I'm mystified why the Canon EOS 760D still isn't listed on Amazon UK? Anyone know?
Biological_Viewfinder: It doesn't work for me.
The photographer was able to capture a lot; but it's so unnatural to see such a super-wide angle that it's hard to identify with it. I would rather see 1 side or the other. This one looks like "beautiful confusion".
Agree with OP. The original shots might have been great individually, but this composite just looks far too fake and over-processed. If the shot had appeared here without any introduction, I'd have said it was the work of 3D modelling software followed by heavy-handed Photoshop effects.
tocar: When and if these flashes fail or explode Canon's reputation would be at stake. How come they copied everything including the name? Are they selling these flashes at the same price as Canon's?
I expect they ARE made in the same factory. It would be prohibitively expensive to replicate the tooling to create duplicate parts anywhere else. Let's say Canon gets a product made in China (for example) and orders a production run of 5000 units. The same assembly plant quietly orders enough parts from the suppliers (perhaps also in on the scam) to build 7000 units.
Those extra 2000 built 'after hours' use exactly the same external mouldings to ensure they look correct and fit the intended cameras, but inside use dirt cheap components sourced locally, instead of those specified (and tested) by Canon.
I have only ever bought one non-official product - a BG-E8 grip for my EOS 550D, branded as "Meike" - it did not pretend to be a Canon original. However, it is a perfect replica and has been attached and working properly for years now.
It cost around £40 (currently £25) and had excellent reviews... on Amazon! The Canon original was around £120 at the time (now £109). I would blame Canon for being too greedy with their prices, and also Amazon for providing the world's best marketplace for these oddly too-perfect replica products.
This looks like a very well specified camera, but at that price wouldn't a buyer be tempted with an entry-level SLR, especially as they would get a proper viewfinder? And since its specs are so similar, will DP Review be comparing this camera's images with an SLR + kit lens of the same value?
Roman_93: Well, if these features are all they put out in a year, then it is very thin and maybe comes in handy but nothing really wothwhile. Nearly no one whould have bought the new version with the old payment model.
It turns out that when innovation runs low a cloud pay model is needed to ensure cash flow rises.
Exactly right. They could do no work at all and still get paid, forever, as long as any CC customer wants to open their files in the future. It's like drilling a hole in your car's fuel tank.
Jylppy: I hate the thought that my photos are managed & edited with a software by greedy corporation like Adobe that I do not trust. There are companies that have earned their trust, but Adobe is not one of those.
I will never be OK with Adobe's disgraceful discriminatory policies. In the US, Adobe charges US$600 /year for CC. At today's exchange rates, that's £381 GBP. So what does it cost in the UK? £549 GBP. Clearly Adobe hates British people.
Somebody below said they had to PAY $120 just to *CANCEL* their CC subscription! Can this be true? Perhaps when Adobe has hooked enough people into CashCow (and cancelled all traditional licenses) they'll introduce a "joining fee" too?
So after the usual blast of Adobe hype, do you think Adobe have worked hard enough to justify those endless CC rental charges? Are Adobe still only providing small year-on-year incremental improvements, while charging whole-application prices? I know this is a photography site, but I guess lots of people here use the other Adobe tools, so...
* Does the current Illustrator CC still only give you a pathetic 90 degree arc when you use the so-called Arc tool (toy)? Aren't Adobe remotely embarrassed when they say "...users can now pan and zoom smoothly without delays...", when we are in 2015, not 1995?
* Does the new world-smashing InDesign with 'performance surge' still fail to open almost any document somebody sends you, claiming that 50 plugins are missing?
OrdinarilyInordinate: So... Wireless connection from camera to phone, the Bluetooth from phone to watch... Why would one not just use the phone (or tablet) to activate the remote shutter? Not to mention, said phone and tablet also act as remote displays whereas the watches do not. Seems mostly pointless.
Very concise and absolutely correct.
Confused. Everybody's smartphone already comes with GPS, Bluetooth, and a big screen... and my Motorola Moto G cost a little over half the price of Canon's GPS receiver. Who would actually be silly enough to buy one? It reminds me of car manufacturers a few years ago charging £300+ for a "Bluetooth upgrade" when my hands-free Bluetooth earpiece cost £20.
Oh, not again. Leica, makers of beautifully built cameras and superb lenses decide to design a new camera. Once they have a great spec sorted, they all sit down and decide what major limitation to build-in to make the camera 'quirky' and deter plenty of customers. Surely it should have a choice of perhaps 3 different prime lenses?
I do hope Leica never move into car design - I would hate owning a car without a reverse gear.
I still have an ancient OM-10 film SLR in my loft. It must be about the same size (or larger) than the OM-D E-M5, but even so the body was always impossible to hold on its own. I always had to keep the bottom half of the 'ever-ready' leatherette case attached just to give it some shape, and even then my right hand would get cramp after a while.
Sorry Olympus, these silly marketing games can't hide the fact your products are underspecified and too expensive.
skanter: How does this connect to DSLR, and what resolution for video?
Of course, the. $500 price is absurd.
If it was designed in association with Apple, then no price is too absurd!
Tom Hix: Wow. What a bunch of nabobs of negativism. If ya don't like Adobe products, don't use them and find something else or shoot film and work in the darkroom. Adobe must be doing something right as they are still around for 25 years.
And Microsoft too. But every time I have to help another otherwise intelligent person work through the tangled mess of Microsoft Word, or scream at Adobe Illustrator's 25-years-out-of-date Arc tool, I wonder how long these dinosaurs can survive.
It's so funny seeing anybody try to justify Adobe's CashCow (CC) enforcement model. These people use Adobe's outrageous CS6 pricing as some sort of 'norm' by which other prices should be judged. Only a fool could ever believe Adobe's prices were a fair benchmark.
For CashCow, Adobe now pushes the false urgency and false importance of 'keeping up to date', as if you will somehow miss out if you don't pay month-after-month-forever while the Adobe snail trundles along delivering very little. Clearly a time for great celebration at Adobe then! Even less pressure then ever to innovate, and a positive reason to do as little work as possible. Why fix that bug this month if they can collect another month's worth of CC payments for doing absolutely nothing?
Wikipedia: "The term cash cow is a metaphor for a "dairy cow" used on farms to produce milk, offering a steady stream of income with little maintenance".
With all these positive comments I must give DPP another try! When I bought my 550D, the supplied software looked just like the usual unintuitive and pointless crap that manufacturers give away to 'add value'. But I'm always looking for an entirely free / open source (i.e. dump-Adobe) workflow, so this new DPP looks very promising.
** A non-owner and never will be's perspective **Leica =- Very nice lenses.- Technology always lagging current achievements.- Bought by people with more money than sense/knowledge/ability.- [And nowadays] Probably just a prettied-up version of a Panasonic hiding inside?
A pretty case and a red dot don't make you a better photographer, just a lot poorer. Leica as a brand was past its sell by date many years ago.
" As such we can't comment much on how it handles, but we do know that it will be splash and dust-proof."
That's nice. And one wrong move and that beautiful front element will be ruined! Aren't 'pro' lenses supposed to be able to take a few knocks?
It's nice to see Olympus making more of a case for buying into the OM series, but with people predicting the end of APS-C because FF is becoming cheaper, what real future is there for tiny MFT sensors?
Reactive: Wow, am I glad I still have my old Olympus OM10! I can get a roll of this film and shoot off 36 hopelessly inaccurate shots. And the best bit... when I get it developed, the lab will attach one of those little stickers "Problem: Your camera may not be light proof." to every shot... just like they used to when I used an 80A for artistic effect. :-)
...And I've just thought of a great idea for a crowdfunding campaign: A printer that prints your digital photos onto fake film transparency stock. You then mount the transparencies in a slide, use an old projector, and pretend you still use film! How cool is that? You could Photoshop all your digital shots so they have hideous colour problems, print them using the new printer, and then pretend you took them on some new-fangled film.]