Dual-IS - FINALLY Pany decided to pick the lowest hanging fruit...
I've been advocating for Dual-IS ever since Oly joined m43 with IBIS and the endless discussions about the m43 incompatibility started. But every single time people queued up to tell me it is impossible...
Where are the naysayers now?
Daniel Lauring: I'd rather see Tamron, or Sigma go after a truly empty space. For example focal lengths over 300mm. How about a 100-400mm F3.5-5.6. Or how about a mini-Bigma...150-500mm?
In this range (WA over say 50mm eq.) m43 doesn't offer any size advantage over FT, actually quite the contrary. Essentially, they would be selling an FT zoom lens with a m43 adapter bolted onto it.
Deep pockets earn you the first place...
Most people cannot afford to pay 9(!) models for one shooting session... :(
GregGory: Gold, gold...
Let me reach out for my 3M ear muffs and I'll voluntarily blind myself, but it still won't cut it against the Sony fan-boys moaning onslaught coming up on the next WEEKS...
Read the comments here, or just do a search for RX100...
Having said this, it didn't turn out as bad as I anticipated based on the LX7 review, which blasphemously turned out to be a silver - just the like the RX100... Trumphing the RX100 with a Gold Award - ouch!
Lots of headache will follow his far too early death.
jcmarfilph: Cut the crap DPR. Review the real thing.
Get the new X-S1 (with the new sensor). Review it side-by-side with this toy.
State the advantages and disadvantages of each feature (brighter lens, manual zoom, motorized zoom, larger sensor, EVF etc.)
If you can't do it, you will just prove again to us your bias toward Panasonic and Canon superzoom.
Edmond, JC already has an X-S1 - so he should be out shooting the cr@p out of it - and insist on ignoring the fundamental differences. For starters, the FZ200 is heavier than ideal, but the X-S1 is a whopping 2lb+ (!)... In other words, it's up in the weight class of hybrids w. superzooms, or even a Drebel with Tamrom 18-270.
A review of the X-S1 would be welcomed, but the conspiracies due to the lack of it is rather amusing - actually - more like annoying.
mcshan: Come on. The leopard seal was just trying to fatten you up before eating you.
Nope, the Grimm Bros.
Still no backlit Stouffer wedge, bugger :((
Also, I'd have preferred to see more familiar elements, eg. the Paul Smith wrist watch, and the 1000 Lire note, excellent points of reference IMO.
At least more emphasis on the low light part of the picture, eg. the thread spools from the old setup would have been great..
I don't see any great leap forward with this setup, except for the "2D" layout.
Cannot comment on the functionality yet, but the new system sure is hideous. :(
groesbpa: I told a friend of mine from Iran about the restrictions on the contest for his country, and he said that if anyone there submitted a photo they could get into big trouble or arrested. So it's possibly not a restriction but a protection measure.
No, it's the pathetic way of waging war against the poorest of the population through sanctions. It's the official embargo list, Cuba, Burma, North Korea etc...
micahmedia: Well, this does certainly answer the folks who've lamented a lack of lenses for the E mount. How about some smaller primes now?
Looking at the 24/f1.8 performance at SLRgear relative to the price, bulk, and no IS option - I understand they don't even bother with them..
It's a beautiful lens though!
Grab some popcorn, sit back and enjoy the unfolding apocalypse...
GregGory: "The movie record button is placed on the camera's shoulder for easy operation by your thumb. It's somewhat exposed, but the chances of accidental activation are minimized by the fact that it's only active when the mode dial is set the movie position. In stills shooting modes it does nothing."
Then what the hell /is/ it for?? In video mode, the shutter button could just as well be used..
So here we have Canon bragging about slashing 1/3 of the buttons /while/ keeping an utterly redundant button next to the thumb?
Of course they could re-purpose any button in every mode/ function imaginable.. lol, these are all soft buttons, not a film Leica where the shutter button is mechanically coupled to the shutter mechanism :)
They could easily make eg. the "info" button into full res pic button in video mode, but you do have a point that consistency with the Drebel UI could be a priority. In this case, it's an insult to the buyers that they didn't turn the rec button into an "AF/AE lock" button in stills mode...
"The movie record button is placed on the camera's shoulder for easy operation by your thumb. It's somewhat exposed, but the chances of accidental activation are minimized by the fact that it's only active when the mode dial is set the movie position. In stills shooting modes it does nothing."
micahmedia: OHHHH! That dial around the shutter button isn't for exposure/aperture?! What a horrid design decision!
This was obviously designed by the fools who mucked up the *0D designs, and not by the folks who put together the remarkably straight forward point and shoot models.
This crap is stillborn. Nobody wants it, yet...it is still born.
Let me correct you. "What a horrid MARKETING decision"..
Edmond Leung: This just reflects how poor is the development of the lenses for M43. The reality is lens selection for M43 is very limited, especially the high-end tele lenses.It's a shame to those camera manufacturers who just know assembling cameras but without satisfying the needs of their customers in the demand of lenses.That is the reason why do Canon and Nikon can be so successful in acquiring the majority of the camera market. Because they care their customers' needs; they are not just camera makers, they also produce a complete line of lenses for their customers.Who will buy a camera without the support of lenses? A fool may!
Wondering, have you tried stand-up?
tkbslc: I don't get people saying that the 18-55 is "too big"
It's only 61x61mm
The Olympus 14-42 II (which retracts) is only 11mm shorter (57x50mm)The Panasonic 14-42 is 61x64mmThe Sony NEX 18-55 is 62x60mm.
So really they are all the same basic size give or take a half inch.
Samsung is the true marvel here at 64x39mm on their 20-50, but they made a retracting zoom design with noticeably less wide angle.
First of all, the Samy is 30mm equ. at WA, while the "noticeably" wider Canon is 29m...
Secondly, the Pansonic 14-42mm is a low budget kit lens essentially bundled for free - or $130 sold separately. The Canon is $300... Which puts in in the league of the $280 Panasonic 14-42X - which happens to be 44% of the volume of the Canon..
Hmm, the GF3 never really was pretty, but this new Canon body makes it a bombshell... Yes, it's more about the guts, but what the hell were they thinking in the design dep? OTOH, the lenses look mighty fine, so ugly head, pretty nose(s) :D
Btw. unless the 18-55mm is made out of tissue and inflated membranes, there's no way it weighs only 120g/4.23 oz... Keeping it compact like the Panasonic 14-45mm is quite an achievement, but let's hope Canon didn't do it the way Sony did, simply by butchering the optical performance of the E-18-55..
Sounds like an Oly normal prime is around the corner... :p