The only thing Canon has done to advance the state-of-the-art in my opinion is develop dual-pixel AF. As a filmmaker, I actually used autofocus (!!) recently in a scene I shot with the 70D and STM 40 wide open to shift focus to several characters stacked within the frame. Worked flawlessly. And WAAY better than the system on the GH4. Still, no micro-focus adjustment on the Rebels make them a deal-breaker for me for serious still shooting. (And the 70D, with it's bounce flash underexposure issue, makes IT a pain for still shooting too. But that's why I have a 5DII and 50D- two of the most solid and reliable non-top-of-the-line Canons ever, imo.)
toni2: The real thread would have been a Rebel with optical viewfinder (760d), and a Rebel with an electronical viewfinder (like 760de).Canon is the leader, so they don't need to do this, at this moment.But I think others (perhaps Nikon) will do it soon.
A DSLR without microAFadjustment is one of the silliest things I have ever seen. Almost every compact or smartphone camera has in fact better focus precision that a DSLR without microAFadjustment. So, they have 2 options: add microAFadjustment or put an electronic viewfinder.
I just has to send my T4i in to Canon for a body-focus adjustment, costing me over $200.00. Eventually, over time, the focus WILL get less accurate with Rebels. So therefore, no more Rebels for me unless they start including the feature.
I like the idea of it. I wish one of the major manufacturers had the balls to produce something similar: a bare-bones instrument without silly bells & whistles. Now, I think, the market would support it. BUT, I'll believe this one when I see it... it would be very tempting, depending on the price.
DRNottage: That's all fine, but when you're a working pro with a significant investment in a system like Canon (warts and all), one can't justify blowing cash on luxury items like Fuji's machines. (More money than brains?;) Yes, great lenses. I'm sure many love them. Or- love from afar, as I do.
I've used them, so I know plenty. I know their lenses are good as are their sensors, but for serious field use, they're impractical. (And their video is cr@p.)
That's all fine, but when you're a working pro with a significant investment in a system like Canon (warts and all), one can't justify blowing cash on luxury items like Fuji's machines. (More money than brains?;) Yes, great lenses. I'm sure many love them. Or- love from afar, as I do.
frenchie44: I got an eos M last year, I have 5 canon SLRs and wanted a " take everywhere cam" for when I am carrying a 7D with 500mm lense outfit. I am very pleased with the M, I cannot fault the picture quality at all, easy to use, focus is very accurate, it does feel like a quality item with the metal body. the only problem I had was when I first got it every time I wanted to use it I put it up to my eye, then made sure no one was watching and used at it should be used. the M 18-55 lens is a really nice lens, better than the old ef version that was bundled with 40D etc.
Absolutely love my M as a filmmaking tool. Got it dirt cheap. No optical system or mirror to get in the way. I can use all of my lenses with an adapter, store custom picture styles, AND it's nice and light. A very underrated and solidly built little machine.
After the body focus went off on my T4i, I vowed to never buy another Canon body without micro-focus adjustment. Spent almost 200 bucks to have Canon fix it. Eventually, all Rebels float off spec over time. Fine for the casual shooter, but not a reliable back-up if you ever use 2.8 70-200, especially close to wide-open. Lesson learned.
Got one with EF adapter for $250. As a back-up still image body, or as a B cam for film, or even an A cam, it's great for what it does. Same T4i sensor. You really can't go wrong picking one up now that the price is down. A very underrated and underappreciated machine. Built like a tank too. Strange and unusual yes, but it works! :)
FAIL. Of major proportions. Canon at least is slightly less clueless than Nikon these days. At this rate, the future, Sony and Panasonic are going to be the only survivors.
Great review. Hated it when I used it too. Focus system was a real pain, and color-wise, it was not up to older Canons. Only the original 5D was worse. Our local paper bought 50 7D's and called them paperweights! However, the color profile overall that I'd describe looking like "puke"- that is, in most of their cameras since day one- is Panasonic's. Yellowish, pasty, horrible jpg structure and tungsten WB. It keeps me from picking up a GH4.
Happy with my 70D. More useful features, by far. Cheaper, too! Canon- get with the program. You're falling behind rapidly.
Got the original Q with zoom for a steal. Found a standard prime soon after. Lenses are damn sharp. I'm a pro and I've produced some stunning images with it, so I can't understand all the bitching. It's even got more image adjustment options than my Canons. I stuck an old folding Polaroid 95a viewfinder on it. Now THAT is a conversation piece...
nerd2: Digital already surpasses film in every aspects (resolution, dynamic range, noise) and can closely simulate any film we had. I think we should ban film photography, just for environmental reasons.
After all the fuss about "The Dark Knight" being shot on film, the final result was a tremendously over-processed, trendily-graded digital look. All of the "benefits" of shooting on film are for all practical purposes non-existant to the viewer. So I say, as with still photography, evolve or die. (I shot and processed film for over 30 years. Enough is enough!)
I use Lightroom 75% of the time for my workflow. If they go to subscription-only with it, screw them. And Lightroom for ios only? As I said, screw them. (Because they ARE screwing us, no matter how one attempts to rationalize it.)
I've had a Lumix TS2 for a few years now that's been diving, skiing, and through a whole host of activities. Wouldn't trade it for any of these- even my friend's TS5, which seems to have an inferior lens. Mine's sharp as hell.
I have the LF1 and absolutely love it. I'm a pro, and I know a sharp lens when I see one, and this camera HAS one. I don't understand all the complaining about the EVF, because it's highly usable and more than adequate. Panasonic keeps NR to a minimum, unlike Sony, and the flash performance produces amazingly consistent results- unlike Canon, (I must say!) The video performance is nearly as good as Sony's. So, in other words, buy one, carry it, and use it. You won't be sorry.
It looks like an abomination. Handles like a Nikon. (Clumsily.) Feels cheap. And is overpriced.Canon- take note- produce a digital FTb or F-1 that takes EOS lenses and eschews the "melted-down" look, and I'm there.
I'll stick with my Panasonic TS2. Low noise reduction. Sharp lens. Good video. Built like a tank. Pocket-sized. After many ski trips and kyaking adventures, it's still going strong. Strange jpg noise structure, but that's Panasonic. Seems like the newer versions of it have inferior optics and greater noise supression going on, based on the reviews. I'll use mine until it croaks. This Nikon? Not for that money.
Love the fact that manufacturers are wising-up and putting EVFs in, but these cameras end up so big, I might as well carry my Rebel- and my trusty Sony WX10 for awesome video, for plinking. Now IF it had a mic/ headphone jack...
What a disappointment. It looks like some bloated Zenit-like knockoff. Silly indeed. And the price? This has flop stamped on its forehead. Look to Olympus and even Pentax for classy, neo-retro, functional DSLRs. Nikon's in trouble, imo.