Like many photographers I come here for reviews, not nostalgia.
Digital Photograph Review, the clue's in the name.
Has anyone read the terms and conditions of CC. Onerous isn't the word.
Examples:"Adobe may modify or discontinue, temporarily or permanently, the Services or Materials, or any portion thereof, with or without notice. You agree that Adobe shall not be liable to you or anyone else if we do so."
"You agree that any claim or dispute you may have against Adobe must be resolved by a court located in Santa Clara County, California, United States of America"
"You agree that Adobe may display advertisements adjacent to Your Content, and you agree that you are not entitled to any compensation."
"You agree to receive updates (and permit Adobe to deliver these to you with or without your knowledge) as part of your use of the Services."
"Adobe may require you to create a unique URL, such as your_name_here.adobe.com. Adobe may permit another User to use the unique URL previously selected by you."
Welcome to the future.....
Might as well stick a phone in it and have done, with Apple's permission of course......
Just think if you used a modern camera with a flip-out screen, you wouldn't have got your feet wet......
I have to agree with most of the comments on here. Yes it's a perfectly capable camera but where's the innovation?
It's expensive and offers nothing that isn't available already from other manufacturers.
ppastoris: To DPReview : a suggestion. Could you guys please post equivalent F-numbers (in terms of DOF and light gathering ability) when you post equivalent focal length numbers? E.g. LX7's 4.7-17.7 F1.4-2.3 is the equivalent of 24-90 F7.2-11.7, not of 24-90 F1.4-2.3; similarly for FZ200 it's either 4.5-108 F2.8 or the equivalent of 25-600 F15.6 in 35mm standard.
Being one of the most influential camera review websites on the Internet you could really help your readers to understand what a lens designed for a smaller than 35mm sensor is actually capable of photographically. Clearly posting the equivalent angle of view (by posting an equivalent focal length) is only half of the story.
"1) I don't know why everything has to be compared to 35mm."
It's for the benefit of us oldies, we need a reference point.......
Decent spec, apart from AF but looks like a toy.
No Raw, no sale for me.
Shame really looks a nice little camera otherwise.
boyd2: Again NO DECENT OPTICAL VIEWFINDER!@$% And this should appeal to DSLR owners? Forget it Canon ...
"Bifocals are irrelevant. They don't change how the camera was designed to be used"
Actually they are not irrelevant, they change the way the camera has to be held and therefore how it is used.
It is very uncomfortable to tip your head back to look at an LCD screen through the "reading" part of your glasses and many people need a viewfinder to use the camera comfortably.
Clearly you don't use Bifocals.
And still Canon can't make a viewfinder that is not partly obscured by the lens at wide angle..........
I was looking forward to this interview but now I'm feeling seasick.
Seriously the iPhone 4S has better video stabilisation than whatever was used for this interview.
Yeah still waiting for the interview.......
Ridiculous price for what is essentially a souped=up GF1.
I'm more interested in the promised interview with Chuck Westfall............
Actually might have been worth buying if it had Raw...
Sounds great until you get to F/5.9 at 120mm........