Gesture: I would consider your review practices. I don't think the reviews need to be so comprehensive or encylopedic.
But that's what sets DPR (and also Imaging Resource) apart from most of the other review sites out there. Isn't that what we value their reviews for?
007peter: This Camera is WHY SONY has ZERO RESPECT among photographers. Sony has a nasty habit of making numerous camera model without improvements...or even inferior to the previous generation. This happen before:Sony A230 is inferior to A200 it replaced. NEX 3N w/250K LCD + no accessory port is inferior to the previous NEX F3 with 920K LCD + accessory port. In the mean while, there is still no NEX-7 replacement in site. Wake Up Sony!
Personally, I prefer the handling and ergonomics of Canon over Nikon. As I said, I think the IQ difference in real world shooting is so small, that other factors are more important to me when choosing a camera. I don't equate a camera with its sensor. A good camera is a camera that I enjoy using, and that produces images that is 'good enough' for me.
Why the large masses buy Canon probably has to do with the fact that it's a brand they recognize, and with a strong legacy. And I don't think the general consumer is aware of the sensors inside their cameras, just as they aren't aware of the components inside their TVs or microwave ovens.
Mirrorless is an option of course, and I do own a m43 camera as well.
But you're comparing a current model that sits at the bottom of the line-up with an older model one step above it. You make it sound like the 1200D is the replacement for the 550D, which it isn't. The current model in that line is the 700D.But sure, purely in terms of IQ, there's not much of a difference between any of the 18 MP Canon's, and in benchmark tests their sensors may not perform as well as some competitors. However, I think the importance of such differences in real world use, and at normal print or display sizes is vastly overrated. For most casual photographers, Canon's sensors give results that are "good enough". The lens you use, and your skill as a photographer, have a much larger importance for the quality of your images, than small differences in sensor performance. IMHO, of course.
SergioMO: Who will sue who ???
The HTC doesn't have one sensor for colour and one for luminance, so it's a different idea.
Imaging Resource has updated their article on the A3500 with some information they got directly from Sony.It will not be released in the US (other regions aren't mentioned), the differences compared to A3000, are a new kit lens without stabilisation, a shorter buffer, and slightly improved battery life. No mention of PDAF on the sensor.
Because the 1200D is better than the model it replaces, the 1100D.As for the OP's complaint about the NEX-7, Sony has confirmed that the A6000 replaces both NEX-6 and -7 in the line-up. They obviously want current NEX-7 owners to step up to the A7.
Shamael: I like rebates and correct priced material, but, with all rebates and Sony's new policy, we can take the Sony cameras we have and just put them in the recycle bin right away, becoming valueless. Sony's policy on prices and rebates is a punch in the face of those who buy there cameras. After just one or 2 years, they sell half the price they where at the beginning. A NEX3N with lens sells now for 299$. For me it is a invitation to buy my material elsewhere. Sell the cameras at there real value when they come out, not a double price at issue and real value a year later. A6000 pricing seems ok, but let's wait until we get it for 400$ to talk about this issue once more.
A product doesn't have a 'real' price in itself. The real price is determined by the market. That's why the price is adjusted when the product has been on the market for a while. The companies look at sales data to see if they got the price right, or if it needs to be lowered to boost sales. They are probably afraid of losing their profit margins by setting a lower price already at launch.
Thom Hogan has written that the camera makers in practice (and unintentionally) are conditioning us consumers to buy cameras at the end of their product life cycles.
peevee1: Wait, wasn't A3000+18-55/3.5-5.6 going for like $279? How low are they aiming this thing?
Yes, there's certainly a market for cheap entry-level system cameras. The mystery here is why Sony releases a new model that really isn't a new model, and why they seemingly only release it in Australia. They could easily have bundled the new lens in a kit with the A3000.
TN Args: This has to be a first: every lens option with the identical body gets a new model number on the *body*???
Why? Has Sony announced a new corporate goal to have the most camera body model numbers?
And the 700D actually had some cosmetic changes on the outside. The A3500 doesn't even have that, except for the new model number.This reminds me more of Samsung's launch of the NX1100. It was basically the same camera as NX1000, only it came bundled with Lightroom, and it was only released in North America (at least initially). Samsung never officially announced it; the press releases were sent out by B&H.
Shield3: Not bad for a FF equivalent of 30mm F/3.4.
My post was addressed to Shield3, in case it wasn't clear.
Nobody said that the lens isn't equivalent to F/3.4 in terms of DoF and total light gathering (and therefore noise performance). It certainly is.What they've pointed out, and you agreed with, is that in terms of exposure (image brightness, illumination per unit area), F/1.7 always is F/1.7 (leaving the complication of light transmission aside).Don't you ever think in terms of exposure, when taking photos? Do you only think in terms of achieving the same DoF and image quality as you would have got with a completely different system?
Jogger: "Exceptional optical performance is assured with certification granted from the world-renowned LEICA."
At least they are finally PRing their lenses are they should be.. ie. not selling them as real Leica lenses. I wonder if this has anything to do with Leica's own upcoming mirrorless system.. which will use real Leica lenses.
The lenses have always been branded as Panasonic Leica lenses, not just Leica, and Panasonic have stated on their website that the lenses are made using methods and equipment approved by Leica. Those who have thought that the lenses are designed and/or made by Leica, have simply not read the fine print.
Peiasdf: Not super expensive but 20 f/1.7 is likely a way better deal. If this is f/1.4 or f/1.2 then that's different.
How come m4/3 isn't making fast and super-fast normal wide? The smaller sensor size should make it easier than Fuji.
@rfsIIIShallow DoF is not about trying to hide what's in the background, it's about subject isolation, which is one of the methods by which you can direct the viewer's eye to a specific part of the composition. It's a basic artistic principle, really.
KonstantinosK: Many photos at 12800 ISO, and, is it me, or are they look very good and detailed?
It seems to me that the electronics companies (Samsung, Sony, Panasonic) generally has poorer JPEG engines than the more traditional photography companies (Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Fujifilm). There's no reason why it should be that way, so I wonder why? It's not like they don't have the resources.
rxbot: @beaver NX30 is APS-C sensor this is not the new one inch sensor Samsung camera, The NX300 had good IQ also and the lenses have good rep also. I think they have priced it very high from what I have heard.
You don't just pay for the quantity of materials, but also for the quality of the materials, assembly, quality control and R&D. The higher cost of the Nikon *could* mean that it has better build quality, optical quality, or that it has a more complex optical design.I don't know if any of those things is the case here, but those are some of the reasons why a smaller lens could be more expensive than a larger one.
Jay Ellbee: Sorry, but this camera, it's lenses, and the smartphone lenses look uncannily like the ill - fated gear that resurrected Polaroid announced to great yawns a few years ago. The difference, if memory serves, is that the Polaroid's image sensors were in the lenses, and the camera body of bland, rounded plastic was so similar in design to one of Nikon' s offerings that Nikon successfully sued to have the Polaroid camera pulled from the market last year. I suspect that the actual Chinese maker for new Kodak gear might be Sakar, the current owner of the Polaroid brand. Sakar also produces cameras for diminished Vivitar (as well as really trashy kiddie cameras for Disney, Hello Kitty, etc..) GE cameras gracing Walmart and other discounters also look to share DNA with Sakar 's Polaroid digitals, indicating Sakar is the actual maker for GE and the new Kodak. More digging and sifting should bring the truth to light eventually.
The maker of the JK Imaging cameras is Asia Optical, a Taiwanese company.
Sakar, like JK Imaging, is an American company (not Chinese) that sells products under licensed brand names, but they probably don't manufacture anything. They outsource to Asian companies, possibly the same one that JK Imaging uses. I don't think the two companies are connected, other than that they have a similar business model, and possibly have their products manufactured by the same company.
snegron2: If Kodak were to focus on marketing its camera sensors by comparing them to its pro film products, it will succeed again.
Kodak cameras have always been regarded as amateur products, but their film, paper and chemicals were always regarded as the industry standard of working pros. Kodak should take advantage of this pedigree history.
Advice to Kodak; focus on image recording more so than on image capturing devices.
Kodak doesn't make sensors anymore; they sold off that division. And they aren't involved in this venture in any way, except for selling JK Imaging a licence to market products under the Kodak brand.
JEROME NOLAS: I personally doubt it will not come even close to Olympus and Panasonic. It's a quick bang for "Kodak" and I will bet future test will prove I am right.
True, but since you can use Olympus, Panasonic and Sigma lenses, the camera itself could still be worth the money, if it's good.
We shouldn't assume that the lenses are bad, though. I think many, if not most, compact camera lenses are made by companies like Asia Optical, and some compact cameras have quite good lenses. The fact that Olympus XZ-2, Pentax MX-1 and Casio EX-10 all seem to have the same lens, could very well be because they buy it from the same vendor! Same goes for Olympus Stylus 1 and Casio EX-100, and countless other compacts that have seemingly identical lenses.
We don't know who makes the sensor they use. If it's Sony or Panasonic, it shouldn't be worse than the current generation of m43 cameras.
Prairie Pal: Mighty oaks start as little acorns.The more players in the M4/3 arena the better, and even more so if they carry a trusted household name. The name Kodak has touched far more people with a broader range of photographic talent and knowledge than any other ever has. (this is an assumption based my own experience, so don't go running to google to prove me wrong). Some people will buy this camera because it's a name they trusted in the past, a name that has sentimental value, and because it will be a "cheap small cute camera" an interchangeable lens camera (read "I will feel like a professional"), and a readily accessible camera in department, drug, and electronics stores.Some will not even know they are buying a "M4/3" camera in a sense that WE are aware of M4/3. Then, as soccer parents become more aware of the other lenses and body brands available to them they will embrace and branch out.I believe this addition to M4/3 is proof that the format is strong and gaining momentum.
Both the 'real' Kodak (Eastman Kodak Company) and JK Imaging are members of the group. As the previous poster said, Kodak was a technology partner of Olympus back in the Four Thirds days, and is hardly actively involved in the group today, considering that they no longer make sensors.
JK Imaging joined the group over a year ago, when they first announced the development of the S -1 camera.