Ron A 19: This is the perfect lens for image generation. Still, even if I could afford it, I don't see myself walking around town with a massive 50 hanging off the camera. But the makro planar 50 compares quite well at f/2, so, if anything, makes that lens more desireable
the makro planar is downright superb! the sharpest 50 I've ever had the pleasure to use.
Paul Petersen: This is really getting old with the bullies at Nikon picking on Sigma.It has most likely been going on for a while. The last round was a lawsuit over supposed patent infringement of image stabilization technologies. Not much ever came of it but it matched up well with the introduction of the SD1 with superior resolution to anything out there at the time. The D800 was the first to beat it.Now Sigma has been on a tear with their "Global Vision" product line. All pretty much outperforming most lenses at greater prices. Now a new Nikon body makes all Nikon lenses malfunction. Very suspicious. Gotta love the agility of Sigma to get a fix out. It seems rather prescient of Sigma to introduce the USB adapter for their new lenses. They must have saw this coming after past skirmishes and figured Nikon would engage in these games next.Checkmate to Yamaki-san
Fuji has too given out the information needed to demosaic x-trans. All of the commercial raw processors have working implementations. But hey, lets just keep throwing out disinformation.
MarkByland: No Pentax mount? Lame.
Except the 18-135 is not superb optically. This would be very useful on APS-C.
Why the long face?
vapentaxuser: The starting price should stay the same as last year. I have no problem with Canon continuing on using a 1/1.7" sensor but the Sony RX line should be putting downward price pressure on cameras like the G16 and the P7800 as they represent the low end of the enthusiast compact market now. The G15 started at $500 but settled to $450 and has sold at that price for most of its lifespan. And that's the pricepoint I think the G16 should be sold at as well.
I remember when the Olympus XZ-2 came out last year, Olympus had the nerve to charge $600 for that camera to start out and I don't think that camera has sold very well as a result.
This looks like a very solid camera, but Canon needs to be a little more realistic with the MSRP.
So buy a G15 now or pay the extra to be on the cutting edge. Early adopters always get the worst prices. Me, I wait till cameras are in the bargain bins or even buy used DSLRs (two of them so far) when they get insanely cheap. The k-5 I bought for 900 a year ago? Now worth $500 at best and not much more for a new copy. I'm really more than ok being a year or two behind the curve, but yeah if you need the latest and greatest and have to have it now, then better be prepared to spend a premium and companies are fully aware of this and let prices settle on their own. The pentax Q was originally $700 when it came out.
Is it just me, or are these real world samples lacking in fine detail? Look at the trees against the water shot (nice blown highlights in the foreground too). All the leaves look like watercolors with very little detail. I'm not talking about sharpness either.
millardmt: Why do Americans -- and, yes, I am one -- so doggedly insist that a "proper" camera be shaped like an SLR? I read about the cheap, plastic, hollow SONY a3000 (for example) and I almost feel pity for the major camera manufacturers. The evidence of their marketing research must be inescapable. (The irony is that Yoshihisa Maitan, the original designer of the Olympus OM-1 and the PEN, was an innovator who followed his own instincts; now, decades later, Olympus slavishly follows his precedent with nary a step out of line.)
It frustrates me that American shoppers are so unsophisticated that they can be enthralled by form alone, without regard to function. (I will exempt those of us who follow DPR inasmuch as, ipso facto, we are concerned with substance.) Just as it shames me that I can see the evidence of American ignorance in a much broader context every time I pick up a newspaper.
Looks aside, I really, really want this camera, but there's no way I can afford it! It is quality!
Maybe people prefer SLRs. Some people even prefer view cameras. The SLR has become the dominant form for decades because it has no equal. EVFs are getting close, but still cannot match a DSLR in terms of response, resolution, and low light usage. Composing at night is so much easier through a bright pentaprism IMO. So I guess I'm just an unsophisticated american who prefers an optical path to the lens. BTW, JAPANESE companies design these cameras. Clearly the SLR has demand in Asia too...
that all said this is a nicely designed camera. choice is a good thing.
G Davidson: Just looking at the extreme amount of comments is telling. It seems there is a strong interest in m4/3, even if the time when just the right model to really take off is still to come.
One thing holding them back is the lack of pro use to aspire to. To my mind, with all the latest models offer, all they need are some very bright (f0.95-1.2), autofocusing affordable primes and there will be no need for using a larger format.
25/0.95 in m4/3...cheap....riiiiiiight
funny thing is...its still 25, so less dof than 50, plus m4/3...so you'd still not get the equivalent of 50 f/2.
Les Wilk: So is the future four thirds lenses or micro four thirds lenses, I am not sure if this feature to accept four thirds lens is designed for backward compatibility or for future compatibility ?
I wish Sony would bring out an RX-1 with interchangeable lens and we would all be reading that forum and not this one !
Its true development has stopped on 4/3 lenses, but I think 4/3 lens owners would argue that they still have no equals out there in m4/3 land. Seeing as how the mount is abandoned, now would be the best time to buy them up since it seems olympus will at least support them on newer m4/3 bodies with pdaf. I know a few people that still use 4/3 glass on m43 cameras because they prefer the 4/3 glass. A bunch of people were really hoping for an e-7 because they have thousands invested in 4/3 glass and were promised repeatedly that they have a future. I wonder how they feel....
photohounds: People who flaccidly try to equate amount of materials used in a lens to its price, are the same "thinkers" who think a Ferrrari should cost the same as an-150 truck.After all the F-150 has MORE materials in it - so it is "better", right?
FACT is, the smaller you make something excellent, the MORE it costs (almost universally).
The f 0.95 DOF tirade is also getting stale (well it was a year ago).I shot a theatre production this week, no DOF "issues" as imagined by pixel-peeping Bricks 'n' bazookas fans - none at all ...
To judge pictures instead of uninformed opinion:
At the link, select "performing arts", and "footloose", basically unprocessed except for density and a little NR ands I turn the camera NR off (better when there is smoke in the image).
Or here ...http://photohounds.smugmug.com/Performing-arts/Footloose-Supa
Don't take this the wrong way, as these are all adequate, capable shots with nothing really wrong technically, but these pictures are all frankly uninteresting to me because nearly everything is in focus. I think a tighter shallow DOF would have made them more interesting IMO. Pictures need a sense of depth. I shoot aps-c and while for landscapes and scenes the extra dof is nice, but for portraits and people I'm always wanting less and less. I also prefer "bricks and bazookas" for other reasons too....
falconeyes: 0.01 lux is -8 EV.
I heavily doubt it was this dark, as it would correspond be about a moonless starry night. But the fireflies then would illuminate the scenery (or their direct surrounding at least) as main light source and I didn't notice the effect in the video.
Anyway, while dark, -8 EV corresponds to (F/1.4, 1/24s) ISO 1,200,000. I saw extreme noise at 640px web resolution. Scaling web resolution to full 24 MP resolution, the would be the screen pixel noise (24MP) at ISO 14,000. I'd say a normal full frame 24MP dSLR doesn't have this much pixel noise at ISO 14,000.
Therefore, I conclude that the demo shown by Canon is technically lame, more of a marketing gig than anything else.
Its hard to say from one video what this is truly capable of I think. Capturing the stars impressed me personally, but I've never had a D4 or something of that caliber to try insane high isos on, so it may be possible to do this with normal full frame already. (disclaimer: I am by no means a canon fan)
tecnoworld: In less than 10 years, from nikon D1s to D4, cameras gained almost 2 stops for high iso performance, not to mention the increased DR and color depth. I think the same trend will hold in the next 10 years, more or less, so there will be consumer cameras able to shoot noise free up to 12800 or even more and with acceptable noise for small/medium prints up to 102400 which is incredible for todays standards.
jdc562: Way too much noise for my use. What was gained here?
Its shooting in pitch blackness and you complain about noise. Wow.
smafdy: I recently purchased a couple of Pentax bodies (k-5 and k-30), for the sole benefit of the high ISO performance/price point they offer. That said, even with a top notch sensor it can't hurt to have a dedicated flash.
Prior to purchasing a dedicated flash, I did a little research.
Pentax P-TTL implementation apparently sucks when compared to Nikon and Oly (the two other brands I shoot). It seems that P-TTL is virtually worthless the moment you tilt the flash head to bounce the flash. As a result, I shoot only with studio strobes or available light.
I wonder if these units address the problem, or if it is a problem with the implementation within the body, not the flash unit.
Hope someone tests these units, soon.
Link to typical problem:
Its only useless if you can't learn to adjust EV compensation. You know you can do that with pentax cameras right? You can also just fire them in auto and use the autothyristor, but even then you usually have to adjust aperture/iso to compensate. Those are decent (if somewhat aging) flashes. I wouldn't hate on them too much. WR is something people have asked for since day 1.
What's up with the lens in your sample? It looks decentered or misaligned if you ask me. The upper right in most shots is very telling. Not impressed.
Frank_BR: Canon makes many good lenses, but certainly the G16 lens is not among them. The sample pictures show clearly that the G16 lens is soft wide open in the corners. Take, for example, the picture IMG_0520, with the lens at F/2.0. The center is sharp, but the foliage in the upper left corner is very fuzzy because of astigmatism and coma. Similarly, the lettering in the sign farthest from the center is considerably more blurred than other sign.
The corners are visibly worse than the center even at F/2.8, as can be seen by observing the details of the houses in IMG_0281.
As an experiment, I reduced with PS the resolution of IMG_0520 to 2000 x 1500 (3 MP), but, surprisingly, the corner softness was still evident. If the G16 lens would be marginally suitable for a 3 MP sensor, imagine how limited it is for use with the actual 12 MP sensor.
No, howardroark, I think we are seeiing a decentered lens. In all the shots I looked at the right was softer than the left, especially in the upper right. The upper half is softer than the lower half too. If that is the best performance that lens offers, then I wouldn't bother with this camera at all.
They rate lenses which outresolve my sensor as having a sharpness of only 10MP. They rate the sigma 18-35 f1.8 as having like 14mp or something. I've seen test pictures from that lens. It is not resolving as much detail as primes. The 50 1.4 and 1.8 scores low. What a joke. I think dxomark secretly hates pentax and loves sigma.
mcshan: Looks like a good one IF Panasonic has done something about their notorious not of this planet colors. Of the major camera brands Panasonic renders the worst colors. At least that is how I see it.
Even raw has unnatural colors in their profiles. I liked my good old fz-28 and fz-35s for a lot of reasons, but the Panasonic color was always awful and I can almost pick out a panasonic camera's picture just by the color rendition. Judging from the m4/3 entries over the years they seem to like using the same bad color profile on all of their cameras.
What's up with these BSI sensors they are using on these compacts? The MX-1 and Q7 both look great at base ISO and 100% and these all look like water colors. Same goes for their X-5, which is probably the lowest IQ I've seen from a superzoom in some time. I realize these are just OEM cameras that are rebranded, but still. You'd think they could put out sensors that at least give good results at base ISO.
canon person: Nicer images than those from my 5D3.
you need glasses