Somehow, I do not think its bad news for Canon that their lenses work on the Sony Camera. They'd probably laugh all the way to the bank at that one. They cost less, and are better. Obviously having a lens that will work on two different manufacturers systems is a advantage for the owner, and for the sales of the lenses.
Good analysis. US buyers are not flocking to buy those tiny mirrorless cameras because they equate large DSLR's with higher quality images. This may change over time, but there is no trend right now.
Another factor is the size of hands. In the USA, many people have large hands, and do not feel comfortable with tiny cameras. There are, of course people who want small cameras, so there is something for everyone.
I'm one of those with large hands and fingers. My finger presses too many buttons at a time with a tiny camera, I do not like them.
I'd be willing to consider a large body mirrorless if it was a better camera, the new Sony is interesting in that it seems to have a lot of the good things I'd like in a camera, and only a few weak spots. I won't be changing my 5D MK III easily though. I am in the market for a 2nd body, having finally sold my old 5D classic the other day.
I'd like to be able to operate a small camera, but my fingers are so big that even my G1X II seems like a tiny toy.
It sounds like a good camera, but I tether and remote control my cameras quite a bit, and have found the Nikons (all of them) to be lacking, (to put it politely). Its too bad they can't improve on this, I have bought them in the past, and sold them because of the poor live view, I won't do that again until they can really make it work and well.
I see this as Apple's view of the demise of DSLR's in favor of the cameras on smart phones. They are right, sales of high end cameras are dropping, so Apple is just anticipating that their users will be making simple edits with their Iphone images.
Fortunately, there are other choices and for a few dollars, ACDSEE Ultimate 8 does everything and even has layers. I use Lightroom / Photoshop, but I have used ACDSEE for simple edits for years, in fact, since before the world wide web. I bought their flagship version last weekend for $49. Its quite capable and, like Lightroom, it has a database to keep track of your images.
My only gripe is that ACDSEE has been slow to update their RAW support for new camera models.
I came away with the impression that he really knows his product and about the tradeoffs in designs.
Its kind of refreshing to read as opposed to business types that only talk generalities and know products only at a high level.
Like Black Silicone, the press release sounds like someone applying for more taxpayer grants. Diffractive optics does pretty much the same thing.
Lenses can be made shorter, but the aperture and focal length determines the diameter.
I have a eye-fi pro, and use it with my 5D MK III. Its a great card. The speed of a wi-fi connection and the signal strength makes a big difference to upload speeds. I updated my wi-fi hotspots to high speed professional grade units and compared signal strength using free software. They are much faster and do not drop out like my router based all in one units do. I was also able to select a channel where there was no interference, that speeded up the transfer as well.
By the time I'm finished taking photos and return to my computer for editing, jpegs are already there. Raws take a little longer.
I'm considering one of the new units, but if the cut prices on the pro model, I might grab another.
I like being able to pop the same card into any of my cameras with a SD slot and it just works, no need to change the setup or fool around.
expect lots of lawsuits. They will likely go bankrupt as a result.
All they need to do is purchase it!
I haven't bought one, because I see no practical use. Its a nice technology demonstrator, but so far, I see no use to justify the expense. Same for video. I don't use VR, so I have no opinion there.
As a Canon owner, I'm not really worried about buying from Canon or Nikon, all cameras have a personality, and the most important thing is the response from the manufacturer when a issue is discovered.
I do think that some go overboard about a almost undetectable issue.
Before I went from APS-C, I made a list of lenses that would be good on both FF and APS-C cameras. The 15mm FE, 24-105mm L, 100mm Macro, 70-200mm f/4 L IS, along with my 17-55mm EF-s.
After buying that first 5D MK II FF body, I continued to use the EF lenses on my 40D along with the 17-55, and after upgrading the 40 D to a 7D and then eventually to a 1D MK III, I sold the 17-55.
For me, there was a middle ground, and it worked well.
DavidKennard: There are a variety of CC licenses, some allow commercial use of images, and some don't.
The main issue I would think with this service is that all of the general CC licenses require attribution of the copyright owner, and that the type of CC licence used is given as well. So presumably to run this service legally, each print would have to include a line of text at the bottom giving the name(s) of the copyright owner(s) and the type of CC licence it was licensed under.
Or maybe this info would be OK just included on the back of the print? The CC licence terms aren't too clear on this point.
Using that Logic, I could take any image, and sell prints, since I'm only charging for the printing service and the image has no value - Yea!
I remember when jpeg replaced gif images. It was painful.
Changing over the web browser infrastructure will be much more difficult than it was in the early 1990's. It was a clear choice due to very limited bandwidth, but the image quality suffered due to artifacts.
I'd go for a new standard, but likely won't live long enough to see it.
Greg VdB: Bring it on trolls 'n fanboys! :-)
It certainly makes it unpleasant to read the comments by Trolls and Fanboys. Some of them post the same thing multiple times. I don't have a issue with the review, its well done.
I enjoyed reading both viewpoints, I've been interested in the camera, but I'm not deliberate, and like fast AF, so I identify with Sam. My results would likely be like his at first, although I tend to first take very controlled shots just to prove to myself what a camera is capable of. Then, I can teach myself to duplicate those results in less controlled situations.
I think its a good idea, and I'm sure his recent bout with Cancer makes him feel very mortal. What better way to help photographers while ensuring that his legacy continues than to start up the endowment.
good for you, Michael!
I enjoyed seeing the video, I lived in Western Washington and got to see salmon running out my front window as a kid.
I also managed to do a lot of fishing in the ocean and around Puget sound over the years.
Its been a struggle to keep salmon runs going, they are just a tiny shadow of what they used to be.
Getting those shots in the heavily shaded areas along the creek is difficult.
Google also has facial recognition, so it can name the persons in a photo, and even inform the FBI if a wanted person is found.
The potential, as noted sounds both wonderful, and also frightening. Snapping a candid photo of a person and having them named? Its possible now for millions of people, but so far, Google is holding back due to potential privacy issues. (big $$$$$$$$$ lawsuits)