Gerrit J: WHY?I own a Renault Espace and love it. Do I ever go to the website of Volkswagen or Ford to complain about their cars? Never! Why should I?I own an EOS 650D (started with the A1 in 1978, that was innovation!!!). I am considering to replace this 650D, because I am not satisfied about the touch AF functionality. Part of the fun of buying a new camera is reading about it. So, I regularly visit the DPREVIEW website to gather interesting/helpful information. I also read the articles about the EOS 750D/760D and what do I see? Complaints, complaints, complaints. What garbage Canon is producing. Whether its is wise of Canon to bring an EOS 750D and an EOS 760D to the market at the same time etc. etc.Who cares? For me Canon is allowed to also bring a 770D/780D/790D to the market at the same time. If I like the 760D (or whatever), I will buy it.Anyway, If you hate Canon, buy a Nikon or Pentax or whatever, but WHY all this complaining (or is that for some people part of the fun?).
It's because people have been taught through life experience to do it. Now it becomes second nature. Critiquing is what people have been trained to do - subconsciously or otherwise. Comparing A with B, and then giving a positive or negative commentary is the name of the game. Objectivity be hanged.
wherearemyshorts: Vignetting is kept pretty well under control, at 1.6 stops wide open, which is perfectly respectable for a fast prime.
So when is a 1.8 lens a fast prime?
"For the vast majority of photographic history a f2.8 50mm is "fast" and a f2 50mm prime is "very fast""
I think the recent technological lens and camera developments has made this sort definition a little outdated as the idea of "fast" as in a fast prime lens has now dropped, where the term "fast" is more aptly applied to lenses of F2 or greater aperture on primes. F2.8 just doesn't seem to be that "fast" anymore for a prime. Anything with a max aperture greater than F1.2, now goes in to the "super fast" category for primes. Of course, for zooms, F2.8 or better is still "fast".
Yes, I investigated the possibility of using a telescope but to get the optical power required, I would need a telescope of such proportions and dimensions as to be unfeasible from a portability perspective. It would have been far to big and heavy for me to carry around.
swankFoto: Aperture not included, seriously?What value does this review have without Lightroom's biggest competitor? Aperture wasn't even mentioned in the intro.
Great article, good effort in getting a comparison across 3 popular PP products. Despite some of the criticism that alternative products X, Y and Z etc, were not included, the review gave a good detailed overview about each product's capabilities especially in comparison to the others being reviewed.
Yes, it would have been nice to have some kind of comparison tool that listed and compared features between all these PP products available on the market today. However, we talking software products, not cameras which have the hard stats nicely listed out for a side by side comparison. We want to know about the quality of these products, not so much their metrics or hard stats.
The review dealt mainly with a lot of visual concepts, nebulous renderings and subjective outputs, so all in all only a very few products could be compared against one another at the same time. How would an article of this scope and magnitude comparing all similar software PP products been possible?
I just can't see the intrinsic value in any camera's form, that is, I can't see the beauty in any camera's shape. I value a camera for it's function. Cameras just don't seem to look sexy, the lines, the proportions and form are just wrong. That said, some cameras look better than others. For example, the Fuji X100 'looks' much nicer than any DSLR, but I could never describe it as an object of beauty. Personally, I view the camera as just a tool. Nothing more.
"Finally, at present Jessops is not in a position to honour customer vouchers or to accept returned goods." That last statement has guaranteed that there will not be any further significant sales generated by the company. Would you buy from a store that would not take any returned items regardless of reason for the return?
How can any one vote for a best of X in category (cameras in this case), when there is never any definition of what "Best" actually is. There is no camera that is better than any other camera in each and every respect. If one takes a single characteristic to judge by, then one camera may shine above the rest, for example, the D800/E for its MPx count being unrivalled in that format (it seems medium or large format cameras never made it anywhere for consideration). Another example would be the Sony RX-100, which would win the biggest sensor in the smallest body award, and so on.
As no camera enjoys a superiority in most if not all aspects and characteristics, how can one judge what "best" means and apply it to any given camera. If the competition had been more tightly defined, for example, "The most useable camera of 2012", then everyone would have a useful criteria to use, although even the term 'most useable' is not a tight definition in itself and is open to wide interpretation.
What is meant by and how is "Best Camera of 2012" defined? Best is so imprecise and can be used to mean or measure a multitude facets and characteristics, that it is meaningless to ask such a question.
It would be really great if Pentax and Olympus both produced a nice Full Frame camera as an alternative to the standard Canikon fare. A little competition would be good for the consumer, giving more choice and balancing price levels out much more equitably. Come on Pentax, come on Olympus - you can do, you both have the smarts and pedigree to do it, so do it!
choochoo22: I'm confused.
Not so long ago we had compact cameras with CD autofocus and DSLRs with PD. The compacts all used live view. But live view only works without a mirror or the mirror up, and PD only worked with the mirror down. So $100 compact had full time live view while a $6000 DSLR could not, but it focused faster and more accurately. Accurate summary from a few years ago?
Then Sony comes out with the SLT design using a fixed, translucent mirror to allow live view and PD to work at the same time. Now you could have both, at the cost of losing some of the light.
More recently, the Nikon 1 (followed by a lengthening list of others) demonstrates that PD points can be incorporated on the main sensor to provide full time live view with fast, accurate focusing, and no mirror or light loss. So, SLT obsolete. I thought so. I expected next generation NEX and "A" to incorporate this. But they didn't.
Now the A99 uses PD on sensor but STILL HAS SLT MIRROR. Huh! What did I miss?
"By winedarksea (2 hours ago) choochoo, you are missing the fact that the pdaf DOESN'T work very well, yet. Perhaps eventually it will, and perhaps then the slt will become obsolete. But not for years."
Pardon me, but this is misleading if not totally falacious. PDAF in this day an age works just as well as CD. There may just a very few instances in situations where shooting parameters are at an extreme where CD may have an edge over PDAF, but in the majority of shooting situations, PDAF will trounce CD 99 times out of 100 (or there abouts). Agreed, this is speculative as I don't have any figures to back this up. I just have experience of using cameras with either system and coming to this conclusion based on that experience.
I see a lot of folks are a complain'in about the $2,800 price tag. Well, compared to the A900, which was over $4,000 when it came out (if memory serves me right) but the price dropped by quite a bit. After a short period, say 6 months, I am convinced that you'll be able to pick the A99 up for around $1,800 to $2,000 (granted it won't be from high street outlets).
Well I enjoyed your article, even if it did wander around a bit and completely flumoxed me near the end with that abrupt insertion of book/film comment or two. No matter. What sort of responses were you looking for? An even handed critique, a laudable commendation or a disparaging denigration? I can provide any one of them on request, just say which one you'd like and I'll see what I can conjure up.
“The truth is never simple and rarely pure.”
Lots of innovative and high tech products. Worthy of serious consideration if you have to carry a lot of heavy kit, camera and substantial lens around for any length of time. I liked the steady shot thing in particular, very cool and seems extremely useful.
You should also consider other camera marques such as Pentax, Panasonic, Olympus, Sony, etc. You may find that one of these other brands will deliver what you want for a much lower cost.
Ultimately comes down to how much budget you have and what types of photography you are planning to do. In essence, any DSLR can do the basics and all are about the same in terms of quality, features, image quality, etc, for a given price range and marketing segment. Yes, some brands may be a little better in one area over other brands, which in turn may have advantages in other areas. At the end of the day, it may just come down to what camera will give you the current best bang for the buck and who is doing the best deal on the high street.
It also comes down to what future plans you have for photography, that is, which area or areas are you going to get in to, nature, landscape, sports, action, architecture, formal portraiture, informal portraiture (street photography), etc. Whatever camera you get now, will use a proprietry lens mount system and as you add lenses with time, it becomes increasingly costly to change to another camera brand and their lenses.