RedFox88: This is a camera trying to fix something that isn't broken. We don't need dials for these settings as they are better and faster controlled in other ways. This must be the camera for the mid-life crisis men in their 50s and 60s even 70s who want to try to "re-claim" their youth... and pay for it!
WTF? If you don't find the elegance of the control layouts in this camera (and other previous fuji X's), you don't know nothing about photography and just forget about cameras. A cell phone with all auto suits you better.
grock: The best camera was obviously the one I use, since it's the one made by the best company and has the best test results and is made with the best materials into the best ergonomic shape. It's too bad the people at DPreview are so biased against this company and clearly are in the pocket of this company's competitors. This site is so lame to only award the camera I bought a 93% rating. But I'll keep coming back here to make sure everyone knows which camera is the best and how lame/biased DPreview.com is!
Mine's better than yours! That's absolute, final, definite statement!
67gtonr: The M is Considerably larger than the GM1 in only one aspect and that is sensor size, and this M2 is even smaller than the M!
Talking about bullsh!tting...
This is the biggest problem of Sony camera business: the lack of commitment. And it is the reason that I never had, and will never have any Sony camera.
rfsIII: What they're not telling you is that "organic" is just another word for "carbon-based life form." Bottom line: this sensor is alive; it's a creature that was either discovered or genetically engineered to live inside your camera and translate photons into images (remember the bird that lived inside Fred Flintstone's camera and chiseled pictures onto stone tablets? Same principle, different species). Nobody tell PETA or they'll put the kibosh on the whole thing.
Animal cruelty! And when I say "my sensor just died", I mean it! Literally!
Is it 1.2x MORE sensitive or 1.2x AS sensitive? That makes a lot of differences. 1.2x AS sensitive as old technology as in less than 1/3 stop ISO improvement? Not interested.
Samsung does not know how to build cameras. Period.
Still ugly as heck! Also with the teeny tiny pea shooter sensor I don't see a need for this at all.
Marvol: "we'll look at how well it performs just as soon as we can"
Why are you already committing to review a fairly specialised lens of a rather unimpressive mirrorless system? Surely you can do better things with your time?
For comparison I noticed that, unless I am missing something (I searched this site), you haven't reviewed the EOS M itself. I can only find a preview from July 2012. So you're willing to review this lens (not the kit lens, not the prime) on a camera you haven't reviewed in nearly a year? Srsly?
Because he is a blind Canon fanatic. The M system is a fail. It's the biggest joke in mirrorless camera history. Get your head out of the sandpit. I'd rather invest my money into the M43 platform which are supported by many manufacturers, than putting all the egg into the falling basket!
BozillaNZ: As a long term Canon user, I already gave up on Canon's mirror-less attempts. I started looking at M4/3 gears for a long time and finally pulled trigger for a Panasonic GX1 for $229. The M4/3 lens ranges are far better than this and, oh, the GX1 can actually focus, FAST. Also guess where does the M4/3 fund come from? Selling some of the Canon lenses.
No useful size benefit from m43? Did you see those pancake prime lenses 14, 17, 20, 25, 45? Lumix 7-14 ultra wide zoom? Long teles in the size of DSLR normal lens? And M's focus speed is 2 times as fast! Yay! Still way too slow though. And yes, m43 sensor is smaller than APS-C, but at least those sensors are good, up-to-date ones, unlike the M uses the lame 18mp Canon sensor which originated from 7D and passed along to 60D, 550D, 600D, 650D, 700D, which is noisy in ISO 100 in day light.
As a long term Canon user, I already gave up on Canon's mirror-less attempts. I started looking at M4/3 gears for a long time and finally pulled trigger for a Panasonic GX1 for $229. The M4/3 lens ranges are far better than this and, oh, the GX1 can actually focus, FAST. Also guess where does the M4/3 fund come from? Selling some of the Canon lenses.
With the time I open the card door to access the switch, I can instead take the card out and chuck it into the SD slot in my desktop/laptop and only using 1/100 time to transfer all my images over!
This is silly but fun! Like it!
Methinks the first one is the best attempt. It is also true in a lot of thing in life.
Superka: Ok, we''ll wait for a man on Mars, with Canon.
Yeah, that man will be the first to have ERR99 on Mars! LOL!
Jebus, This is what happens when you post this news on a camera whore forum, everyone brag about this 2MP 'issue'!
Further more, if you have done primary school algebra, you would know that the supposed "Full HD" resolution of the grand 1920x1080 is exactly 2MP! Now get a hammer and smash all your "Full HD" resolution devices because they are sooooo low spec-ed! Yeah!
Rob: The 2.5 BILLION dollar project uses cameras sporting a whole 2 megapixes? Oh, the image is murky because the camera's removable dust cover is apparently coated with dust blown onto the camera during the rover's terminal descent. I guess they didn't take into account Mars might have some dust. That's 2,500 million dollars. Dang, if that Nikon 800 didn't have that focus issue....
Sheesh.. Ignorance is bliss! your fancy Nikon would fail by the minute they leave the Earth atomsphere, not to mention to stand an 8 month travel IN THE SPACE and land on Mars. Horses for courses, for this course, this 2MP sensor truces your fancy ass consumer DSLR no end
cpkuntz: Why do they use 2 mp sensors? Robust build? The Apollo mission used Hasselblads. Why not get some medium format goodness on board one of these rovers?
The problem is not because of latency, bandwidth is not affected by latency, at least in one direction transfer. The problem is solely on the frig*ging power required to transmit the signal THIS FAR. You know, the electromagnetic signal is like light signal, they fade as square function of distance. So here you go, how much power do you need to establish a gigabit link between Earth and Mars? Probably more than they can get by solar power at that place.
What the fsck is this picture? Someone's paw? Come on!