Looks like a great camera, but not for those who prefer to leave their (sun)glasses on, since it has only 16mm eye releif. Also no built-in convenience flash. Most of the xxD Canons spec 22mm. Fine unit otherwise.
QuietOC: Why is the Canon SL1 included, but not the Sony A58? They are both current models introduced in 2013. I am sure Sony would rather sell A6000s, but the slightly older A58 has some big advantages like IBIS and better lens selection.
Or Sony A68...
dszc: GPS!NONE of these cameras have GPS. To me, that is curious and bordering on the unacceptable.I suppose there are some who don't care about GPS, and maybe even some who don't want it. But to me, one of the most important features of a "TRAVEL" camera is GPS.How wonderful it is to go exploring and take pictures of interesting and unknown things, and then come back home, offload into Lightroom, and see and know what and where I was photographing.Right now I would go out and buy 3 copies of the Panasonic TZ100 for myself and my traveling relatives, IF it had GPS. But without GPS it is of no use to me. Pity.
I too wish more had GPS. Will never sell my Canon S100. The older 1/2.3" Panny and Sony travel zooms have it, and last year's super zoom Nikons. But no 1" or u4/3 have it. I would rather not leave my smartphone on all day to record coordinates, then transfer the data, etc etc.
Nice round-up. Would have liked to see Canon's G3 X included, but hope to see it in an upcoming enthusiast's Super-Zoom round-up with the new Sony, Nikon & Panasonic SZs. (fwiw: the 'Specifications Compared' link is incorrect on a few pages.)
webber15: Put this down in the desert and you'll never find it again ;-)
Perfect for the Kalahari / safari touring, with Thom H. (hate to admit it - I kinda like the colors)
brownie314: I think too little attention is paid to the ooc jpgs. Yes, I know the more experienced among us take the raw files and push them around. But most camera buyers do not and have to live with the jpgs that come out of the camera. That being said, it would be hard for me to recommend the a6000 to anyone because to me the jpgs are so unsatisfying compared to canon and Nikon. The colors are just uninspiring, skin is awful, wb not great many times. Just my 2c.
@ brownie - I rather agree. Though it's sure to be posted elsewhere, OOC canikon jpegs seem to jump a bit better than sony's. Important to me since post/computer work is, well, "work" to me.
I prefer to shoot jpeg, so getting lighting & composition right at the moment is important. That said, I often tweak w/lightroom before public postings or printing.
davids8560: The message here is essentially what G.A.S. taught me. There are a lot of great cameras which I would seldom use, even if I owned them, simply because they don't fit my lifestyle and/or my needs. I now have a lot of top-rated but mostly idle gear. I find it very amusing and a little embarrassing too that the tiny Panasonic LF-1 with its 28-200 reach and viewfinder is the camera I use the most. I expect the new ZS100 to replace it, despite its expected shortcomings. It's still going to be the best new option for me, because I need the smallest possible form, significant zoom, a viewfinder, and built-in Wi-Fi, and I want whatever model offers the best IQ within those parameters. I do expect other mfrs to respond to the ZS100, so maybe I will wait a bit before ordering one. I guess for now I have settled on calling myself a snap-shooting zoomer, not a real photographer.
Though I have an ILC or 2, my best images (the few I actually print or post) are often from my fixed-lens super zooming cameras, e.g. FZ200. So I'm at least partially in the 'snap-shooting-zoomer' camp, as I suspect many here also (but may not admit it publicly).
Which is a partial testament that cameras have become so excellent in the last several years that the model one chooses is has little effect on technical image quality. (excepting: professional use, bif, sports, video). So ergonomics & aesthetics are now the deciding factors as opposed to low-light, resolution, etc. And one of the theses of this article.
pkcpga: I think Fuji needs to concentrate on keeping its size down if it wants to stay in the apsc size format. My main camera is a d810 but I enjoy my x100t, but find its large in size compared to the full frame rx1 or even now similar sized to a full frame q. Since I thought the whole point of apsc to full frame was to keep the size down, I owned the x pro 1 for a short period of time. Found it to be easily replaced by the smaller x100 and now for me I'll probably try the x70 for its size. I believe the apsc sensor will become 110 film or pocket cameras in the future so full kits for smaller sensors will probably be for a much smaller market share. Full frame has a major advantage in DOF, IQ, low light and recovery of blown details. For this reason a pro would not use apsc sensor for anything other than enjoyment in a pocket camera or small walk around camera. Also the reason Sony and Leica have moved to more full frame and less apsc sized sensors for anything outside of portable cameras. I enjoy the Fuji cameras but think the need to continue to shrink their size if they want to stay relevant with the new rx1rII and cameras like that coming out. Also the x pro 2 would be of interest to me as a nastalgic camera if it were priced appropriately for an apsc sized sensor, there are too many full frame cameras in that price point or even apsc sized leicas. If Fuji wants more success in the us it needs to offer products that are priced closer to their competition.
@Alex - indeed true, well stated. However since many pro's livelyhoods depend on absolute technical excellence, FF will be with us for the foreseeable future.
Edgar Matias: I have another suggestion for you (Fujifilm) -- make an XT-1 model with a SQUARE sensor that utilizes the whole image circle of your lovely APS-C lenses...
APS-C sensors are 23.6 x 15.6 mm. Going square would up the sensor size to 23.6 x 23.6 mm, which is essentially the same vertical as full-frame (36 x 24 mm). You’d get the same look as FF, using lighter APS-C lenses.
Added bonus... While the vertical is the same as FF, the sensor area is almost 36% smaller -- a huge savings in sensor cost.
Call it the SX-1 and position it as the top model in the X-series range of cameras. You'd have a full-frame camera that’s less expensive to manufacture than every other FF camera, with the additional cachet of a square sensor, AND without having to start over with a whole new range of lenses.
Indeed it's 20x20mm to fit a standard APS-C image circle. But with some correction for vignetting and if one can tolerate some corner distortion, a 23.6x23.6mm sensor could be interesting. It's diagonal is ~28.3mm.
vesa1tahti: Interesting. They have 11-16mm/2,8; 11-20mm/2,8, and now 14-20mm/2. I believe I'm satisfied with my 11-16mm Pro DX II.
Focal range does seem redundant and limited. Though perhaps it's perfectly suited for hand-held natural-light indoor real estate work, and dawn/dusk landscapes.
jl_smith: The very short "open" period means they either have someone picked out for the job already (but are required to advertise) or they expect to get a truck load of applicants.
Unfortunately, having some experience with how the Feds hire through USAJOBS, it'll probably go to someone's friend and they already have a name in mind. I could be wrong, though.
Exact same situation is true for Nat'l Forest Service jobs, so I hear from a current FS employee.
epx141: I will consider a mirrorless when it does not cost 4x the price of the equivalent DSLR and it mounts Nikon F lenses.
@impulses- All true except u4/3 has many more primes than CaNikon's APS-C, DX offerings.
Took my HX90V on a trip in some crowded areas and it was perfect casual camera to have in the pocket, shirt pocket or jacket pocket. Only slight downside to me is the somewhat fiddly viewfinder, which wants to be opened and closed everytime it goes in the pocket and out. And it's not too easy tracking moving objects at 30x (let alone 60x or 80x !) with most motorized zoom cameras. Regarding low light performance the review pretty much says it. All said though, a fine little camera.
G3User: Are these composites? If so, that should be stated right away in the article with the photos. I shouldn't have to poke around to find out that these are fake photos. If they are, what a desperate attempt for a gimmick. I would think that brides would be disappointed that he does these things to their photos.
My guess is the majority are.
Bram de Mooij: Out of curiosity and as a reaction to some reviews I bought this lens, but I returned it the same week I bought it. Some talk here about elitism, but in my opinion you are better off with some of the compact cameras that cost us much as this lens. For instance the Stylus 1. Sharpness was not there and the purple fringing was the worst I have ever seen. Maybe I had a bad copy, but this was really the last APS-C or FF superzoom lens that I tried.
An RX10 or FZ1000 are indeed good alternatives, though they sacrifice some dynamic range and maybe depth-of-field, compared to using an APS-C camera.
ijustloveshooting: ''Sony version will not have image stabilisation'' wtf? then make the price quite cheaper!
I'm guessing the price is the same simply because the Sony A version is but small fraction of their overall sales, with most (~85%?) going to canon/nikon users.
When this lens first was first introduced many of our comments were cautiously enthusiastic. Rightly so. I think the lens designers may have over-stepped practical usefulness here. We all like the 16mm (24mm eq.) end, but they might have stopped the tele-end somewhere between 160mm & 200mm, perhaps for an overall sharper & less distorted result.
Did you & Mike T. from IR borrow the same A7RII ? Something special about Portland ? (in jest)
Great images. Not only do these images require photographic skill, but seeking out and finding the locations, at the best time of day, etc. requires significant knowledge & effort. Well done.
pannyuser: So interesting that this came out today as I dropped my fz200 3 days ago. I had previously been very happy with it I love the versitility - minus the ability to get shallow depth of field blurred backgrounds - as well I would like a slight bump in IQ.
Now I need a replacement. - I do not use my camera for video much at all. I want the versatility and focal length. I loved the 2.8 for that reason. I'd be willing to give up some zoom as a trade of for IQ - should I go for:
FZ300FZ1000orSony RX10or Sony RX10 IIor Olympus Stylus 1
For qualitative reviews on the the FZ1000 visit cameraergonomics.blogspot.com.au. That author loves it.