A bit too expensive, no? I mean, the X10 for the same price has much better lens (the size of the glass does matter): I'm sure the X10 lens is sharper and has much better resolution. Plus, the X10 has a very nice viewfinder. But other than that, this is a real cute camera, and the manual lens mechanism is a killer feature, because it is unlikely to break like those motorized ones do. Still, it's a bit too expensive, especially considering that the colors of this Fuji sensor are not that great (they are OK, but could be better).
CarvingPhoto: The Nikon V1 may have a smaller sensor but can shoot 10/30/60 fps. Plus a pro nikon 200mm f2 with the 2.7x crop factor becomes a 540mm f2, way cheaper than buying a 500mm lens. It's so far the only mirror less to do this. I might just give up my nex-5n for a v1. Every camera's got their ups & down.
check this out:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H22Jwb-6tas
How much longer this nonsense is going to drag on? The 200mm doesn't become 540mm. 200mm is the optical characteristic of the lens. The optics don't change just because you put the lens on this or that camera. The small sensor of V1 will capture only a small area of the image projected by the lens and then it will be blown up DIGITALLY on your computer if you compare it to the same image captured by a full-frame sensor. Gosh!
imadesigner: I've been doing something similar http://www.tomrobinsonphotography.com/feet-first/
Wow! I agree, much better than the five guys. Brilliant.
Where's focus peaking???
Jimmy jang Boo: Please, let me be the first to whine... It doesn't shoot raw! This is terrible! What a travesty! What was Panasonic thinking? If only someone would make the perfect camera...
I agree with royshoonit too. Digital compact cameras that were made 10 years ago produced better quality pictures, were made of much higher quality materials, and were much more reliable. I have a Canon G2 and Olympus Camedia that I bought about 10 years ago. They still work great and the picture quality is amazing (4 megapixels is more than enough). Low light performance is so-so, but who cares? Photography is about light, not darkness. I'm not buying digital cameras anymore. In fact, I've partially returned to shooting film.
Looks nice. 75mm is kind of stupid though. I'd first consider a 50mm, and if I needed to go higher, I'd go for 85mm or 100mm. 75mm doesn't make a lot of sense to me (neither fish, nor flesh...).
j2ker: I hate HDR images that look like they came from another dimension...kinda ruins the art of photography. It is possible to make HDR images that look realistic...What do you all think?
I hate that crazy HDR too. It was kind of interesting for a while, but enough is enough. Every time I see a personal gallery with this stuff, I think of poor taste.
Kodachrome200: i dont understand the apeal of a pancake lens for a full size slr. i cant see this as being noticeable more portable than a 50mm1.8 attachted to any camera body
I agree with Kodachrome200. Canon should make good quality 50mm f/1.8 and f/1.4 already. The current f/1.8 is crap and the f/1.4 has a well-known mechanical design flaw. Nikon's 50mm lenses are perfect and very affordable, all of them. This 40mm doesn't make any sense to me.
rubicon: I think thats a neat idea! I'd like to see a firmware update to my D200, I just enjoy using it and not ready to move up to a more expensive camera, and also to my D700, those are my two most used cameras. I had a friend who shot a 7D and I thought it was a great camera, and now its better without having to spend a "ton" of money to upgrade, nice going Canon.
D200 has a CCD sensor, which is much-much better than the current CMOS sensors in every respect except the stupid high ISO, which I personally don't need. I own many cameras, old and new, and as far as picture quality goes, the D200 is my favorite one. My other cameras are Canon 600D, Sony Nex-5N, Panasonic LX5. The D200 and D80 are my favorite cameras and will be for as long as I can imagine. I also shoot film. Modern CMOS cameras are crap.
wroclaw: what we see is, it is going to be difficult to get an up to date image image quality with this small sensor. being a seasoned olympus fanboy, i am disappointed with the IQ. the images lack sharpness/resolving power. maybe it was poor photographer skills, camera shake, etc.
but then again, what is the point in showing such technically bad images to the public which is obsessed with IQ, like dpreview.
overall, i am afraid this cam aims for young ladies with small handbags as a buyer.
I absolutely agree that the sample pictures are plain bad. Downsampling has nothing to do with it. The pictures look very bland and very flat. The colors are also flat. The are not off, but in reality colors don't look that boring. I don't like it a single bit.
arndsan: oh dear, after years of development it got the same flimsy CF card cover : (
Which makes the D700 user think: "I hope they've at least changed the rubber grip glue".
(unknown member): Well, the fun's all over, and everybody can go back to taking pictures. Oh wait....D400 is still out there somewhere.
+1 and +1 to both your posts. I'm so glad I’ve finally conquered this horrible affliction. Life's so much easier and fun now and I take much more pictures too :)