wootpile: Ach what a bummer... I had at least hoped for1) Different placement of shutter button2) Better Screen!!!3) Better EVF
IBIS would have been nice but not really expected it. I'm certain IBIS is what Sony will use exclusively to drive sales to FF.
In short though, I had several a6000 bodies during 2015. Might get one again to fool around with while I await the Fuji XT2 because the a6000 really is a nice camera. The only real downside being poor battery time, but that is a constant with most mirrorless.
Too bad Sony didn't at least put a better screen on the a6300
weather sealed? DPR's summary says not,"While the progress in technology is impressive, lack of weather sealing, a touchscreen, or direct AF point selection with a dedicated joystick or control will continue to be problematic for some....' I must admit, whan you mentioned it I looked again as weather sealing is important to me.Is it or isn't it etc. etc.
I suspect there is a market out there for these. Perhaps there's a whole load of people who use them. The other day I saw someone at the supermarket using their machine to order prints. Input off memory card or cd (at least it wasn't a floppy drive) - perhaps he had no internet connection, who knows, because I'm sure you can send them that way, but he seemed faimiliar with the machine.Anyway, I suspect that if these were used as an old-fashioned P&S, pictures printed off at 4"x6", they won't look so bad. At that size the mess caused by diffraction shouldn't really be noticeable, and of course the high MP may act as a sort of 'fine grain' in film terms. But if the cheapest model doesn't have stabilization (can't see it mentioned in the blurb, although the summary implies it does have it) then it could give some pretty dire results at 224mm equiv.
I think it could mean 'don't rush out and buy the Sony a7R II because, well, we just might be putting a version of that sensor in the D5';)
In the intro, in the first sentence: 'featuring the world's 35mm BSI CMOS ' - I think you missed the word 'first' out.
These round-ups are interesting, but a bit more limited than 'they used to be' - but don't ask me when, I can't remember. What the older ones had was some sample photos (not studio tests) including showing how well (or not, as the case may be) the cameras handled fill-in flash - the differences were surprising, I think with the Fuji (but that was back in the X10 days) being really rather good at the fill-in flash. I guess as a place to start looking for a camera (say, which to avoid) this current version is OK, but I do miss the old version (shakes grey beard sadly and wanders off.....)
peterpainter: Looks like there's no built-in flash. LCD panel on the top looks a bit small. Other than that I think I'd like one, but suspect I won't be able to afford it. Hope it's successful.
Naveed - I agree about the small LCD panel leaving more space for dials - good stuff.I understand the view on internal flash for creative work, but I photograph butterflies quite often and find the pop-up flash useful for fill-in to give underwing detail when the sun is too strong. Just convenience, really.The extra user settings look useful......
Looks like there's no built-in flash. LCD panel on the top looks a bit small. Other than that I think I'd like one, but suspect I won't be able to afford it. Hope it's successful.
peterpainter: I went to compare the noise performance and checked on the eyes. Alll four have brown / dark eyes. I thought there might have been one with different colour...actually, was looking to see how it handled the colour of 'blue' eyes. Ah well.
That's true. It wouldn't have helped at all. I must have had an off-day yesterday, I'm afraid.
I went to compare the noise performance and checked on the eyes. Alll four have brown / dark eyes. I thought there might have been one with different colour...actually, was looking to see how it handled the colour of 'blue' eyes. Ah well.
owenleve: The most important part/weakest link is the quick mount. Hardly shown. Need to see more about this setup to be able to decide if it is something that would accidentally come undone while out shooting. Event/wedding photographers are always bumping their cameras on something. Another camera, table, etc.. This system made me immediately think of my camera dropping to the floor...
More info on this please.
It makes me think of banging the camera on a door-frame whilst walking through the doorway. I have an old Pentax lens that bears the scars from doing that. A definite no, no no.....
He he - he he, he hesnigger"Delaware-based company CAMS is raising money to create a range of mounting plates for DSLR users to carry their gear from a mount on the bottom,"ROFLgreat stuff, nice jeans.Oh dear....must get my pills...he heha ha ha......etc.
B1ackhat: That is a completely ridiculous defense to copyright infringement. If I set my camera up on a tripod remotely controlled by my phone and one of my dogs licks the screen thereby triggering the shutter, the photo then becomes the property of no one. That's ludicrous.
So the lesson is: don't tell anybody what happened or you'll lose the copyright. The dog is probably a good chap and won't tell, but do reward him / her with some nice biscuits or perhaps an extra large and meaty bone.
Just out of interest, has DPR been given 'permission' to use the images, have they / well, you, really, been asked to take them down (mm, not sure that's right)?????????
It's really unfair on the monkey too. He / she probably will never see the pics he / she took - possibly that's Wiki's reasoning so that if the monkey logs on somewhere he / she can claim the copyright?Incidentally, wasn't there a camera that could be set on a table somewhere on it's tripod and is was able to take photos at random times and in random directions?
It's really rather sad. Whatever the laws of copyright, and I suspect they don't really cover the situation, I would have hoped that Wiki would've considered the individual's point of view and desisted. Note to self, try to avoid Wiki anything, but that's pretty difficult on the internet - it's all-pervasive, too much power, even down to articles that seem to me to be rewriting history....
Cheng Bao: The interesting part is this camera's brand name.
Ricoh has dropped pentax brand on its fixed-lense digicam line, updates of old pentax wg line all bear ricoh name now.
Now this one use pentax brand again.
The clue as to why the Pentax name is used is here:"This lightweight, compact camera has an easy-to-carry body with a design resembling PENTAX SLR cameras..."I wonder if it comes with a free K3 sticker.
peevee1: Compared to Pentax X-5, XG-1 lost battery life (including the ability to use AA batteries), tilting screen and a few pixels off X-5's already awful EVF, but got much longer and a tiny bit brighter lens. I don't know why they even bothered, they could have just replaced the lens.
posted in error
peterpainter: Why this one? Are you going to test the other pocketable 30X(or whatever) zooms? Recent magazine (Chasseur d'Image) has Canon SX700HS, Nikon S9700, Panasonic TZ60 and Sony DSC-HX60V. Gives the nod to the Canon as (least bad) but as usual there are pros and cons so a comparison is worth reading as ones' priorities may be different. Also, someone else mentioned a Casio......Incidentally, for us unbelievers, the review did mention that the stabilisation made these extreme zooms usable in good light (speeds of 1/30th with non-shaky hands!)
Actually, I probably won't buy either - but if I did it would be the Panny because it has an EVF and being long-sighted I have to use glasses for screens. It's tempting - the reality is that I don't need top notch stuff as most of my pictures are either used as a basis (or bits taken from them) for paintings or put on the internet.
He he, couldn't resist it. Here's a Google translation:
"In the end, even if it does not immediately obvious in our notes, Canon is the least worst of the four "big zoom" tested this month that."
- almost as bad as my French:)
Like I said it didn't do too bad. As a reader of said magazine you will note the words under the Canon review:'Au final, meme si ca ne saute pas aux yeux dans nos notes, le Canon est le moins pire des quatre "big zooms" testes ce mois-ce.'No accents - not sure how DPR handles them. If you need a translation....