Nothing will satisfy a gearhead's thirst until an article talks like an advertisement with plenty of bait.
It seems from the comments that Canon've managed to gather the "mirrorless" crowd in one place. Now there is one more thing left to do...
Once again Canon wakes the brand hating geek squad up...Happy slashings.
Scottelly: Thank you DPreview! I was amazed to see that the V3 has superior resolution to the Nikon D7100 in the corners of the image, especially as the center of the V3 image shows there is not as much resolving power as the D7100. It looks like the V3 lens produces better resolution in the corners than the lens that was used on the D7100, which indicates to me that it is not so much the camera's limitations as the lens limitations. I was very surprised to see how good the images from this little 18 MP camera seem to be. Now I KNOW I want a V3.
This is a forum for different opinions not a gagging exercise. Where do you see me saying "should" like you did. "Scotelly" makes a a bold claim by comparing two cameras. I don't use either of the cameras but it's very easy to see the difference between them using Dpreview's comparison tool. I draw a different conclusion based on resolution which Scotelly bases his/her conclusion.
mpgxsvcd: This is a great camera for someone who doesn't know what a great camera is.
A lot of people on this forum also don't take pictures bu take gear.
If you use your camera on the base ISO you may be forgiven for making above comment(just). But again, even good compact like Nikon P7800 will produce as good pictures for less than half price of the V3 plus 28-200mm f.2-4 lens thrown in. Lastly, if you're going to use the base ISO only any compact around 150-200$ with a huge zoom from major brands will be good enough unless one is a gear junkie.
zoranT: "We at Nikon think that our brand has such a strong standing that we can put out any product at any price and customers will buy it."
How do you explain the title "One step ahead" together with the overall score 76?A: There's no other equivalent product in the market so it's ahead by default, B: The competition is so bad that anything merely average is better, C: We "like=sponsor" the the brand that anything they make we'll make sure perceived as one step ahead even to the extend we contradict ourselves.
TylerQ: Not bad, but O. Winston Link tops these photos.
So you are a mediocre photographer who can't produce nice images like ones above but, instead you make up your own competition with somebody else' photography. You haven't got the grace to say "these are nice photos" or "I like some of them".
pedroboe100: I would still get a K5iiS and a Tamron superzoom lense and it would not cost that much. Don't care about video that much...
@ ET2...high ISO ability of K5 would more than make up for the loss of lens speed with better overall IQ. Also on Tamron the loss of speed is 1/2 stop at the wide end and though I don't know for a fact but, my guess is that around 200mm it would be 1,5-2 stops loss. How did you arrive at 4 stops loss? Even f6.3 on 300mm(450mm APS-c equivalent) is not 4 stops from f2.8.
it's amazing that some people even present this huge price cut for a new model as "smart move". It sounds like coming from a Sony executive trying divert attention from the fact how much the consumer was about to be ripped off. It would have been a dumb thing not to reduce the price against a very strong competition named FZ1000 but, one can hardly call it as smart. Or perhaps most of comments here are written by "brand lovers". Yes, love is a blinding thing but we mustn't fall in love with big, multinational companies.
G1Houston: Just tell you how much SONY has been overpricing its products ...
As long as there are enough gear heads around there is no need to price it cheaper. A dumb poser gear head will buy anything new regardless of it's price therefore making the life more expensive for people who really love photography. And we have to compete with these people? On which platform?
Will we see a sexy unwrapping of D810?
Ramius: Wish they made this for mirrorless full frame FE mount instead. Its annoying how breakthroughs like this lens is made for the camera technology of the past.
@Ramius, I suggest you go out and look at what people are using for taking pictures. It's compacts, mobile phones and DSLR's by a huge majority. Even before the first ever mirrorless camera hit the shelves people on forums likes this have been going on about the death of DSLR's. Mirrorless cameras are smaller yes but there must be a reason why peole are still chosing DSLR's over it. Do you want Tamron make a huge investment to sell few lenses and ultimately lose money?
Oh dear!!! All the underwater photographs were taken on short telephoto setting. Reveal the name of the photographer please. Couldn't have someone from Dpreview at least tell the "photographer" that underwater photography is very much prone to haze if telephoto lens is used? As if someone tried deliberately to make pictures look bad.
ttnewton: Forget the IS for wide angle lenses, if it costs a stop or more. I just don't get that. In handheld low-light scenarios involving moving subjects (wedding, photojournalism) if the moving subjects are blurry, it hardly matters if the still background is nice and sharp. Might be worse, actually. The loss of a stop requires doubling the shutter time, all else equal, so low-light moving-subject situations are going to suffer with this lens.
But what if the subject is not moving? I can definitely see a place for handheld landscape/travel enthusiasts who want the best possible optical performance without having to lug a tripod. But still, why spend big bucks on the finest optics and then compromise your landscapes by leaving the tripod home?
What Canon REALLY needs to get around to is a good competitor to Nikon's amazing 14-24mm f/2.8. Now THAT is a lens I'd buy, IS or not!! :-)
IS is there if you want to/need to use it, you don't have to use it. IS , up to a limit, eliminates camera shake and doesn't freeze moving subjects. This lens is not for freezing fast action in low light with or without IS, it's a more affordable/ lighter alternative to 16-35 f2.8. You would need absolute minimum shutter speeds for different action shots. Alternatively, you might want to try, albeit limited, using flashgun to freeze action where applicable. Could you explain how IS costs a stop or more please. Also you didn't have to write two Canon bashing paragraphs to insert a Nikon ad.
Chronis: Boring boring boring....
I ve spent 000' on canon kit and glass but they ve end up a slow moving incumbent...
Id really like to see their a#@+* kicked by the likes of Sony oly and samsung
Somehow I don't believe you ever bought that glass even if you did you'd never tried it before you bought it. For a fast action shooting pro like yourself it's a very unwise purchase. how did you slip up this time?
Does it come in pink colour, mirrorless, 240fps 4K video, 24-300mm f1.8 kit zoom? If it doesn't I'll buy this one and wait for the next model to come out in three weeks.
oselimg: We would like unpacking of certain brands' cameras which is more exciting and in line with current voyeuristic trends than a hasty publication of a serious camera. As excitement will ware off Dpreview should consider exposing private lives of certain brands' engineers.
@Gazemoon...Obviously you're not aware of the reference made on my comment. I prefer Single Malt Scotch by the way.
We would like unpacking of certain brands' cameras which is more exciting and in line with current voyeuristic trends than a hasty publication of a serious camera. As excitement will ware off Dpreview should consider exposing private lives of certain brands' engineers.