I think it is a mistake leaving the Panasonic GH3 off of this list. It is just as, if not more, capable as any camera on this list.
jaygeephoto: Well let's take a guess: The most popular 35mm SLR among professional photographers at that time was the Nikon F, FTN (Photomic - through the lens metering, using a Cds cell). They were quite expensive; over $300 abut $2,000 in today's money. Nikon had quite the assortment back then of telephoto lenses such as the 300 f 4.5. If you were just starting out maybe you had a Nikorex, Minolta SR7, Canonflex R2000 or even the Asahi Pentax Spotmatic ( but those didn't give you much street cred).Photojournalists were also shooting with Leica M-3's and the occasional Rollie twin lens might show up as well. Flash was, as it is now, for the most part forbidden so you had to hope for good stage lighting, have a fast lens and start out with an ASA 400 film such as Tri-X. Many photographers would rate their Tri-X at 800 or 1,600 and "push process" their film in ID-11, Microfine or some witch's brew they would concoct themselves.
Very nice work. Boy, how I wish I had had my camera with me when I went to see Jimi Hendrix perform at the Singer Bowl in Flushing Meadow Park in N.Y. The newspaper at which I worked as a copyboy was able to get me second-row seats! However, like you I used a phony press pass to get into Studio 54 iin the late '70s and took some pictures of Michael Jackson and Woody Allen, among others.
what_i_saw: I am not happy with the size of this thing. I might as well go and buy a Smallish DSLR instead of this one.
Video is very high on my list. And I shoot with a variety of lenses. Look at the comparison photos. The camera is a little bulkier, but not really much bigger. Would you have preferred they built another plasticy body the same size of the GH2, or a more robust and metal-bodied camera the size of a GH3?
I have a GH2 and it feels so fragile with its plastic body that I feel I have to baby it. The hand grip is also on the wimpy side, made for people with small hands. I welcome the GH3 and its better ergonomics.
Yes, and your "smallish" DSLR will have "largeish" lenses.
To me, features and still and video quality will make me overlook a small increase in body size.
LiSkynden: "support for Windows XP has been dropped" thats that for me then. Stupid Adobe, i bet there are still million people who use XP. My wife works at school and all the school's computers have XP ... what does that tell you Adobe?
... i wonder if it still installs tho. :/
Windows XP is the second most widely used operating system in the world. There are still millions of users out there who don't find it necessary or want to upgrade to Windows 7. That was very short-sighted of Adobe to not support XP.
Menneisyys: A ZS3 user here - it's still in my pocket when walking the twon, albeit I use the Nikon P300 most of the time and only grab the ZS3 when I need some extra reach. Haven't upgraded to the ZS7 (too little an upgrade) or the ZS10 (awful sensor). Would upgrade to the ZS20 IF...
Pana will, it seems, again shoot themselves in the leg, as they did with the ZS10. If the ZS20 contains the abysmal sensor of the FZ100, then, there will simply be no point in upgrading from the ZS3. The ZS15 isn't a good alternative either with its mono (!) mike and 16x only zoom lens (only 4x more than the ZS3).
I, too, am a ZS3 user and I carry it with me everywhere. I never updated to the newer versions because of all the complaints I read about their"new" sensors. The ZS3 takes good photos, even at ISO 400, and the video quality is pretty good, too.
Unless the ZS20 can show actual improvement in IQ and focusing speed (I have no interest in GPS), I'll stay with old faithful.