GPS, compared to that old 2011 Sony. Looking at video, again, D70 has only 30fps video while lower priced Sony got FullHD 60fps progressive two years back.., what is going on ? Second, why the gold award ? Where is the innovation ? Where is the spec worthy of 2013 ? Even Nokia sports 40 MPx cameras today.
My relatively limited experience with Sony, 18-200 OSS and 10-18mm wide says Yabokkie and Naththo don't know squat. I own Leica, Canon and tons of other lenses going back 100 years, shooter turned shooter-collector. The Sony lenses that I have are excellent, buy Zeiss or others if you like. The problem sometimes is that the lens is a bit slow in f/stop and that doesn't help with movement, etc. My primary is a Canon 5D3 and generally the Sony isn't too embarrassed by the company it keeps.
Timetraveler333: Between the EOS70D and the Nikon D7100 using a 3.5 lens (Canon & Nikon) on both, which would provide the best low light capability? Camera will be hand held and venue will be stage performances with moderate movement and occasional ice skating events. I am currently using the Canon T2i and hope to step up to a camera offering better image quality under low light conditions.
I've found the iPhones useful and in specific situations very useful. The iPhone 5s (whatever, not the 5C) is better than the 4. But saying that there's no way I'd recommend the iPhone over either of those cameras, even with a 3.5, although one would hope there's a longer lens. One flaw of the iPhone for that kind of work is that it's too much of a wide angle -- and noise is likely to be a problem. The worse the light is, the noisier it gets.
Tropical Photos: I had the EOS M...Great image quality...need to fix the autofocus. Canon really needs to put out more lenses. The lens adaptor idea is cool, but really, if you are going to buy a small travel camera, why would you want to put your big lenses on it? Defeats the purpose.
I sold my EOS M and purchased the Sony NEX 6. LOVE IT! I rarely pull my 5D Mark 2 out. The NEX 6 smokes the EOS M!
I've still got the EOS M, but I acquired a Sony NEX 7 to fill most of the purposes intended for the M - a second travel camera etc with 5d3.It isn't perfect,but it's head and shoulders above the M. I'm not a great fan of EVT but it's a finder. Image quality is first rate - so was the M if in focus.
PaparazziPaul: Adobe should remember these words, "New Coke"
Here is a little story for you... One upon a time a great company had a wonderful product the world loved and they decided to change it. The world soon let them know it was a terrible idea. They returned the original product and lived happily ever after... The company Coca-cola.
Adobe is trying to create a steady revenue stream with subscription based software. It may open up for a lot of new people who will jump in to get their hands on some professional quality software but a lot of folks (as proved by your poll) will balk at this idea. They do not wish to be forced into a subscribe base software. We don't know how or when prices will rise or shutter to think we let it laps and have to pay a restore fee some where down the line. Just like the "New Coke", it's a bad idea and we just don't like the taste of it (pun intended).
nuff said... ;)
It's not entirely inappropriate to compare Coke and Adobe or if you will, Apple and Adobe. Both Coke and Adobe are marketing disasters. As someone noted, Coke wanted to introduce Corn Syrup or whatever else into the Coke line. Part of that was competing with Pepsi which was already sweather. Coke not only lost its flavor to me, it lost it's feel. Cornsyrup moves across the mouth differently and there's still less tartness. I use Diet Coke for Rum and Coke because it tastes better.
As for Apple, They've developed a model Adobe ought to consider. Apple doesn't have to ship software, it's mostly download. And the price is moderate enough that people are not pushed to practice piracy. And updating the OS every year means it doesn't become the disaster that Microsoft has created for itself with people trying to go back to Windows 95 or something else, but without the drivers needed.
Adobe has moved to a download model already, but now they want to take our freedom of operation away.
Leon V: I am an amateur photographer. I have Photoshop CS6. I do not have Lightroom. I want to continue using PS CS6 in the future and not subscribe to Photoshop CC. Therefore, Camera Raw in my PS CS6 will not be updated for future Nikon cameras (which I am sure I will be buying).
Question. If future versions of Lightroom continues to be available on disc, and future Lightroom versions recognize future Nikon camera NEF raw files, would I be able to develop the raw files in lightroom, save them as PSDs, then open these PSDs in PS CS6?
If this is the case, and that is a BIG IF, then this scenario (buying future Lightroom versions and using PS CS6 for edits, composites, masking, etc.) is my solution to not buying into the CC.
At present you can open from Lightroom into applications other than Photoshop, i.e. I can open into several apps including Topaz which can work standalone. I'm going to continue using Lightroom, but my guess is that I'm having long term trust issues with Adobe. I had Aperture but found it overpromoted, overpriced (at the time) etc., and it didn't transition smoothly into photoshop to me.
Besides seeing the CPU working overtime, PhotoNinja is really incredibly slow to process raws.
That's not funny at all.
Now: Part of the problem may, that's "may", be that PhotoNinja has to build a library from whatever folder the raws are in before it processes any raw from that folder, but if that folder has say 200 raws, PhotoNinja may get distracted.
Anyhow, Photoshop CS6 and Bridge CS6 are much faster, even when working together.
PhotoNinja does a good job, but it not going to be taken seriously if it remains this slow and resource hogging.
I don't trust Adobe at all. Look at the Flash mess and they've made a hash of a fair number of other things. I've had Photoshop for 14 years, having been reluctant to undertake learning yet another difficult software. I've been using Lightroom, primary as a cataloger -- it's a difficult transition to move to editing in Lightroom as opposed to editing from Lightroom into Photoshop. The piracy complaint is nutty. If that's happening, it's coming from networked large users who are hacked at Adobe. It's too much trouble to hack the password on Adobe single user. I recall a much earlier Photoshop that had an equivalent to today's Bridge, so Adobe had to break it and it took another three releases before they got it right. Now they're breaking it again.
Alashi: I do not want to have to rely on internet access to get my work done.
I don't want to have to deal with slow internet connections, or an overloaded server, when my own machine is blazingly fast with the stand alone PS.
I don't want my work in the "bow down to God" cloud.
I don't like having to subscribe; give me my tool and leave me alone!
All change isn't necessarily better; I tried some cloud based SW, and it stank!
Some of these questions are being answered and in some cases the mechanics of the situation may not be bad. What I don't like is the entire approach that Adobe has taken, sort of we decide, you like it or you're screwed. I'm getting old, to the point that I don't mind updating software occasionally, but I hate like hell to pay monthly for something I don't have the energy to use. This is aimed almost entirely at sucking more money on a continuing basis from people working in the trade. As a retiree I've continued to be interested, but my guess is that this is the end of the line for Adobe as a high end consumer product as well as professional. Now all they have to do is p--- off the pro and advertising users and they'll kill the goose.
Sharad Medhavi: Auto focus at a minimum aperture of f/8 works quite well. I shot a bird in flight today with the Canon 100-400L zoom lens + Canon 1.4x III extender. The auto focus was quick and accurate. This was an impossible shot for me till yesterday.
Check it out at: http://www.flickr.com/photos/sharad_medhavi/8698393272/
that's cool. I've got a Bigma 50-500 which focuses okay as is, but this should help with the extender of 1.4 which gives an effective 700mm on the 5DIII or something like 1120mm If I find a 1.6 crop that can focus it. I can focus it manually, but it's not the coolest way.
MarshallG: Since all HDMI output is always uncompressed, this is not much of an accomplishment. And since the HDMI output doesn't include audio, it isn't HDMI at all, it's only DVI.
Sorry, that isn't true. No one ever made a big issue about it,but there has always been a compressed RAW file from most cameras. Leica gave a choice on compressed or uncompressed RAW on the M9, or at least hte M9 P which I have. I don't know that HDMI has anything to do with it because it's recorded in compressed in Compressed RAW format, then output via HDMI as an uncompressed file from compressed files.
The files are significantly larger if you shoot a lot. I was both surprise to find that Canon RAW was compressed and gratified to dis cover they were allowing a genuine uncompressed RAW.
Sad Joe: About time Canon, can only guess why its taken you almost 7 months. How about a fix for the poor AF on the EOS-M next ? Would LOVE to buy one but cannot live with the current AF which is hopeless....
oh yeah on the eos-m. When it focuses, the pictures are great, but if you've used one, you know just how f-----d up they made the firmware. I've own and have owned a ton of Canons. I cannot figure out how they got this one so wrong. I collect cameras and I've never seen such a totally screwed up intro on a camera and not even wait until we fix the firmware. I use it as a second camera and for that it's good and it's lightweight. Canon censored my review of it saying it didn't meet their guidelines. the EOS-m just didn't measure up when it came to my guidelines for being able to focus. The best is when I use an efs lens that I can focus manually --even with the error built into the low rez viewer screen.
Ton Jelsma: With 35 years Canon experience I agree that the 5DM2 is the best camera ever. Now it is discontinued. It has a great successor, the 5Dm3, the next cam I will buy!
I agree, having had the 5d, 5d2 and since its release the 5D3. Each edition has advanced and refined the camera -- you will enjoy the last.
Pat: The Obamas show their human side in a heartfelt way all too rarely seen from those who have occupied the White House. Nicely done by whoever the photographer was.
FWIW, it's very nice you looked at the people, gave it a serious thought about its rarity and offered a bit of praise for the shooter. I don't care for Mitt Romney (as opposed to hate him which is nuts) but if there were a similar picture here of the two of them, I'm sure we'd beable to compliment the image without a political diatribe. Thanks.
john: people always make a mistake, they think that a expensive camera like lecia m9 is investment and will last for the life time, it's true for film camera, but if it build with electricity, even the most expensive camera you can only expect it to work within 3-5 years, even lecia is no exception under the hood it is make by panansonic.
after 3 years with all the warrenty expired, the price to maintain a super expensive camera is super expensive, for example, a fail shutter or some dead pixel will cost so much $$$, even you need to sell your house or your car to get it fixed.
I speak from my expersince, i owned the world class kodak 760, the price was nearly the same as the m9, so i know what will happen after warrenty
You're right. I don't "work" with cameras, now, but I enjoy them. I collect film cameras, but otherwise I assume I'll beat the digitals to death, whoever made them . I bought an m9-P because I could and had a good year for a retiree.. My primary camera is 5d3 whi replaced the earlier 5ds. I have what I need, but the Leica is for pleasure taking me back 50 years. I have a couple of modern Leitz lenses but my favorite is the CV Nokton 50 1.1 which is a wonderr for the money. I use it my vintage film m's and at some point I'll try my old ltm classics on the M9P. It will probably last as long as me, probably not as long as treasured Nikon F that will be running in another 50 years. Enjoy what you can.
Marty CL: I own two vintage Leica rangefinders and one of their compact digital cameras---and it is easy to be captivated by the mystique. But owning a contemporary Leica is like owning a Rolex watch--both are beautifully made anachronisms (I own one of those too). Unless you are a professional photographer who must use a rangefinder for low light and/or interior shooting where silence is a premium---it is near impossible to justify the expense.
Up to a point you're sorta of right in theory .. Except I've had exceptional results with the M9-P and a Nokton 50mm f/1.1 ans sum micron 35mm 1.4. It isn't newest etc etc, but it cooks fine and I find myself shooting it at consistently lower ISO not because I have but becuz I can. It's okay on the higher ISO but eliminating sensor filter lends detail hard to match. There is an undefinable image quality I won't bore with ...becuz it's not practical to knock about with. I've owned, used and collected Leicas to absurdity, apart from 9 I own m6' a couple of older m's, and a dozen LTMs. For most things it's a 5d Mk3 which I find outstanding in low light -manual F if needed. But the x100 and canon s100 are also exceptional in their own way and quiet for low light.. I'm stunned at HDRs at ISO 12800 with the 5d3. I wouldn't disagree on the Sammy or nex. And Nikons.