E6chromes: Half the camera @ twice the price...Who are they kidding. Remember that old saying "A fool and his money will soon be parted"More pixels less...WAY less price!
But since I earn four times what you make, it looks to be good value to me! ;-)
Kidding aside, it does seem a bit over priced, but then money is relative. Every time I fly I walk past first class passengers who have paid thousands of dollars more to arrive at their destination the same time as me.
barreto_co: For an old pro like me, who loves his FM3a and his Hasselblads, where everything used to be mechanical and the only battery was for the optional metering system, then this is by far, by a long long shot, the best digital camera ever produced!.
Thank you Nikon for the dials! I like looking at the top plate of my camera to see the dials of ISO and shutter speed and the aperture ring on the lens. Its the only three things I need to know to have the right exposure/effect.
Its interesting that most comments here are so negative. I read them but still don't understand why they hate this camera so much. There are so many non-professional cameras out there that would fulfill all their requirements.
From the specs and photos, I absolutely love this camera and I can't wait to buy this camera and I will most likely buy the Df/2 when it comes out.
WELL DONE NIKON! WELL DONE & THANKS!
I too love the dials - but from a purely functional point of view. (I would have preferred a non-retro design with all the dials - I loved Contax styling in the eighties). I like that you can see the setting AND adjust that setting with the same control. Currently I can see all my settings in the LCD but then have to think for a second about which wheel controls which function. (I guess I use my DSLR too infrequently to build up "muscle memory" for those controls).
But price does have to come into it - It's hard to justify when there are cameras like the Sony A7 around.
LaFonte: good thing: - sharp fonts and sharp images, crisp displaybad thing: now it takes twice as much power and the battery also has to be nearly twice larger to keep with last year MBP - and nothing inside is now user replaceable or upgradeable, everything is soldered.
I see this retina craziness really counterproductive with the much increased energy consumption.. The ipad 2 has 25w/h battery for 10 hr run, the ipad 3 needed 45w/h battery to drive the power hungry retina so it can still get 10 hours. Now an ipad 3 with non retina display would easily run 18 hours. If I have choice I would choose 18hr run time over retina display any time.
Same for MBP, yes retina is nice to look at but now we need to run the devices with twice as much power!
Completely agree with you about the iPads. I thought the resolution on my iPad2 was fine - I felt there was absolutely no reason to upgrade. Then I got the new one - it is such a vast difference that it hurts my eyes to go back to the old iPad2. And I really notice the jagged text and underlying pixel grid of my computer monitors.
Now you could say that I've become suckered into Apple's product obsolescence cycle but I really welcome this new resolution movement if it means clearer reading and less eyestrain. We all upgrade our desktops and laptops eventually, so why not incorporate some of these kinds of enhancements in our next purchases.
I say bring on more of these technological improvements if that means enhancing our world and making our lives just that much nicer.
ZAnton: Another stupid technology. Reading nano letters becomes cool. I have 22" 1900*1200 and I cann't normally read in internet (I don't wear glasses and have good vision). Have to scale up to 125%. Well, all pictures are scaled up too.On the win7 I also scale up everything to 125%. But old programs, which do not support that, it is practically impossible to work. Letters are under 1 mm height.Same problem in PS. If I paint (i.e. the mask), I can not see the border very good. So I have to scale up the image to 150-200%.
So what is the use of that excessive resolution?Another p. enlargement pill?
You don't seem to understand the significance of this - It's not just another laptop with more pixels crammed into the same size screen. It's actually pixel doubling - the first time in almost 30 years of personal computing that the native screen resolution has changed for fixed sized, raster objects. All raster image software will have to be updated to take advantage of it (Photoshop etc) but your OS menus and palettes and of course all text and vector graphics will look crisp and better defined.
Those of us who have been using the new iPad have become acutely aware of how low-res the other computer screens in our lives appear - it's like looking through a screen door, the grid of pixels looks so prominent, text so jagged in comparison.
Xentrax: I could find only 5 flaws in the camera:
Unlike Samsung or Nikon, Canon decided to go with 4:3 aspect ratio(#1) which is wrong in the era of wide screens, considering that most compact camera users make only landscape shots. Hopefully this sensor does not end up in a mirror-less interchangeable lens camera by Canon.
This heavy(#2) camera has no GPS receiver(#3) or automatic lens cover(#4), has small battery(#5) but it features rather useless viewfinder.
GPS doesn't give you better images, but tells you where you shot them. So you're reminded of where that was, can go back and revisit, tell others of where it is, etc. You can also plot your image locations on a map of the world (atomatically) to make a great interactive tour of your last trip etc. I'm surprised more cameras don't have GPS built in.
Kitamura: Is this instead of the G13? Or is there still going to be a G13?
I strongly suspect this is instead of a "G13". Canon probably wanted to reset the series nomenclature back to "1" again to signify the start of the larger sensor series. Also "13" is considered an unlucky number by some.
Rmark: I think this a fantastic upgrade to the G12. Very happy it does NOT have interchangeable lenses. The whole idea of a compact/pocket/ travel camera is too not have a lot of stuff to carry. If I want the flexibility of various lenses I carry my Olympus E30 with what ever lenses I think I'll need on that day.
When I just want a quality camera with a lot of external control I put my Canon G9 in my jacket pocket .
I would have preferred 24mm at the wide end , and may be a little faster lens. But maybe we'll see this on next years upgrade
Completely agree. This looks like the ideal camera for me when I don't want to lug around my DSLR, but still want great image quality. I suspect Canon upped the game when they saw what Smart Phone cameras can do these days - that's the new bottom-end walk-around photo tool.