I hate to say it, but I'm beginning to think it is worth the MSRP (US$1K).
43% (15 out of 35) of the samples were "edited to taste using Adobe Camera RAW". I would like to see more of what the camera does (unedited), not what post-processing can do.
The only reason I have not jumped onto the a7 bandwagon is the lack of COMPACT lenses. What good is a compact FF camera body without equally compact lenses? I will continue with my RX1 until the whole system becomes COMPACT.
Now we've seen the "impossible" - impossible is Canon.
This is more than mirror-less. It's BODY-LESS cameras. (I don't like the term "lens camera" or "lens-style camera".)
I wished it was true that "intervalometer to record files at user-defined periods". But according to the Japanese press, the periods are selectable from pre-defined choices. And the choices are useless like 15 min, 30 min, etc.. It should be an easy firmware to change to a truly user defined periods. I would buy one if they make that change.
Steve from TO: Enjoyed watching. Just one issue. Not crazy about Zack thinking it is cool to give tips on how to be sneaky and photograph someone on the sly. Surely, as a street photographer he should be encouraging people to ask permission and actually develop a relationship. You will end up with far more intimate photos and a richer traveling experience. We are, after all, guests in their country and should act with respect.
Privacy law differs depending on the country, so it helps to know it before you go. To me, if you ask for permission first then you lose the candidness of the subject - it becomes more like an environmental portrait. I shoot first, then ask for forgiveness later (if not forgiven, then just delete the shot).
f/1.8-2.8 sounds impressive, but when you look at the plot of equivalent f-stop for the entire zoom range, it is almost a constant f/2.8 from 30mm up. Still, tempting.
tmurph: As already mentioned, could you get away with photographing people in that manner today?The answer is yes, in a city like New York or as seen in the film around the Los Angeles/Hollywood area because of it being a tourist attraction. Try doing it in your local town and see what kind of reaction you get. Of course it's all down to the way you approach the subject and it's also a question about confidence but even so, today it's become harder to go about taking pictures without someone causing a fuss and calling the police.
Like you said, depends on where you are. Big city folks are used to "weirdos" so you can get away with it, but not so much in upper middleclass suburbs. I got accosted by security guards taking photos of people in an high-end shopping center in a suburb.
I enjoyed using the first NX camera (NX-10). The IQ for its time was decent, the ergonomics was outstanding, and the user interface (menu system/buttons/controls) was the most user-friendly of all digital cameras I have ever used. Unfortunately, each subsequent models got worse... and now we have NX Galaxy. Samsung is going the wrong way.
This is the PERFECT first digital camera for a photographer who has been in coma for the last 25 years. He will have no problem whatsoever adapting to digital photography.
Wow, he is going to save Sony!
The boss doesn't understand the QX, and he tells his boss "You are not the target user" - I love this guy.
DDWD10: I'm a little concerned about the 1/500s mechanical shutter limit. Using the electronic shutter at higher speeds, would one expect CMOS rolling shutter artifacts or not?
According to the Japanese site http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/news/20131017_619861.html , it says "because of the nature of electronic shutter, rolling distortion can happen depending on the situation".So, it sounds like the same issue as GX7.
So, next time when my picture come out blurry I can say "I was simulating AA filter".
Seriously, doesn't the effectiveness of this AA filter simulator depend on which axis you apply the vibration? Which axis does Pentax vibrate, or is it "random"?
I'd add hand wipes (individually packaged wet ones are nice) to the list - you don't want to touch your camera with BBQ sauce smothered hands.
Reduce the cost of printers? I don't think the cost of printers need to be reduced - the cost of toners should. I bought a color laser printer for less than $99 a while back. When I bought the replacement toner cartridges (4 colors) it cost more than $250. I seriously thought about buying another printer, instead of just toners. Granted, the toners that come with the printer is not "full", but hey, a new printer with "half full" toners for $99 vs. just the toners for $250. You do the math.
How I grew out of my GAS was by learning to "see the big picture." Don't look at individual components like resolution, sharpness, dynamic range, color, etc,; but look at the picture in whole. If the whole is good, then the resolution/etc is secondary.
If you live by drive-by shooting, you will die of drive-by shooting (of different kind).
I think it is too small. I love miniaturization, but only if it becomes pocketable. If it is pocketably small I am willing to trade off ergonomics. Otherwise, it is both unergonomic and unpocketable.
$600 sounds very reasonable.