W5JCK: These drones are little more than a nuisance in residential areas. Plus the whole issue of privacy comes to mind. Way out in the countryside away from other people they are okay I guess, but not in our cities. I suspect that as the numbers of urban drones increases, so will the numbers of BB and pellet guns, at least I hope so. I don't even like photographers walking the streets taking my photo, much less a drone spying on me from above. I'm seeing and hearing a lot of opposition to even PD using these.
As the owner of a backyard swimming pool, I'd have to agree and if I ever see a drone in my area while in sun tan in my leopard skin g-string then I will keep my paint ball gun next to my marguerita.
Now if only someone would make a similar camera with a fixed focal length around 25 mm, allowing for a slightly faster lens, better optics, and possibly even a bit of a smaller body.
pjsalty: Those of us on a budget should get the iClam for our smartphones. It cost about $70 and comes with mounts for a helmet and bike etc. Those of us who ride road bikes like to have our smart phones on us anyway for apps like Strava and, heaven forbid, for making phone calls. The iClam is waterproof too.
Thanks Menneisyys. I must confess that I don't actually own an iClam and given your comments I might seek a "Lifeproof" brand case for my bike instead, although it's quite expensive.
Those of us on a budget should get the iClam for our smartphones. It cost about $70 and comes with mounts for a helmet and bike etc. Those of us who ride road bikes like to have our smart phones on us anyway for apps like Strava and, heaven forbid, for making phone calls. The iClam is waterproof too.
As a mediocre amateur photographer I find that the only way I can make some of my photos interesting is by applying "art filters" such as those on my Olympus. The best program I have found for post processing into paintings, cartoons etc is AKVIS Artwork Pro, which comes with a free 2 week trial.
I have a few mediocre point and shoot cameras that are not water proof, and yet I often reach for my Olympus TG1 even when shooting in dry everyday conditions because the image quality is superior, especially in low light.
Light is dim underwater, so a fast lens is essential there.
Durable waterproof cameras are also great if you have kids because you can let your kids take pictures without worrying about damage, and you can clean their fingerprints off the lens in the sink with soap in water! Also great for the beach because with no external moving parts, you can leave it in the sand.
I like it. It's basically a nex 7 for those of us that prefer the smaller m43 lenses, plus it has ibis and more external controls.
I don't know why dpreview isn't more excited about it. Perhaps they are in a refractory period after spouting with excitement over the latest Fuji. They mention "small tweaks" but I would hardly call the addition of ibis, wifi, NFC, a new sensor, and an evf (which articulates!) "small tweaks"!
makofoto: @pj ... have you looked at the amazing GoPro skiing and mountain biking videos!? Have you not seen their TV ads on a big screen! We use them in TV shows all of the time ... you probably haven't even noticed. :-)
I can't seem to reproduce that quality with skiing, and I found the still photos very disappointing. Maybe it was more of a problem with my filming skills than with the camera, but I actually got better footage of my kids skiing with my iPhone (albeit, I had to hold the iPhone in my hand) than with my GoPro. I was also planning on using my GoPro as an underwater camera, but didn't hold on to it until summer to test that out, but I am very happy with my tg1 underwater shots.
I had a Hero 2 and sold it on EBay because the image quality in low light was so poor for skiing and mountainbiking. . I replaced it with an Olympus TG-1, which has amazing low light quality (f2.0). I plan on cutting holes in the hard case for the lens and buttons, then adapting it to a GoPro shoulder harness for skiing. We 'll see how it goes. The 25 mm lens on my tg1 isn't truly wide angle which could be a challenge.
For full disclosure, I am a Panny GH2 owner and I have a couple m4/3 lenses. I really hope that this unexciting offer from Canon gets more people interested in m4/3.
Most users looking at mirrorless are looking for size and weight savings, and m4/3 offers smaller LENSES compared to Nex and EOS-M (so too does Nikon 1, but with such a small sensor that creating a narrow DOF becomes difficult).
If I was starting fresh into mirrorless, I would definitely go for the Olypus OM-D because in-body image stabilization which means you can use the great m43 primes and have IS from the body. Plus the OM-D has very nice IQ, competitive high ISO performance, and is damn sexy!
For full disclosure, I own a Panny GH2. If I was venturing into a MILC system now I would stick with micro 4/3, but I would definitely buy the Oly OM-D for the in-body image stabilization, gorgeous IQ, and very competitive high iso performance. Plus it's damn sexy.
M4/3 lenses are smaller, and the lens selection has become good over the past six months. This Canon announcement makes me feel good about being in the m4/3 system.
Does it have some form of image stabilization?
Charles Lau: As a long time NIKON fan for more than 30 years, I must say I am deeply disappointed. Nikon reallyndropped the ball on this one. They have the perfect opportunity to lead the mirror less market with an APSC sensor camera to compliment their existing SLR line...and I emphasize compliment, not compete, as Sony did with their NEX line and the E mount. Going to all that trouble to create another sensor format does nothing for the consumer except create more confusion and additional hardware that will be difficult for 3rd party suppliers and lens manufacturers to support. Wouldn't it be great if the new Nikons are APSC, sharing the E mount? ....Just think of all the nice Zeiss glass that may be available. Don't get me wrong, I think both Nikon V models are beautifully designed, but they will be no match against the new Sony NEX5 and NEX7....Sony listened, and gave consumers what they want..I bet the waiting list will be long. Nikon, are you listening?
You're absolutely right. If Nikon made a m4/3 format camera with this fast new AF system and fast frame rates then they would really have my attention.
I am very impressed with the speed....if Nikon had built a camera this fast on the m4/3 format to take advantage of the larger sensor and those nice m4/3 lenses then they would have my attention. I'm sure there is more to come from Nikon employing the fast focus and recording, but the competition might catch up in speed soon.
Photo Pete: Look at this system as a very advanced, high performance compact camera with interchangeable lenses. It is not something that is trying to compete with a DSLR. Use a DSLR if you want shallow depth of field and ultimate low light ability. This is for travelling light, getting useable results in most lighting conditions but most of all... having an operational speed and focus speed that means you will get the shot, not be waiting for the camera to respond.
There is a lot of good stuff going on with this system. Personally I think this has the potential to make a pretty good second camera to a DSLR... something which micro 4/3 and the others don't (they're still too big to be a true compact alternative). If they introduce a version with proper camera controls this should kill the P7100 and G12 stone dead.
This system is NOT appreciably smaller that m4/3, and comparing with kit lenses it will be quite a bit LARGER when Panny starts shipping the new X 14-42 lens.
puffo25: Hi all, I know it is early to ask but if you are a semi-pro photographer and need this kind of Micro Four Thirds system camera, considering to go for bigger sensor and top quality, along with very fast images/second, which brand and model you would consider at first?
1. Olympus Pen- EPL-3?2. Samsung NX10?3. Panasonic GF3?4. Sony Nex-5?5. Nikon V1?
Any suggestion is VERY welcome!
Panny g3, without a doubt. The price is nice, and M4/3 has the best lenses by far, plus the lenses are considerably more compact than those for Sony and Samsung MILCs.
Zvonimir Tosic: Nikon 1 and Pentax Q are not aimed at GWCs who populate there forums. (GWC = Guy With a Camera). GWCs can't get the logic behind these systems for they don't get there are people who are NOT concerned about the sensor size, but want something new and more convenient. And here's new.Nikon explored the unknown part of the sensor landscape. And that is a worthwhile attempt. Similarly, Pentax explored another sensor & form factor option no one did. That is worthwhile too.But I can't dismiss Nikon 1 as a nonsense for it is not, and because both Pentax Q and Nikon 1 are a glimpse into the future. Both systems are not for GWCs but for normal people who enjoy photography. GWCs don't enjoy it, because they are constantly intimidated by specs, which to them are the alpha & omega of their understanding of the aesthetics of the picture. And that understanding of aesthetics is only further mutilated to a mere mechanics of it.
"normal people" would be better off with an Olympus xz1...faster lens, more compact, less expensive.
What is the function of the projector? To project images onto a wall or screen?
Is anyone really going to blow a bunch of cash on accessories for a camera with a 1" sensor? I'll be very interested to hear what the iq is before I leave my m4/3 cameras.
roblarosa: Wow, and the V1 runs $200 more than the G3, what a joke.
I suspect these 1 Nikon cameras will start shipping around the same time that the new Panny 14-42 X pancake lens will be available, which will actually make m4/3 cameras considerably more compact than 1 Nikon and with a sensor that is twice the size.
Also, I'm not one to dwell on megapixel counts, but 10 mp is getting pretty low for cropping
I'm impressed! When I bought my GH2 I had a feeling that m4/3 was going to be a great system...now I am sure that it will. This has put the competition miles behind.
As an amateur moving to GH2, the feature I missed most about my superzoom was the power zoom for video. I know that serious videographers rarely zoom at all, but most of us do, and zooming by ring never seems to go smoothly for me.
I'll definitely be keeping my 20 mm/1.7 for low light.