when I bought x10, I couldnt even dream about such iso3200 performance from fuji
Shaun Iza: This is why I switched to Canon. Pentax has very ugly unflattering skin tones that couldn't always be corrected easily in post processing. It seems that this problem continues into their new line.
sure, but what is the price you got to pay for the same image/camera-build quality?
the only reason I d get a phone running an MS OS would be the 41 mpxl cam which I see is a good one.
absolutely nothing else would make me do that.
yorugua: So, the Sony FF 36MP, will be called A98, or A99MkII ?
A100 was released already in 2007
DPReview007: Could somebody please explain why Sony didn’t include a built-in flash?
Please no smartass comments about the camera’s low-light performance. One may want to use a flash for all sorts of reasons, and one may not want to carry one around at all times.
brendon1000, you are a genious of economics and finance! no kidding! if SONY ever runs out of bosses, why dont you send them a CV? Seriously, this is exactly the purpose!Pro photographers just hate built in flashes.Too weak for long distances, too hard to manage and add filters, they drain the battery, they recharge slowly, the take space, they need to rise high so that big lenses dont stop the light from reaching the entire scene, etc.So, even for a rare usage, its too much cost to add a descent built in flash.Plus, as you said, THEY WANT MONEY!
Neodp: State of the art impressive, but that I will never buy. Too heavy, as well. If you keep all the new goodness, at these prices, and do less than your best production combos, without realistically affordable model sets, then you can go to heel. I don't just need it. ...and trust me, I can "afford" it, it's just, I'm not post dumb stupid. Where would I carry such a thing? Really?
you can get some descent "used" ones from certain places in Mexico for 1000$
Francis Carver: He-he-he-he. I love how the Canikoners continue arguing which of them -- the Canoners or the Nikoners -- get to be ripped-off more. When they both get ripped-off in just about equal measure, ha-ha-ha-ha!!!200/500 British Pound Sterling MORE (!!!!!) for those Video Moire Godzillas?He-he-he-he.... No wonder the the era of these bungling, huge, heavy, bulky, flapping mirror DSLRs is precipitously drawing to a permanent closure. Thanks for speeding up that process, Mr. Nikon Son.
if everyone here had a look only at the characteristics of the sensors of these cameras, he/she would find out soon that there is no other option as of today. (sony is not konica-minolta btw, they just bought some parts, not the actual imaging tech.)
mytake: I like Canon, and this camera will probably sell well. Many very good pics will be shot with it. This camera was coming, and finally its here, not very exciting, but a safe first step I guess. With that said, I am soooo glad I bought the Oly E-m5.
In uk, there were more than 20000 photjournalists in 2003. Equipment cost per person, about 10k. Insurance cost for the company, more than 4.1k per year. Pros are the ones who pay the big sums of money. FACT: people use their phones to get pictures these days.FACT2: most people I ve met, consider HD video, way better than a single shot. Even if the video is blurry and of no quality or significance, people still prefer it.FACT3: if you see the camera time-line, you ll notice that in 2012, the rubish pocket cameras have nearly disappeared, and only the few models of that kind that come out, have huge zoom capability and hi iso (that yields bad quality pics).People just buy junk cameras that look like a good one in shape or speq-wise, but they are just not adequate. why canon decided to add some more bad pictures? All they have to do is to make a portable cam with the technology of eos5d inside. I think that they can do it, but the "market" is just not ready yet.
it will sell well as you say, but "good pics"?even the full frame models of 2012 still have huge problems taking a good picture when you need it.how would you define a good pic?I d need a good pic when the lights are nearly out (only the emergency lights lit in a 200+ conference room) with my ISO exceeding 50k and my 400mm lens to focus on a running/scared celebrity/politician. Of course, the publisher pays for the equipment so the cost is not an issue and everything is insured, and I have a huge press pass to go past the security, BUT couldnt that be enclosed in a smaller camera? Why do I have to carry 2kgs of equipment for anything? I think the technology is there already, but why dont they DO IT? Just build a camera that will save me carrying two extra battery grippers, heavy lenses,cleaning stuff, huge external flash lights and all that stuff an old man is fed up with?