MikeF4Black: So viewfinderless cameras are still marketed over the cheap p&s segment? Amazing.
Yup some people (like me) have no need for a viewfinder, even on an enthusiast camera like the X70.
creepy.sol: this just strikes me as stupid:
"On the bulky side for a Micro Four Thirds camera;"
no, it isn't bulky for a mft camera or, more precisely, camera body. the camera is as big or small as it needs to be. and it is, in fact, an mft camera body. this is a size that mft bodies come in. they come in smaller sizes, too. the whole range represents mft. and why is this a con? for lots of folks it's a nonissue. maybe you should also list as a con that it's unavailable in red.
Maybe the reviewer just thought it was on the bulky side for a Micro Four Thirds camera because it's one of the largest m43 bodies to date? The Sony A7 bodies for example house a much larger sensor yet are smaller than the GX8.
Karroly: What is the advantage of a M4/3 ILC that is as big as an APS-C one ?I know, the M4/3 lens should be smaller than their APS-C equivalents and the DOF and crop factor are bigger...That's all ?
@ozturert Not sure about "very" high performance.
I've tried three copies of the 14mm f2.5 and all had varying degrees of decentering. The Oly 12mm also has similar issues (and Olympus has the gall to charge more for this tiny lens than Canon does for the EF 24/2.8 IS)
The only lens I'm truly impressed with is my 15/1.7
Chev Chelios: Seems a tad big if you ask me (as a GM1 owner), given the sensor size.
Is Panasonic reneging on its promise all those years ago that m43 would deliver "significantly lighter and more compact" camera systems?
So the only way to go is bigger? I see your logic.
Fact remains, the advantages of m43 are not as great as they could be. Some lenses are more expensive than their FF DSLR equivalents, and some camera bodies are no smaller/cheaper than APSC bodies.
Seems a tad big if you ask me (as a GM1 owner), given the sensor size.
VBLondon: Nikon do seem to struggle with the concept that people want EVFs in premium compacts.
They can't even show any pictures of the optional EVF! Has anyone seen one?
But not everyone wants to pay extra for a tiny EVF they'll never use, me included.
So 20+ years after Olympus produced the pocketable XA and Mju/stylus why has no one apart from Sony managed to produce a compact 'full frame' fixed focal length camera? Ricoh, Fuji and Nikon have almost done it, but is a full frame sensor still so much more expensive to produce than an APS-C?
erm, wasn't this "news" reported over a week ago elsewhere on the interweb?
Come on dpr, you can do better!
No wifi in this day and age?! Seriously??
Good grief Canon
BeaverTerror: The first as of yet unreleased products to become available will be the 90 and 16mm lenses, not the teleconverter. Did the writer of this article even look at the map?
I agee, the article is poorly written. First thing I wondered when reading it is, why no mention about the 16mm?
It could have been writte in a slightly more helpful way, by not assuming every reader was completely up to date with previous announcements.
Chev Chelios: So on the 5DSr, Canon's top US marketing man says:
"It has a different kind of low pass filter compared to the standard one in the 5DS...which basically cancels out the blurring effect..."
Ah I see, so Canon, you're telling me that on one of your highest-res dSLRs to date, the 5DS, the image is slightly blurred?
Sounds good, where can I buy one??
@clint...I know what an AA is for!
My comment was about Chuck's particular choice of words when trying to sell us the standard 5DS.
This looks quite good to me. A tad pricey but that's canon for you.
The real tell though is that there are no new lenses to go with it. Canon is basically saying "we want to milk the slr market for as long as we can"
So on the 5DSr, Canon's top US marketing man says:
If Canon had actually given us early adopters (D30/D60/10D/20D users) decent crop lenses to start with then I suspect many eventual FF users might have stuck with aps-c for much longer. But all they have us was one ef-s macro prime and a few slow zooms. 17-55/2.8 was a decent attempt but quite expensive.
Well before the 17-55 came out I bought a 17-40L for my crop canons not because I was looking forward to buying FF. It was because I wanted a well built, solid & decent lens with a wide enough field of view. But it was a poor and expensive choice for a crop camera. Too slow at f4 and 40mm wasn't very long.
And don't get me started on the lack of a 50mm equivalent EF-S prime.
justinwonnacott: Move along folks - nothing to see here except the same lens and sensor in last year's camera.
Yep, agreed. Seems like a waste of dpr resources.
Same lens and sensor so what's new to see apart from the new film simulation.
I'd rather they spent time adding older cameras to the new image comparison database!
mais51: What an environmentally unfriendly product - what do you do with the water when you finish - tip it out then what, fill it up again and again - a strong fabric net that could be filled with rocks or earth would be far more better and better still you don't have to worry about water leak.
Marty, I'm no rocket scientist but I presume he was talking about the waste of tap water or bottled water. i.e. the energy-intensive systems that deliver and treat water.
But back to the product in question, the designers solved a problem nobody had.
The good people of Shoreditch will be delighted at this news.
MikeF4Black: Who is really interested in ISO's higher than 6400? I'm not. The A7s appears to be no more than a hype.
People said similar things several years ago about ISOs higher than 1600.
Just because YOU don't have a need for it doesn't mean others also don't.
But back to the useful article, IMO the differences between all the cameras aren't night and day.
h2k: I think the combination of fast-motion and tilt-shift effect makes it.
As so often in documentaries, i liked the imagery and didn't like the music. It feels a tad funny to call a movie "City of Samba" and then use this kind of score.
For me the stronger effects in the Singapore film were tiring after a very short while.
"...didn't like the music. It feels a tad funny to call a movie "City of Samba" and then use this kind of score."
I agree the title and score didn't go together. For me the score works though. I just wouldn't have titled the video "city of samba".