dougster1979: Why Not make cameras with a low pass filter. With the option to bypass. ie Menu:Low Pass filter:OnOff
Its a physical filter not some software emulation.
I absolutely love this photo ! Perfect light, beautiful model and great composition.
BUT it really is not focused well.
The focus seems to be on her sweater as her hair and sweater are sharp and the eyebrows, eyelashes and eyes are slightly OOF.
Pal2012: Decent review and its good to know this doesn't suffer from the poor design of the Pentax models, bloatware etc
I am a Sony Alpha user and love the interface. Tried a Pentax K20 and was fairly impressed.
However I tried a NEX5 and felt like throwing the camera on a hard floor ! I just couldn't believe how crappy the interface was when I simply love the Alpha interface.
That said I like the metal finish of the NEX bodies. Feels quite solid in the hands. IQ was also quite good.
mpgxsvcd: It is like Canon is still gloating in the fact that the 5D MKII was such a huge success. They have decided that they will never make another camera that improves on the 5DMKII.
Well the A77 does shoot 12 fps.
Ivan Lietaert: Compare this with the GH3.Panasonic listened carefully to the GH2 users, and then produced a revolutionary camera that is kicking ass as a video camera. The GJ3 easily is in the same league as the 5DMIII but costs only half as much.
As for the 700D, there is absolutely nothing in the image quality department that would even make me consider replacing my now rusty 550D.
Of course, you get a lot of camera for its money, but the 650D or the 600D is a wiser option.
I only now looked at its price... wow... what an insult to common sense!
Nope, the GH3 takes better stills.
The Canon does have a better selection of lenses of course but it shows that while Canon has persisted with this old sensor the competition has improved and the new Panasonic sensor outperforms the Canon even though the sensor used in the Panasonic is noticeably smaller in size.
dan_7d: im sorry but iv had to stop my self from saying this for so long but i would like to see any one you people here make a camera all you do is moan and moan how you shut your mouths and come up with something your self
You will hardly see anyone complain about a Nikon D7100 or a 7D as those were class leading cameras at the time. This is a sad rehash that Canon will get away with because it has a lot of customers with blind loyalty to the brand.
Take that away and Canon would see its sales drop like a hot potato.
They have been really arrogant in the past few years with under specd cameras (compared to the competition) and lenses with rather high prices allowing the competition to similarly raise prices.
This is all IMO of course.
raizans: Olympus already tried the tiny DSLR thing before concluding that mirrorless was the way to go. I guess Canon didn't get the memo. ;)
^^ No actually people for a majority of casual shooters a mirrorless is all they need. I have used Nikon, Sony and Canon's entry level DSLRs and found them pretty ordinary in both focusing and ergonomics.
A basic mirrorless camera offers practically the same IQ in a much smaller package especially now with the pancake zoom lenses. The newer crop of mirrorless cameras will outperform most budget DSLRs in focusing and their small sized lenses allow them to be more portable than a DSLR.
For those who aren't really looking at building a system a mirrorless is a more compact and a better alternative (IMO) than an entry level DSLR.
bloodycape: I noticed it is smaller than the Sony SLT A35/37(and may complained they were compact for an DSLR as the grip was small), but it's barley lighter than the A35. Those cameras already feel pretty well built so it be interesting how this Canon compares.
There is generally a limit to how small you will want a camera when the lenses are big. Trying to use this 100D with even a basic 55-250mm is going to be a problem.
I own the A37 and while its fine when using primes or the kit lens it becomes very uncomfortable when I attach my CZ 24-70mm f2.8 or a Tamron 70-200mm.
Such dimensions are fine with mirrorless cameras as the lenses are much smaller than DSLR lenses
mironv: Well there are very elaborate weddings with set time for formals where there is a time to use such lens or regular one in slow methodical aproch. On another hand camera and lenses getting better abd better but aparenty in high end weddings the "worst" picture looks the better. There are so many that shot with flare, PP to look like chip 50's slides or out of focus blured shots and people paid upwords of $4500 to $10000 for such "style".To me it looks like this days starting at high end is easier than low end but since one bride won a court case in USA all wedding photogs be weary.What was a claim she won? She claim she did not like pictures and asked for $40.000 and yes she did get a $$$$$$$$$$. Market will never be same since any bride can say I don't like it pay me lot of $$$$$$$$ I'm sure that $40K covered a even big wedding cost and who paid for that poor photographer.
I believe they were referring to this -http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Lz-07D5KoE
Chuck Yadmark: About time somebody went this way. Hope the quality is good and maybe more choices as well. I often use 12-24 as a walk around, I find 18-70 not wide enough for my taste.
Sony has done it. They have IBIS for their Alpha cameras and they have a 10-24mm OIS lens for NEX cameras. :)
digby dart: I commented first and then read some of the other comments... from the images I have seen around from this camera, taken in a variety of situations, I'd have given it a Sparkling Triple Mega Platinum Award.
At au$1200 with a totally excellent 35mm metal bodied prime its a gift. I read OMD, GH3 & D7000 in some comments, are we all pointing outward on the same planet, this thing delivers D4 results minimum - for that at au$1200 with a 'magic' prime thrown in I'd be happy focusing with a mechanical crank handle on the side.
For the grumbling cash flash grandads below, Nikon and Canon full framers are really nice gear, take excellent frames - these Fuji's just look to be heck of a lot better from build/ergonomics to image quality. Doesn't make your or my gear any less, this stuff is just heaps better for the money.
Like me for the moment, live with it. :-D
You like the photos then fine. I still like the output of FF sensors more than the Fuji's photos and I believe most FF cameras far outsell the Fuji.
Most people aren't terribly happy with slow AF and a camera that locks up from time to time.
No doubt, per pixel sharpness is very good indeed and high ISO capability can match any FF camera BUT IQ is not just specifications and the output of FF cameras IMO is better than what the Fuji can deliver.
kewlguy: the most expensive jpg-only camera...
Why are you guys defending poor RAW implementation ? Call a spade a spade. ACR only recently improved support for Fuji RAW files. Earlier implementations cause lots of IQ issues.
Those who like to shoot JPEGs are of course fine. But a LOT of people like the flexibility of RAW. And frankly given how the camera slows down and the lack of RAW support is a sizeable negative.
Maybe for the XE-2 with better Xtrans sensor support will not have the same issues with RAW support but as far as I am concerned the current XE-1 is primarily a JPEG only camera.
Rod McD: "Large and chunky build won't suit everyone......." (See conclusion 'cons'). Large and chunky? Really? Half the appeal of mirror-less is that they are smaller for the same sensor size than DSLRs and I thought the XE1 does an exemplary job of being small and retaining very high useability. Sure it won't suit phone and shirt pocket camera users but it's not intended to.
Otherwise a review that confirms what users have been reporting - it's a great camera.
Compare it with a Sony NEX5R and you will see there is a rather substantial difference between the two.
Similarly its not much smaller than a basic DSLT like a A55
Not saying I don't like the Fuji. If I had to start a system from scratch I might consider the Fuji but I agree that for a mirrorless camera its rather large and clunky compared to other mirrorless cameras.
chiumeister: no way the 50 1.4 can be $1500, unless it's a 1.2
My main concern is the price. There hasn't been too many 50mm lenses that were much noticeably better than the Canon 50mm f1.4 so I dunno how well this one would fare especially in the face of the high price.
peevee1: Can people using such lenses explain to me why would anybody prefer 70-400/4-5.6 over 70-200/2.8 plus 2x teleconverter (or even crop, given how unsharp 400mm is on the previous 70-400 I have seen), at the same total price and weight?
Who says its so unsharp ?
Photozone has tested the lens and the sharpness figures seemed pretty good.
You have a look at the resolution figures of a Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VR I (which is better than the Sony version of that lens) with a Nikon branded TC.
Zoom lenses aren't really good candidates of TCs
Another issue is that AF speed will reduce quite a bit and you really need to stop down to get even decent contrast.
cheetah43: A viewfinder is a must. Sony should discard the flash. Available light photographs from RX1 have been demonstrated to be good. But vignetting is a serious flaw. Post-processing is not ideal. Sony's work is cut out if they want to sell RX1 in numbers. Why should a pro have to carry a separate viewfinder for RX1? He will want the RX1 for its quality and compactness.
I can't think of any compelling reason for a pro to buy a fixed lens camera at such a high price.
Now for amatuers or street photographers this is something useful if you want FF quality photos in a compact body.
KZMike: For the $$$, I'd like to see a rear LCD screen that can, at least, adjust up or down. Such a large % of my shots seem to 'want' this. Can someone tell me why Nikon,Cannon limit this to their "lesser" bodies?
I am just glad Sony has articulating screens in varying degrees in all its DSLRs. Sony has gotten way too many things wrong in recent years but IMO the articulating screens just isn't one of them.
Using a viewfinder exclusively is an archaic and old way of composing. Using the screen at different angles opens so many different compositions that would be difficult to practically impossible without an articulating screen.
I am glad Sony didn't remove the articulating screen from the A99 FF camera which makes it the only FF camera in the world to have a fully articulating screen.
shady1991: They should name it A44. A5X cameras were excellently balanced between price and quality and now everything's messed up.they shouldn't downgrade screen or video fps if they want to compete with d5200. I won't be surprised even if they decreased buffer size.I think everything should be solid and good quality in A5X series like is in my a57. now You buy a58 and you get world's greatest evf but you're distracted buy very cheap feeling of worst screen ever.
^^ Exactly ! I too was heavily disappointed thinking this had the A37 screen (which I use and hate with all my heart) but I see that this has twice the resolution so maybe there is hope.
I never really had a problem with the size of the screen but the resolution and viewing angles were poor. If Sony has fixed that I would consider getting rid of the A37 and picking up the A58.
razorfish: I don't get how this is a gold award
I have actually tried this camera out and its ridiculously small for the level of performance it offers. Not everyone wants a bulky camera that requires a large backpack to carry around everywhere.
pureaxis: The Sony 70-400mm G is absolutely the best lens in its class, too bad Sony didn't update it with weather-sealing
^^ Not for IQ or AF performance.
But the 70-200mm without TC will offer better bokeh and of course a much faster aperture.