SHANU: how is canon eos m ? good or not good ?
Goodday Shanu,if you can live with the "slowish" Af (which is not that slow really)it is a great camera!Takes wonderfull pictures.RegardsG
I know it wont happen, yet I'll try once again: An in depth review?
Mirrorless Crusader: DPR why are you giving almost every half-decent camera a gold star now? Literally a large a majority of $600+ cameras now are getting gold stars, it completely dilutes the rating system and makes it look like you are just using it as a marketing ploy to sell cameras at Gear Shop. Can't you come up with a system where only a few cameras at most each year get the top award? Then we would actually know which you really think are best, because right now it looks like you're just trying to satisfy everybody and as a result satisfying nobody.
@mapgraphs: just my thoughts, I will try again, DPR,where's the eos m review? Please, any kind of answer! Thank you.
DanK7: I would have thought that "no eye level viewfinder" would have been listed in the "cons." This must be an oversight on the part of the reviewer, since "no electronic level" is listed.
And I wonder, all these people with their: NO VF and " no this and no that (usually small things) a deal breaker for me", I wonder, do these people actually own ANY camera and most importantly DO they TAKE pictures?
NickL01: I bought an EOS-M at the discounted price about 3 weeks ago.
It's a superb little camera. I read all the comments about autofocus speed, but it's not an issue for me. It might be a tad slower on the spec sheets than other cameras, I know not, but in real world use it's fine. No signs of it having to hunt significantly more often than any other autofocus I've owned (rather too many...). It happily locked on to the Red Arrows screaming over my house at a few hundred feet, which is a reasonable challenge. (I'd updated the firmware by then, but it was OK before)
Not having a viewfinder has always been a deal breaker for me, because of screen visibility. Not an issue. It's entirely usable with unshaded sunlight falling directly on the screen.
I'm amazed at how easy it is to grip and hold steady - with big hands I usually struggle with small cameras.
I envisage my DSLRs staying home more often. I think I may finally have found my ideal walk round camera... Absolutely delighted!
Agree with you totally! It has an amazing IQ, with the slow AF one can learn to live.Just set it on your favorite position and start taking pictures. I just wonder, will there EVER be a review?
Chusito1: Pentax have been making extremely good cameras almost from the start and they, IMHO do not have nothing to envy to Nikon, Canon or else. If you know how to take pictures and know the abilities and limitations of your equipment you can take first order/quality pictures and do not have to complaint about non-issues. This forum like all others appears populated by non-photographers. I know a guy from Indonesia named Rarindra Prakarsa that has been using 3 MP and 6 MP Canon DSLR cameras since their inception and he does a magnificent use of their capabilities and he is not thinking in OLPF, lens selection (He has used old lenses with lens adapters from Pentax and others), noise, AF selection, high ISO performance, FF nor anything else. HE just take PICTURES. I wonder how many people here are real photographers, there is so much bull written here.
Pentax k100D with 135mm f/2.8 Super MC TakumarNikkor 55mm f/1.2 with Pentax mount adapterYashinon 75-230mm F/4.5 with K mount adapter
couldn't agree more! Well said mate!Greetings.
sean000: Interesting story to juxtapose with Kate Bevan's anti-Instagram rant. It's a wonderful photograph. But does the art filter make the photograph better or worse? I like the photo and I like the look and mood the filter creates. I would probably like the photo without the filter effect as well. Any time you use effects like these you run the risk of alienating some viewers who find it gimmicky, but you may also wow some viewers who think it is really cool. Either way the photograph needs to be a good one, and this one definitely is in my opinion.
But as Luke Kaven commented, I would think that most journalistic photo editors would reject this shot because of the filter. New York Times Magazine is of course a features publication, so it can get away with obviously manipulated images. For straight news reporting, the audience might wonder if the contents have been altered as well as the colors. Was that kit really there, or did the photographer add it?
one could still use Photoshop ....
Dr Gal: While the NYT photos have interesting subjects and are very well composed, the technical faults are such that I find myself unable to enjoy watching them. These are shots taken with a lo-fi camera and filtered with a lo-fi app. The colors are unreal (in a bad sense), dynamic range is non existant, and one can find more details in a Kodak disc camera shots. Sorry for being harsh, but some shots are so bad I would be embressed to have my own name on them (and I don't make a living from this stuff).
I can see, you're a real enthusiast
Michael Uschold: With all those million dollar algorithms and super fast processors coming as a freebie, how about something mind-blowingly trivial: a interval timer for timelapse photography? No, instead we have to pay a lot of extra money for a not very small and light bit of kit. What a pain! The argument that few people use that feature is poor - there are many features on every camera and every computer and every piece of sophisticated software that few people use, but they are very important to the ones that do!
End rant. Other wise a happy Canon customer.
Interval timer. One of the reasons why I am still very happy with my D200!
After having been "taking pictures" and schlepping around pro "stuff" for over 30 years (starting off soon with the most fantastic F2+motor and a bag full of lenses and other gear - at one time we had the bag on a scale - it went over 20 kilograms ! - ending with the 5DMKII+ 24-105...) I recently bought - in spite of and not wanting to wait any longer on DP for a proper review - a NX 200+ 20mm pancake!And I am sooo happy!
carpediem007: Still no Ricoh GXR support... :-(
And no DNG either... :-( :-( :-(
neither nowhere Samsung NX etc etc
King YONG: Dear DPreview,
May I humbly ask for the time of a formal NX200 review? Thanks,
I wonder dear Dpreview, do you have issues with Samsung?No review on NX 100, nor NX11, NX 200 ....?
rjx: Please NO 4/3!!!
I wanted an Olympus DSLR so bad but the 4/3 killed it for me.
I know this will never happen, but just imagine if it was full frame. The Olympus colors and glass in a small FF package. OMG.
Can we at least get 1.3x??? Please.
or just buy a Pentax K5
Steven Micallef: I for one am so excited for this camera. I own a GF1 (and GF2 and GH2) and the one thing I've wanted all along was a high-res live viewfinder just like Olympus users had available. It doesn't have to be built-in NEX7 or X100-style in my opinion.
However, I'm surprised that this hasn't been brought up by others. The GX1 looks closer cosmetically to the GF2 than the GF1 (which is no bad thing because that too is a wonderful camera.)
Essentially, the GX1 is a GF2 with a mode dial. I like in the review where they say the flash unit is "very similar to the one found in the GF1." That it may be, but, it is IDENTICAL to the design found on the GF2, same for the placement of the flash release button being further left. And the HDMI outlet on the right. It even has the silly IA button in the same spot. I wish there were some side-by-side comparisons of the GX1 and GF2(perhaps in the full review). Or maybe they won't since so many want to pretend the GF2 never existed. Lol, weird.
@yabokkie: And you were born when? Yesterday?
sam0912: I love my GF-1, but would say it misses weather proofing more than anything. All of the features on the GX1 are very nice, particulary the new sensor and viewfinder. However, I don't think the difference between either would warrant shelling out on a new camera.
For those buying now, it's a no-brainer, - better sensor, faster AF, better VF, touch screen, etc. But for those like me, happy with the photos from the GF1, things could still be better. Notably:
Weather proof Mag Alloy bodyFast zoom lenses (Oly 12-60/50-200 weather proof perfect example)Full frame!
Ultimately, it's always a compromise, m34 will never beat FF for quality, FF may never beat m34 for compact, take anywhere convenience. For us non-pro's, a weather proof, fast AF camera with lots of external controls and fast, weather sealed glass and good IQ, is the holy grail.
For now I'll spend the money on glass instead......
ever looked at a pentax k5 and WP glass
proxy: Those who waited for a camera like this will buy it in a heartbeat and never look back at current offerings from Olympus, Panasonic, Nikon, Fuji, Pentax and more. This camera was long overdue despite, I know, no 24mm 2.0 lens and OLED EVF... no matter how many more trolls appear here it will sell and sell big. One good camera and no more lens bags... need I say more? at a still reasonable price and very good IQ. Dont forget retractable lens coupled with a sensor just 3.5 mm narrower then APS-C - the last one you need to get from Canon to put it to use. I understand the disappointemt of other brands fans. Yes, they didn't think of it, Canon did. Always wanted my G outfitted with a bigger sensor, just that. My wish was granted. Some of the posters will have to wait for their favourite brands to wake up and even if they do it WILL cost you dearly in lenses and bills for chiropractor services.So instead of complaining here about Canon go make them deliver what you always wanted (at $150?)
Couldn't say it better (but than again I am Dutch)Pre ordered mine yesterday, sold my DSLR.
the mono eye: Personal opinion:should have remove the optical view findershould have wider lensshould have brighter lensshould have better battery lifeshould have the option of using filter + lens hood together
All in all is great improvement, but these downsides made me stand still and wait for the mirrorless from Canon instead (if any)
I guess you'll never buy ANY camera, ever!
ezradja: This is the real "poor man" Leica!!! not X100!!! LOL :)
Jealous maybe? You owe a Leica?
mikeyphoto: I've been an enthusiast photographer for about 45 years, using mainly Canon for 25 years, I honestly cant believe the inept, uninformed comments from so many "fellow enthusiasts", I have a 1d mk3, 7d, and g12, each camera excels in its own way, -I am sure I won't be making a comment on this new camera until I actually PICK ONE UP!Frankly it looks great on paper, I dont think Canon are claiming it will solve the worlds problems, so just relax,, enjoy your hobby, no camera is going to make a crap photographer better, look at the photos taken by REAL Photographers with old equipment 30 plus years ago.By the way, 2.8 is fast eneough for 90% of photos, who are you people? Cave dwellers?
Just right mate!!!
likesfilm: My first time here.
As a long -time photographer (decades), it is frustrating to read so often that the weight of a full-size camera is such a frequent disadvantage. I have been fortunate to be able to use cameras of all sizes and weight over the years, both digital and film based. The bulk and weight of the larger cameras has always felt better and more stable in my hands.
Of course there is a valuable place and usage for all sizes of camera, but do the majority of experienced amateurs and pros who read this magazine really believe full-size camera weight is as bad as the reviewers would have you believe?
I don't get it. Is it an age thing?; because I still like viewfinders, too. Is it manufacturer driven, as I might believe? Do the majority of reviewers and writers have enough years behind a lens to really know the advantages of a heavier weight camera. Are we just getting lazy?
Do any of you agree with me? Thank you.
Can't agree more with you "likesfilm !"