Maybe Canon is announcing a medium-format camera.
MarioV: Nice selection of tripods. If you dont need as much capacity, then also look at the MeFOTO BackPacker.
The MeFOTO RoadTrip is certainly a competitor here. I'm trying to decide whether I really need the CF version......
Nice selection of tripods. If you dont need as much capacity, then also look at the MeFOTO BackPacker.
Very clever. Well done.
mosc: I'd so much rather have 16-150 than 16-300 if the image quality were even slightly improved. Where is all this demand for the long end coming from? APS-C DSLR's can't focus at f6 in anything but direct sunlight and anything you have to be that far away from is most likely moving. I never understood the market for slow tele.
It's APS-C, it should be cheaper than FF to get some decent aperture telephoto lenses. Why are all real telephoto lenses FF? Show me something past 150 that's faster than f5.6 for APS-C and not FF? Pentax, champion of APS-C makes 60-250 f4 which is incredibly expensive ($1400) and 250 f4 isn't that impressive. Minolta had a FF 210 f4 more than 20 years ago and it never cost that much nor does it weigh 2.2 lbs!
Funny. I've seen some beginners with modest equipment take better photos than some "seasoned" photographers with allegedly superior equipment. Rather than judge a person or equipment, lets judge the photo instead.
Very reasonably priced. If this has optics as good as my Sigma 18-250 macro, then it will become my new travel lens.
Retzius: For those who are confused as to why this lens is relevant, compared to the Nikon equivalent it is smaller, lighter, and much cheaper, with equal to better optical performance.
It is not targeted at your average Dpreview brick wall shooter who examines his sensor for dust particles. It is targeted at a first time Dslr shooter with an intro level body who doesn't want to change lenses that often.
And they sell alot of these
Stylus 1 doesn't have the sharpest lens either and its 2 stop advantage isn't enough. RX100 is nice but small reach. The V1 comes close, but still falls short and that lens is not manual.There are better options but cost and size come into play.
Not bad, but I recommend the Sigma 18-250 macro.http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53077688 see samples.Also waiting for the Tamron 16-300.. and perhaps a Sigma version.
mpgxsvcd: F3.2-6.9 lens is all I needed to see. NEXT!
People, please stop being misleading.Just because f/6.9 may be the equivalent exposure to f/41 on a full frame sensor doesnt mean that its a flawed system in the compact.
Looks like a great camera.But why no 1080p60 video? Is canon still having issues with Digic 6 and 1080p60 video battery life?
@jpgthere's no evidence that you would even know what to do with f/whatever lol.
antares103: It's not 2.8 throughout? Failboat.
It's not 1.8 throughout? Failevenlargervessel.duhI hope you were joking.. but going by a lot of the negative comments, I somehow dont think you were.A 300mm 2.8 prime alone is almost a foot long and over 2kg and costs thousands.
Yoggie: "Shut up and take my money!" This will be great for flexibility when walking around or traveling to take acceptable pictures. I will switch to quality primes when I want to take great shots.
Totally agree. There's nothing more to be said.
eddie_cam: You can see a few P600 samples here:http://www.nikon-image.com/products/camera/compact/coolpix/performance/p600/sample.htm
Thanks Eddie.Good to see the lens is still nice and sharp. Sensor seems slightly improved over P510..marginally. If you want a basic long-zoom camera with good image quality, this will serve you well.
Just annoying that Nikon couldnt be bothered including RAW, hot/cold shoe for flash/mic, Expeed 4 for 1080p60 video, which are all considered minimum these days.
Just an incremental improvement.
mpgxsvcd: They could take a dump in a box and write 20+ megapixels and 60x zoom on it and some people would buy it.
Some people just were not meant to be photographers.
And still produce better photos with it than some..
mpgxsvcd: 1440mm is not useful within our atmosphere. My telescope is only 800mm.
Nonsense. A good quality acromat is capable of at least 30x magnification per inch of aperture. Apochromats even more so. So a telescope with 2inch objective can easily perform at 60x.
60x zoom is not the same as magnification. Its less magnification.
JJLMD: There's NOTHING on the market that is comparable because this camera offers 2 attributes that don't travel together in ANY competing product:
1. The constant f2.8 zoom allows me to snap quality pics of my kid's indoor performances (ie, ballet recitals). Previously bought the Tamron 70-200 f2.8 for my wife's Nikon D3200 and she made me return it- too big, too heavy, and she doesn't like changing lenses. I've considered a Sony 70-200 f2.8 for my SLT-a99 but also find it too big, too heavy...and it's $2k!
2. DSLR IQ from sensor + processor. I recently bought the Sony RX100m2 and its IQ surpasses that of my wife's Nikon D3200 + 18-200 f3.5-5.6 (!), especially in low light. The BSI architecture allows 40% more light gathering ability than the sensor size would predict meaning it'll perform on a par with the best MFT sensors.
This UNPRECEDENTED combo makes it the perfect camera for the enthusiast soccer mom (and dad). I ordered mine.
I do agree with the conclusion, however - its a great combo. I'm looking forward to seeing low light samples and some video before I consider buying it.
Wait a sec, he said the RX100m2 and its IQ surpasses the 3200 + 18-200. The RX100* doesnt have the reach for what you point out either.
You've given your wife the wrong lens for low light. Put a proper lens on the D3200 such as a 17-50 2.8.