Saw this advertised in Pop Photo so I went to the Mylio website to find out more. I found no concise description of what exactly this service offers and no "contact" link to ask (maybe I missed it). After reading the comments here, I can tell I'm not alone in failing to understand exactly what this is and why I would want to fork over my money.
From what I can tell there are some editing capabilities though I'm not sure why their target market would want to do even basic editing outside of their primary editing software. It would just confuse things.
It looks like there is no cloud storage involved so it syncs between the users own storage devices. GoodSync does this already for free (or BackBlaze if you want cloud storage). If I want to access images remotely from my home or work Synology Diskstations there is a free app for that (though there is no conversion or scaling that I am aware of).
Maybe Mylio is for the disorganized photog, which is not me.
This completely validates my move from Canon to Fuji. Canon is kidding themselves. Best sensor? Sure. Whatever. Good luck to you.
Just another Canon shooter: Fuji (76-213/4.2 eq): 995gCanon 70-200/4 IS: 760gNikon 70-200/4 VR: 860gSony 70-200/4 OS: 840g
@BarnET Snarkiness aside, this is an interesting comment.
"the advantage is with lenses with focal lengths under the flange distance of Dslr's"
Is there a simple way to expand on this?
As I read through the comments and look at a few sample from the similar Minolta lens, I'm starting wonder if I don't prefer "distracting" bokeh in most cases. I look forward to seeing comparison shots between the two 56's. Either way, I love the fact that Fuji continues to focus on the enthusiast photographer with unique products like this one.
Chaitanya S: Nice addition to X line up of lenses. I am still waiting for a 1:1 macro lens in 90-100mm focal length so that I can switch to Fuji X-system as a carry around camera.
"shooting bugs and venomous snakes"; "recent experience with Canon 100mm f/2.8L in Amboli during monsoons"
retro76: I hate when company's do this. Basically they are saying; you know how our 1.2 lens has crappy bokeh, well here we fixed it by adding a filter, all you need to do is give us $500 more and your good to go. Shame on you Fuji.
I bought the 56 just 2 months ago and I must admit that I feel a little regret. It's not that I don't think the 56 is a great lens. It is. But it's not as simple as handing over another $500. That would be fine. Existing 56 owners will have to take a loss on the lens they own. The folks who already bought the lens pay a premium to get this one. The way to do this is the way Nikon handled the D800/D800E. You had a choice up front. No buyers remorse.
Great summary of the way APD works. Kudos to DPR.
AV Janus: Whats the other catch with this e-shutter?There's got to be more than one...
Although no benefits in flash sync is pretty big
The catch is that each line of pixels on the sensor can be read as fast as 1/32000 but they can't all be read at once. On some Panasonic sensors it can take up to 1/10 of a sec to read the entire sensor resulting in major jello effect with any subject or camera movement at all. Oly's sensor can be read in 1/60 of a sec. Hopefully this will happen even faster on the X-Trans II sensor though there is no evidence either way at this point.
SantaFeBill: Why wait until December to release the firmware for the black body to enable the new features? If the features work in the silver body in November, why not make the firmware update available then?Or will the new features, such as the 1/32,000/sec shutter speed, only be available even on the silver body with the December firmware release? The story doesn't seem clear to me on these points.
You are correct in that certain features will become available to both bodies in December.
utomo99: I hope Fuji preparing big sensor camera on small body. 1 inch on the size of RX 100.
@Richard You don't have to look too closely to see that Fuji's APS-C sized sensor provides noticeably better performance in low light and at high ISO vs the best m4/3 sensors so I'm not sure what your point is. A 2/3" sensor is half the area of a 1" sensor. That's half the light gathering capability.
Carlton Foxx: The only problem with this essay is that you're not buying a bunch of specs or a box of metal, plastic, and glass.... You're buying the engineering talent of the people at Fuji who used their experience, education, and judgement to create what in their minds is a camera that best uses the technology that the company has developed over the years. That's what makes this camera different from the nikons and canons and olympii....
That and a sensor that is half the area of the competition...
Lot of complaining about this lens in the comments. Price is high, yes, and it is definitely fair to compare it to the competition and expect it to be competitive. But as for the rest, it seems fair to point out that every lens is a compromise in some way. Fuji offers amazing primes where IQ is completely uncompromised at the expense of convenience. This lens is for shooters that place a high priority on convenience and are willing to sacrifice some IQ to get there. Nothing wrong with that—even if my priorities lead me to other choices.
Jogger: One-inch superzooms will eat up this market... something like the Panasonic FZ1000 or Sony RX10 makes a whole lot more sense.
@Kim m4/3 is a great system and enjoys a size advantage when it comes to lenses but the noise performance compared to X-Trans II isn't close in my own experience.
Fuji has a history of providing new features and improved performance to X-series users through firmware upgrades. Unfortunately, this is not one of them.
RStyga: Very expensive at this price. I had the impression, too, that Fujifilm lenses are all great but they are not all that impressive according to reviewers such as Photozone. E.g. the 18/2 has 4.8% native distortion, CAs, field curvature, and low-res periphery; the 35/1.4 has low-res periphery until F5.6 and slow AF. There are really good lenses from Fujifilm but cost three-to-four times more than their 18/2. And many suffer from slower-than-competition AF.
The 18 is their weakest lens so if you want to pick on Fuji lenses, you chose the correct one. That said, if you're going to complain about it you might also mention that it is a very small pancake lens. That is the reason for its compromised performance.
I notice you have not taken any shots at the 13, 23, or 56.
Brilliantine Stick Inesct: Another fail by the big 2 (Canon & Nikon). They are hanging onto an outdated product strategy while the ILC market is changing the rules of the game. The Fuji TX and the OMD are showing how to do high end consumer product. What does Nikon do? Release a fat burger DF without manual focus aids... Are they mad?
I have to second tkbslc's point. This is a well spec'd camera designed for enthusiasts, not a low end compact. The problem isn't the product design; it's the crap sensor. Enthusiasts tend to notice when you wrap a outdated sensor in an $800 body. Put a Sony sensor in this thing and there would be a line around the block to buy it.
123Mike: $800, fixed lens, video is only 30 fps.The Sony A6000 with its fast PDAF and 60 fps video and exchangeable lenses, is a far FAR better choice !
Your argument would be more persuasive, Gary, if the weakness was anything other than image quality. It's like arguing, "Yes, my car can't go over 5 MPH but you're ignoring the fact that it has massive cargo room, the most comfortable seats in its class, and great visibility in all directions." Maybe you don't ever need to go over 5 MPH but most people do.
(unknown member): Finally! Put the arguments to rest!Dynamic range improved matching the D800 range but favoring shadows, exceeding RX100II by a good margin. I don't get the whole shadow noise thing, since cranking up the shadows that high is naturally going to greatly exaggerate the noise....this is why we're supposed to expose to the right, right? And you don't think Sony processes its RAW files to reduce noise? Once again, Sony's fatal flaw is that it's a Sony.Anyway, thanks for the review, guys and gals.
howardroark, you are truly a great Canon cheerleader. I hope Canon sends you some swag from time to time. :)
Retzius: This camera just looks and feels so retro, and not in a good way...
The trend clearly shows that the small point and shoot is dying because of the camera phone. Why Canon would think the even larger, bulkier, and harder to carry LARGE point and shoot (which btw in Canon's world cost as much as a interchangeable lens mirrorless camera with better performance) would still be a desirable camera is beyond me.
Couldn't disagree more, Gesture. First of all, it is the lower end of the market that is dying. Premium, large sensor compacts is a growth segment. Second, this camera is not targeted at buyers who want to put it in a pocket and forget it is there.
As a hiker, I want a camera that balances my needs for high IQ, low weight, and minimal bulk while not being so small that it is hard to use. This Canon should've fit the bill perfectly— and I would've been willing to pay a significant premium for it if it had. Unfortunately, the engineers in charge of Canon's sensor tech appear to have left for lunch in 2005 and not come back. At some point one assumes Canon will notice. Hopefully. Some day.
In the meantime, instead of spending $1160 (G1Xii & accessories) to avoid hiking with my beastly 5D3 system, I'm going to spend $2K for a Fuji X-T1 and lenses. Not nearly as ideal in terms of size and simplicity but the IQ is competitive with my FF gear at a fraction of the size and weight.
Class A: The X-T1 is said to have better performance than the Pentax K-3 (can easily be seen when turning on the "Compare" mode for the subscores).
Yet, the K-3 manages 720 shots per charge vs the 350 of the Fuji X-T1.
The K-3 also has a higher frame rate (8.9 vs 8.2) and a deeper JPG buffer (68 vs 40).
So the X-T1's AF must be sensational to compensate the above performance disadvantages. Unfortunately, the X-T1 has not been subjected to the AF-C test the K-3 went through. Why not?
Finally, how can you claim that the X-T1's focus accuracy (& metering) is better than that of the Pentax K-3, if you haven't looked at the AF accuracy of the K-3 in a systematic manner at all (this was one of the aspects you dropped)?
BTW, the X-T1's electronic viewfinder may be very good compared to other EVFs, but to rate it better as the optical pentaprism of the K-3??? For sure, in terms of "performance" again, the K-3 will do much better in a pan when burst shooting.
K3 fan by chance?