Dareshooter: When it was announced that the M3 was not going to be released in the USA there was howls of derision. Now it has been announced that the M3 is being released in the USA... howls of derision.
Who knows. Anything. Could be as simple as no flash or new product with no real marketing push to launch it to the economic conditions at the time of its release...even the actual timing of release not being ideal to give a new product a proper launch. You see what you don't like and then attribute lack of success to that, which is an exceptionally skewed perspective. It's a crowded market segment and Canon had no reputation there, so why would people even think of them when buying. Egocentric: centered in or arising from a person's own existence or perspective.
You guys really think your priorities are the same as the camera buying population at large, don't you? Small camera, built like a rock, with Canon menus, color, and selection of lenses, and pretty great iq whether the best on the market or not....touchscreen. We've reached a point in technology where video and AF and so may other things are only fought about here and the audience for this camera doesn't need to see charts and graphs and have the latest gimmick.
Mike FL: That's good as it may push SONY to release a7000 even if the M3 has the same IQ and same AF performance as a6000, but without build in EVF.
M3's lens is cheaper than SONYs especially the UWA zoom, but I wish Canon can release a std WA zoom starting with 24mm equivalent.
But if M3 has bad IQ and bad AF performance comparing to a6000, SONY may just wait, and enjoy that a6000 is still more less the #1 bestseller.
The implication was that the data following the statement was support for that statement. Saying something is the top seller then posting a stat from a website where it is the top seller strongly implies the two are directly linked in the mind of the speaker. That was the long and short of my meaning, and credibility does depend on how one supports his/her conclusions.Those well-paid people speaking about Amazon stats are doing so either explicitly or in an environment where that fact is implicit going in. Here posting Amazon stats as support for a universal statement rings of misunderstanding what one is talking about.
I typically interpret declarative sentences as "statements" which is the colloquial term used here in the states for such grammatical constructs (subject, predicate, punctuation with a period). "...SONY may just wait, and enjoy that a6000 is still more less the #1 bestseller."Perhaps my conception of language conveying meaning is fundamentally flawed. Either way, the sentence itself does not match the data used after it. And if the sentence was reworded to say "#1 bestseller on Amazon" it would be equally meaningless as Amazon sales have nothing to do with anything that can have meaning of any real significance assigned to it...unless it is followed by "Amazon is responsible for a huge percentage of all camera sales on planet Earth." You enjoy agreeing with someone stating meaningless statistics in such a way as to imply meaning.
Bob,Saying "camera X is the #1 best seller" and "camera X is the #1 best seller on Amazon" are two very different statements. So, either the implied meaning ("#1 best seller" interpreted to mean in the overall sense) is being based on the false assumption that Amazon represents all camera sales on the planet or the statement itself needs to be worded to reflect its actual intent. Either way, the statement is incorrect and the data used to back it up doesn't support the meaning as written. Oh, and "fact" in the case of Amazon sales statistics is pretty loose anyway since you can split their stats about a million ways and each way supports an entirely different conclusion.
Amazon statistics have nothing to do with the sales of a camera except as it relates to how many Amazon sells. To state that more directly, Amazon stats mean nothing and people who want to sound credible should never quote them. It has the appearance of meaning without any actual meaning.
StevenE: That's nice, but I already resigned myself to wait for the EOS-M4. I probably would have bought the M3 if it had been available here on release, but the specs just make it look old already.
Uh, might have to wait for an M5 to get all that stuff. All those specs would require serious processing and I'm not sure they can solve thermal issues that would arise within such a small body yet. Also, that camera sounds like it would be a couple of grand. Either way, that sounds like a camera I would buy.
Viva Santo Nino: DLSR is dying breed. Mirrorless is here...Well done Canon for joining the future even though you are 4 years late.
LOL....it had to happen eventually. People really think that with the introduction of a new design, a new way of doing things, the old way must then vanish despite being cheap, extremely reliable, and extremely well-established. Wait for ILC sales to be the majority of the market before you start predicting the death of the DSLR. Just for your reference, It's been around 7 years since ILC because a real thing (2004 if you want to get technical, but 2008 when it became an actual market segment). So 7 years and a million such predictions of its dominance haven't panned out thus far.
This along with rumblings of new M lenses indicates the M line might be moved up the market segment ranks to make it a more competitive camera. There hasn't been anything from any maker over the last few years that I've found extremely compelling, but if Canon made an M4 with DP PDAF the huge line of Canon lenses (via adapter) would make it very compelling.
Everyone should be thrilled about this news whether you think Canon survives on its marketing department (plenty of those comments below...very useful, by the way) or you see Canon as an innovator. Making a huge market open to a type of camera body means that corporate hq is going to have to take that market segment more seriously. That means the M4 might include some of Canon's newer technology and the lens lineup will expand (or is about to expand anyway) much more quickly. All that means competition, and that's good for every photographer. I happen to see Canon as an innovator that bolsters its reputation as a reliable camera maker by rolling out extremely reliable technologies, making cameras with excellent usability, and resisting the urge to jump on the gimmick bandwagon for the sake of marketing to the tech junkies. Operating under the delusion that they do nothing to innovate requires willful denial of the important technologies they develop and implement in their systems.
bluevellet: Me thinks we'll get the review one page at a time as featured articles posted at different intervals stretching to all the way to Xmas.
I didn't say not to publish things as they are produced, but organizing them within their primary format of a review makes sense from a practical standpoint just for ease of finding the review material. It wouldn't have any affect on site traffic or how you read the information, it would just be a page with a dropdown to other pages of the review just like a normal review....they're all technically entirely different pages despite having an internal structure that makes finding the next section of the review easy.As for them having more direct contact with the public, if there is a question that is important enough to answer then it should probably be included in the review material. How they go about discussing things in public is entirely up to them, although in publishing (as opposed to just putting words on the internet, which anyone can do for free) there is a relationship between reader and publisher that should be maintained. The internet tends to blur that line.
I think they're trying to incorporate every conceivable measurement and test they can while rolling out information to show that they're working on a lot of things simultaneously. They either can't win because a review takes too long or they can't win because they don't release it all at once. I think they're trying to work out the best way to incorporate the myriad of things they want to do into some sort of strategic information release but maybe haven't quite figured that out yet. There are first impressions and tests and real-world galleries and studio test galleries and they all sort of float around on their own until a "review" puts them all together. Maybe the full review should exist from the start and put everything into that placeholder from the beginning so there's a single page to jump from instead of the camera's product page with all the article links (for the sake of accessibility and cohesion, maybe?).
Donald Klopper: Easily... enough space... lifetime... casual photographer...
The calcs to see whether it's true are interesting though. 16TB is a LOT.
BUT with this kind of space I'll always shoot RAW + Jpeg + bracketing in burst. And lots of video. In 4k. You'll fill up anything that way. Then you need to back it up...
I'll say RAID5 is overkill, but I did mean 1 not 0. Four times the storage for half the price is great if it does what you require, but SSD drives do fail and corrupt. I've only had one drive in decades fail, thus the backup. Enjoy your system of choice, but raw files are nothing to sneeze at.
nerd,To his or her own, as the case may be. Very technology forward of you to back your files up to SSDs, but talk about taking the most expensive route. You could probably octuple back them up on HDDs for the same cost and cut your potential for total loss down to roughly the same odds as the sun exploding in your life time. Going the SSD route is fine and understandable, but personally I find the RAW format much more advantageous, especially when I'm running an internal dual JBOD, and external RAID 0, and then another external drive for offsite storage. At under 1TB it's a breeze and cheap to maintain. I've been shooting digital for roughly the same number of years I'm only at around 700GB, although for timelapses I do process then only keep the JPEGs (IQ not of utmost conern) and for client shoots they usually take the very reasonably priced option of keeping their own RAW files.
Donald,So to avoid wasted bandwidth we should waste hard disk space? And I seriously doubt Google sees more ad time shoved in your face as a wasted revenue stream. Since when is anything about efficiency?nerd,Then why keep anything we haven't looked at in five years? If one can afford the storage (cheap) then keeping RAW files forever isn't any more wasteful than keeping JPEGs. Maybe they take up more room, but the opportunity cost is roughly nil. In other words, will I take fewer pictures or spend tons of money on extra hard drives? Nope. And you never can tell when you'll decided to use an old photo and want it processed to make it suitable for today's application.
draschan: incredible little machine. the LX100 seems like stiff competition also having a larger sensor and much nicer controls. both lack a touchscreen. the face detection worked fast. tough call. the rx is more pocketable. the lx100 lens is amazing, at 12mm I loved it more than the oly 12mm.... tough call or win win situation.
Good thing Amazon is the only place that sells cameras because otherwise figuring out the winners and losers would be way harder.
MustyMarie: And Canon has nothing to really compete with 4khd like this, sad for them.
No, that's not all that's needed for 4K and that demonstrates your understanding of video throughput, compression, buffering, and the process in general. It's just like high frame rate stills shooting; there's a buffer, there are differences depending on compression and file sizes of raw data. Anyway, enjoy your cameras. Canon's motivations are known only by them.
Light,Not offered by Apple it doesn't. I quote:
1080p HD video recording (30 fps or 60 fps)True Tone flashSlo-mo video (120 fps or 240 fps)
You need the CHDK or Magic Lantern. The new iPhone in a few weeks might have 4K...maybe....but hack away at your phone and camera in the mean time.
Note that Apple has a fairly small share of the smartphone market (18.3%) and by far the largest smartphone profits (92% of all profit produced by the entire industry) of any company currently making phones....and they create new technologies, but absolutely do not push the technological envelope until it becomes profitable. E.g. no wireless charging, not the highest res screens, not the largest phones, not the best battery life, barely any NFC to speak of save for their Apple Pay-only implementation, closed ecosystem, conservative camera, etc etc. Apple kills it precisely because they don't invest in what people think they want, they invest in what will work extremely well and make them money. Reputation matters, not having the latest of every spec.Apple made the initial push and then chose to dominate in other ways as the market got crowded, and from what I can tell they keep on winning. Sounds like Canon.
Light,If one person demands bleeding edge technology and 99 don't, it's not about greed or lack of innovation or arrogance or technical inability, it's about surviving in a competitive market place by supplying....the....demand. If you stopped believing the marketplace was a homogenous representation of your own priorities then you'd understand you are in the vast minority and, therefore, you are not the standard by which the market is being judged. I'll go talk to a brick wall now.