Ah come on, this must be a joke? Pay an eye-watering price for a digital camera that doesn't do colour... but you can have the outside in colour instead?There must be some b*&$/#^s with a sick sense of humour at Leica.
Reactive: 'Smart' watches are silly redundant products sold to silly people, and with a camera to drain the pathetic battery they'd become even more silly. I'll be interested when they have at least 1 month of battery life and can operate entirely independently as a phone without the close proximity of an expensive smartphone... which already does everything the watch can do, but much better.
Before very long, all those crazy expensive Apple watches will be hiding at the back of people's closets, their puny batteries lasting only 2 hours after being crippled by daily charging. Early adopter smartwatch owners are like those cool dudes in the 1970s who bought LED watches (yes LED, not LCD), had to press a button to see the time, and suffered crap battery life. History repeats itself...
'Smart' watches are silly redundant products sold to silly people, and with a camera to drain the pathetic battery they'd become even more silly. I'll be interested when they have at least 1 month of battery life and can operate entirely independently as a phone without the close proximity of an expensive smartphone... which already does everything the watch can do, but much better.
Whatever this 'game changer' is, it won't be changing the game for 99.9% of us on this forum, that's for sure.
miles green: Grrrr, yet another lens that doesn't come in Pentax K-mount....
It's OK, one of those Chinese mount-adapter companies is sure to bring out just the part you need.
I bet over at Leica they're crying their eyes out..."Dammit guys, why didn't we think up such a beautifully impractical product like that? We're losing the race! Come on, let's go and finish that $15,000 ultra-violet-only SLR with the shutter release on the base plate. That'll sell loads."
Having seen how easy and logical it is to setup a wi-fi connection on a Canon EOS 80D, this guy has every right to complain.... although he must have more money than sense if he wants to go all legal about it! Take the camera back to the shop for a refund stating it doesn't work as advertised, then buy a camera that does.
What typical Canon greed. They still don't include a lens hood with many of their lenses, the 3rd-party grip for my Canon cost 1/3 of the Canon official model and is identical. Why can't Canon just stick to what they do best and release a course called "How to Maximise Profits in Photography and Alienate Your Customers"?
If you are in the UK and want to see some leaf cutter ants in action, head to the Butterfly Farm in Stratford-upon-Avon. You can also get some great pictures of exotic butterflies... provided your lens doesn't mist up first!
John _ Finn: Oh dear. Imagine the social disgrace when one is found to have fitted one of these ... adapters (ugh!) ... to one's Leica. One emerges from one's Bentley (Rolls Royces are strictly for the noveau riche) with the red-dot body around one's neck and then ... the gasps around the yacht club as the whisper spreads: "Peregrine can't afford a Leica lens ... he is using an adapter to fit a Canon! Haw, haw, haw". Really, it's enough to make one gag on one's Dom Perignon, it's such a ghastly prospect, darling. What *were* Novoflex thinking?
Exactly. Even at the absurd price, I do not understand how these companies identify such odd niches and still decide it can be profitable.
Whilst playing with the charts I compared an Olympus OM-D EM-5 II in pixel shift mode against a Canon 5DS. The results are very similar, certainly only as far apart as the 40MP v 50MP difference. So pixel shift mode can clearly match expensive sensors... but then what's the point? The Pentax results are extremely impressive as a technical feat, but only in a completely artificial scenario that's irrelevant to nearly every photographic situation - unless all you do is indoor table-top still life work. Pixel shift seems like a very limited gimmick to me.
OK, after reading more snarling comments about the 1300D, I have a confession to make. It's a very difficult personal decision for me, but here goes.... [deep breath, hangs head in shame]... I...I...I... still own a Canon EOS 550D AND I STILL HANG IT ROUND MY NECK IN PUBLIC AND I LET OTHER PEOPLE SEE ME TAKING PICTURES WITH IT!
There! I said it. I own a "prehistoric" camera much like the 1300D, with apparently hopeless resolution (18MP), awful noise problems and appalling dynamic range, and it only does 3.5 fps too! But somehow, I manage to stand tall in public places and let people see me use it. I even put it on a tripod sometimes, despite the crowds of howling onlookers laughing at my ancient and pathetically inadequate kit. The odd thing is, I get some really satisfying photos with it, not sure how.
There, I feel so much better having revealed my dark secret. I hope one day to be rich and stupid enough to upgrade my camera every two years, but sorry, I'm not quite there yet.
I do hope Roger will be able to show us a Canon STM mechanism. If a huge manufacturer moves to a 'new' system like that there must be a good reason, and probably not just cost.
Is this a late April Fools joke? Or are enough Apple users really stupid enough to make this a viable product?
Chris62: In general 80D seems very good camera but...2014' Samsung NX1 is much better....Why the most powerfull photo company as Canon is produces cameras with outdated technologies?Sony in A6300 also uses newer technologies.
In Canon's user shoes I would wait for 90D with 4k and BSI CMOS + copper tracks sensor.This model will be outdadet soon.
I agree. I was very, very, tempted by the 80D. But even though I don't really *need* 4K, it seems crazy that Canon released a camera in 2016 without 4K capability.
AT LAST! After all these years, relief for our eyes! I used to always have to press Ctrl+A in my browser to invert the text to make it readable. If I didn't, after a couple of minutes I'd be left with scan lines burnt into my eyeballs! Now at last there is a sane black text on white option. Thank you DP Review!
It's desperately sad to see such a massive wave of pointless negative reactions from gear-lusting camera snobs who have no interest in this 'low-end' camera. You sound like a bus-load of spoiled high school rich-kid brats humiliating a little kid 10 years their junior.
Canon has to cover all parts of the market, including the bottom. The RRP is set deliberately high so when the discount electrical retailers put "40% off!" stickers on it they're still making a profit. It's not a new idea.
So why don't you brats take your vitriol off this site and go and take multiple award-winning photos with your $5000 cameras and L series lenses?
kewlguy: Canon has no shame, clearly.
I'm not defending a brand. I'm just pointing out that if you put a good lens on this camera, it will create some excellent pictures. My old 550D was considered quite good (at twice the price) a few years ago, but now this near identical model is being criticized at half the price. Only if you choose to print a huge gallery-sized poster (and few beginners will) might the typical purchaser wish they'd paid 5x more for a higher model. This model serves a purpose at a particular position in the market; it seems most people here on this site want to sneer at low-budget buyers.
stevo23: Canon's scraping the barrel. No 5DIV, no D62. Just dregs.
This is a 'beginner' camera at a beginner price. Somebody considering a 5D won't have the 1300D on their list of options, and vice-versa. It's the photographer's eye that counts, not the swanky kit round their neck.
This is a 'beginner' camera at a beginner price. It is a light-proof box with a very fast shutter. Put it in the hands of a pro photographer and he will get a series of much better/saleable shots than you ever could on $5000 worth of 5Ds with L series lens.