Joseph Black: Nice camera, or promising at least (despite the fact that it suffers from having menus, controls, and ergonomics deigned by Sony, and I know that is entirely subjective so ignore if you disagree), but at what point does image stabilization become the next megapixel war or whatever other spec. war one can think of? I'm sure there are plenty of circumstances where amazing IS is useful, but if you can shoot handheld at 1 second you'd better have a statue in your sights if you want a blur free image. It's another full frame camera and that's great for competition, but I don't see anything to get all in a tizzy about.Buy a tripod ladies and gents. Seriously, it's one of the most necessary tools one can own. And if you want some serious IS right now on your camera get a monopod, too.
No point at all. It's just a matter of diminishing returns, not an issue of no returns or a return threshold. It's like having a robotic vacuum: neat trick and handy, but you still need a real vacuum sometimes. Same with masturbation....most of this stuff ends up effectively being techno-bation anyway.
108: Geez, those A7 Sony bodies must be the ugliest cameras on the planet... even the soviet 1941 tank T34 looked better .
Maybe it's my affection for old film bodies that make me say this, but I think ugly cameras look more like real cameras, which makes them even more attractive. Some slick, curved, LED lit, brightly colored BS looks like a child's toy and is usually used by people who think of it as a toy.
Yeah, understood. Congratulations? And? I didn't say it was useless, but the slower your shutter speeds get the less and less useful it becomes. And if you're experimenting with motion blur then how would you miss most of those shots? Yeah, you might miss some, but if you want motion blurred images then you're either tracking a moving subject to blur the background, holding still to keep the background sharp, and you're probably going to know which one is happening before you go out to do it. So, all I'm saying is if you're going to blur a waterfall you'll probably bring your tripod along just in case you want something longer than 1/8th of a second handheld, but if you're just out messing around then enjoy your new howevermanystop IS system.
Rockaw: Good job,Sony. By the time Canikon gets their heads out of the sand, most of the market may have completely moved to Sony, Panasonic, and Olympus.
pixel,"Mirrorless" is not the same paradigm shift as digital. ILC (my way to avoid the "m" word) is not going to allow one to avoid developing and scanning film, and it's not going to make huge changes in workflow of any kind. ILC don't allow for the same incredible AF systems available on DSLRs, although they are making progress in that direction. And still, with a DSLR you get an optical viewfinder in concert with the best AF you can buy. Imagine what would happen if you used that PDAF with DP PDAF to create AF adjustment profiles for each lens to increase the pixel-level accuracy of those AF systems instead of just using DP PDAF. Maybe one day DP PDAF will be fast enough to completely replace conventional PDAF, but we're not there yet.....and EVFs suck.
Black Box: How long will they all think we never visited school? There CANNOT be more than 3 axis. What is shown on the illiterate diagram are directions, not axes!
Indeed! Also, Mr. Physics, an "instant in time" is a point in time that has no duration and, therefore, has no movement. A particle may always have vectors describing its motion and external forces at any given point, but if you integrate the velocity of a particle at a given moment in time you get position only.
I can see the kid at Best Buy now blurting out some useless nonsense that is completely out of context like "yeah, this new IS will let you shoot an image at about 1 second and as long as you're not too shaky you can still produce a sharp image....so if you normally get good shots at 1/16th of a second now you can shoot handheld at 1 second!" Or "If you're shooting 100mm handheld at 1/125th to avoid motion blur now you can use 1/8th!" It's amazing what happens to a subject in the space of four (or 4.5) stops of shutter speed.
No, not always an option. But some people also think that IS will always make an image blur free despite the fact they've never shot a clean image at that shutter speed (if they don't own a tripod then they've probably never seen an image taken at 1 second that was sharp). Then the can suddenly take a picture with no hand shake at 1/2 a second and that works great if there is zero wind hitting a tree (almost never) or everyone in their shot is catatonic (almost never). So they can reproduce the experience of a tripod to a certain extent for the first time and they suddenly realize "oh, there is never going to be a time when a handheld 1/2 a second shot is going to be of any use to me."In other words, people who know that those slow shutter speeds will be useful to them either have seen enough or experienced enough to know that, but if someone doesn't even have a tripod then there are probably going to be some serious issues as the shutter speeds get longer and longer.
Again, when you apply engineering to a problem you get solutions that don't use terminology in the same way it is used in mathematics or even physics because those terms are devised to describe position and motion and not function of a human created device. If I have a robotic arm that has one joint that can rotate and pivot, then it is a two-axis arm. Put it on a rail that translates and it's a three-axis arm. Add another joint that can pivot and rotate and you now have a five-axis arm. Put that whole assembly on another rail that translates perpendicular to the other rail and you have a six-axis arm. Put a few more joints and some more rails and a vertical lift and then put the whole thing on a rotating table and you could have a 29-axis arm. Now, it would be really dumb to do all that, but in engineering terminology it all makes perfect sense. Nothing to do with a particle's dof. When you go from one field to the next terms simply aren't used in the same way. Deal with it.
Nice camera, or promising at least (despite the fact that it suffers from having menus, controls, and ergonomics deigned by Sony, and I know that is entirely subjective so ignore if you disagree), but at what point does image stabilization become the next megapixel war or whatever other spec. war one can think of? I'm sure there are plenty of circumstances where amazing IS is useful, but if you can shoot handheld at 1 second you'd better have a statue in your sights if you want a blur free image. It's another full frame camera and that's great for competition, but I don't see anything to get all in a tizzy about.Buy a tripod ladies and gents. Seriously, it's one of the most necessary tools one can own. And if you want some serious IS right now on your camera get a monopod, too.
I know, I'm so technical. Oh, and an axis is defined in mathematical terms as the intersection of two planes...ANY two planes. So infinite axes and infinite degree of freedom for engineers to work with. This is why CNC machines are referred to by their axes (e.g. six-axis CNC) because every way the mill can move around is another way to increase the complexity of the geometry it can create.
lacikuss: Incredible how engineering and miniaturization has been advanced by Sony:
Sony A7II Full Frame weight: 556gr
NIkon D750 Full Frame weight 750gr +35% more weight in same sensor
Olympus OM-D EM1 M4/3 frame 497gr -11% less weight half sensor sizeI believe the Sony 7 line is comparable in size with the 35mm SLR Cameras...
this is great because it just proves that it can be made.
What does the weight of a camera have to do with miniaturization? Zero. Size and weight is more a function of materials, ergonomics, and structural design of the chassis and body than the miniaturized components inside. You may be able to cram more inside because components are smaller, but you could still end up heavier or lighter based on the material chosen for the internal structure.
Actually there can be an infinite number of axes. Just because the Cartesian coordinate only requires three to fix a point in space (ignoring time) doesn't mean those three axes are the only ones that will ever exist. In the case of engineering speak the term axis refers to any axis of rotation that moves independent of another axis of rotation....or along an axis instead of about an axis. So, a degree of freedom can be the rotation around the X-axis and another one can be in line with the X-axis. So one axis creates a degree of rotational freedom and a degree of translational freedom for a total of two axes.
damian5000: Reviewers have shot 370+ images on a charge. Other reviewers were able to shoot 70 min 1080p60 on a single charge. The rest of the negatives are mostly nitpicks in comparison to the positives. The exposure comp dial is hard to turn? Come on... Be serious.
When the G1 X was released, everyone complained about the video record button being poorly placed and the shutter release being too soft. Personally it took me about a week to get used to the controls of the camera because every camera is different. People will either get used to or the won't.....or they'll refuse to acknowledge one of the greatest human traits is the ability to adapt and they'll find something that requires the least adaptation possible no matter what they have to give up in order to get it while using a little cognitive dissonance in the place of any real reasons.
I can get roughly 2,000 shots using my G1 X, LCD switched off, AF set on manual, and paired with a timer remote. Handy for time lapse photography. The CIPA standard might imply that if one camera can beat it, so can another, but in actual usage if someone gets 500 images on a charge and that fills their threshold and goal, then that makes the CIPA standard and how others may perform a waste of a statistic.And I'd imagine that those of us shooting RAW are well away of the speed and don't care because we don't need anything faster. Play up this feature or that feature of another camera, but what it comes down to is the individual usage case.If you're going to blow $700 on a camera, then buy a second battery and when you put your camera away at some point during the day go ahead and switch the battery. Who is taking this thing to the football game in the hopes of getting high frame rater captures of the action? Only people who don't know how to read, that's who.
prossi: How about DPreview focus on some of the cameras people want to see reviewed like the GM5, a5100, EPL7, d750? Why would anyone want to get this thing when the rx100III is out there? I don't know what's up with Canon but I gave up on it since 2010.
My local Best Buys, independent camera stores, etc. don't lean heavily in the Canon direction. Nikon 1's are pushed on the end-caps, and there are plenty of Sony's, Oly, and Pany, etc.It doesn't matter what brand the uninformed purchase because that does not imply those who do their research are somehow equivalent in their ease of manipulation by advertising or branding or whatever. The same argument can be made for any brand that is the market leader because it's very convenient to take the huge chunk of people who don't know any better and hold them up as the typical consumer of that brand. By the same token, just because someone is a market leader doesn't mean they are the best around: Android doesn't do anything for me but the phones running it are numerous and mostly free of charge.Think whatever you will. Show me one camera brand that doesn't make a few models that have had issues and I'll show you a magical land called Fantasia where dragons and unicorns frolic together.
A trip to Best Buy would very quickly disabuse you of that absurd notion.
Jennyhappy2: Kind of funny no one has really mentioned or dare post the link for this review in the Canon forum LOL. Guess because DPReview indicated the G7X is:
The Final Word
The PowerShot G7 X has stirred up a lot of excitement in the camera world, with Canon opening up the category that has been dominated by Sony. Canon went with the excellent Sony 20MP BSI-CMOS sensor and added a longer (yet still fast) lens that is great for portraiture. Sadly, where the G7 X falls apart is performance, usability, and battery life, as discussed above.
While the G7 X earns a silver award for its ambitious lens and image quality, Canon has a lot of work to do in the performance department in order to earn our top reward. "
There is always the GX7 II, though Canon seems to be on a continued pattern here that started with the G1X II.
And now for the part you will choose to call a personal attack despite it's obvious truth: you are one of the egregious abusers of these forums, or any forum, I have ever seen. Whether you are a man or a woman you have chosen a female user name that sounds sweet and silly to garner sympathy when you claim to have been attacked (which is always although your innocently worded posts are meant to pester, irritate....or maybe they are innocently and genuinely a result of someone who simply lacks consideration for others and has an extreme inferiority complex requiring constant validation, not to mention a painful case of confirmation bias). You are the very definition of a forum troll; that's not an opinion, that is an objective, empirical observation that can be confirmed with a very small amount of research.
One can discuss a review without posting a link, especially when (brace yourself for this) you're discussing the review in the forums that belong to the exact same site. Fortunately there are some people savvy enough about this interwebs google machine to know that the front page has several direct links to the review or one with the intelligence of a kindergartener can get to the review with maybe two or three clicks in a few months when the newness wears off. LOLWe're not all link posting, review quoting, DxO worshipping automatons like those who needlessly spend their time attacking cameras they dislike rather than using cameras they already own. We're also not all constantly posting about every new camera release like it's the first camera we've ever seen in our entire lives while, at the same time, relating those new cameras to previously released cameras in an effort to bash something we've made clear we have no intention of buying and really intensely dislike (see: mirror).
Barn, your expertise on all cameras in "this price range" seems to contradict what actual owners think about this camera. If it wasn't enough then you must be implying that they are either dumb, simply not as smart as you, or have their priorities out of whack. Many people also think an $800 in this day and age should have a touch screen.
camera4me: If you read the Sony RX100 III DP review you do not see the words " excellent image quality" in conclusion section but for Canon G7X you do. For all the Cons that G7X have, it produces great images and skin tones. I do not think image samples in this review does justice to image quality of this camera.
What's to defend? It's a camera. Also, by the same token, what's to attack? It's a camera. It either works for you or it doesn't. This isn't a politician you need to campaign against, it's a camera that you are in no way connected to or obligated to buy.As for $700, I've personally seen someone who has never taken pictures with anything more than a film point and shoot decide to go digital and blow five grand on a full frame body and a couple of lenses. Suddenly my advice for a lesson went from a dumb idea to his saving grace. People don't spend money based on what's best for them, they spend it based on completely arbitrary opinions and ideas and desires without research or thought. Most people listen to whatever the teenager at Best Buy tells them. There are plenty of people who own very expensive gear and are great photographers who still shoot jpeg because they don't know a terabyte hd is almost free now. Or they still buy nonsense people here said ten years ago and still say.