If it were up to me, it would have NO LCD screen. You want retro? That's retro. Wait until you download 'em until you can see 'em. There's your "filmic" experience! Damn camera would be cheaper too...
So tired of the "bad SX-70" look. Suppose it's new to generation Z, but I experienced it for real in the analog days- and hated it then! Also- now we have to put up with the same, cliched, desaturated/crossover look in many motion pictures too... ad nauseum. Sigh...
No EVF. No sale.
Adobe flexes their monopoly muscle and it smacks of extortion. Extortion aimed at loyal and professional users. Disgusting. Lightroom I will reluctantly continue to use, but they can take their "CC" and shove it. Just another Big Brother ploy spun as being for "your benefit." BS!!
Surviving in the industry has been tough enough without this display of utter corporate greed and arrogance from a company we'vd all come to rely on- for better or worse. And the spin they're trying to put on it (that it's BETTER for US this way??) is not only disgusting, but insults the intelligence of photographers everywhere. WE can make a difference here. Keep making your opinions known everyone!
The back on the stupid thing is ALL touch screen- impossible to hold. AND overpriced. They can keep it.
What are the guys at Canon smoking?? As great as my Galaxy S3 camera is, what's the point of this thing? This will be looked back upon as one of Canon's biggest missteps ever in a couple of years.
The TS1 and 2 are GREAT! If you're looking for an all-weather machine- BUY ONE when available. Don't even bother with Olympus. These machines have vastly sharper optics and many other excellent features.
I have a Q and I can't say enough good things about it. The "small sensor" argument cracks me up- I've shots events with mine with an external flash and it comes through with flying colors, even at high ISOs. (I've been a working pro for 35 years and it's a relief to not haul the Canon gear once in a while!) Not a big fan of the new design, but as long as it comes in black, I'm happy...
My votes are out on the new design, but all I know is that I shot a whole event with my Q and external flash- just to see if it could be done. Not only did I have fellow photographers raving over the design of the camera, but also over the results I posted. I WISH my Canon pro gear featured the amount of customization the Q has! Therefore, all the naysayers can go stick it, IMHO.
Nice, but if it's not AVCHD, forget it. What's with Fuji and Canon with sticking with the memory-hogging MOV format?? ARRGGGH!!!
In the late 90's, Olympus made the C211z. It was a brilliant design which wrote a digital image to Polaroid type 500 Captiva/Vision film with a micro-LED array. It produced excellent images. The camera had only a 2mp sensor, but it was one of the best 2mp sensors anywhere ath the time- I even printed 8x10s from it. (Including the official photo of the mayor of the city I worked for at the time!) It had a 3:1 zoom and a foolproof flash exposure system. It's too bad Polaroid wasn't in financial shape to produce a 3x4 version of it, because it would have been wildly sucessful. These cameras seem to have horrible fixed-focus lense, though the zinc system IS quite impressive. (Developed by former Polaroid technicians, I believe.) The lens and the price are deal-breakers for me. Too bad, because I taught myself photography on my grandfather's roll-film Polaroid 800. AND I have a Polaroid collection- a soft spot, I have... so I might buy one anyhow! ;)
Superka: I prefer shooting film. There is something unnatural in all this manipulations.
Back in the late 70's, it was a struggle to get any kind of technically decent image from my good old SX-70. Later, it became a unique artistic tool, outstripping its consumer appeal. Ok, fine. But now, I find all of THIS endlessly amusing. Light leak?? Give me a break! It's just all about making money...Well said, Mr. Farace.
SO happy I have a Mk. II. Aside from additional jpg tweaking/sharpening, I could NOT see spending the addtl. $$ on a III. The raw outputs are virtually identical. And especially if it has the 7D focusing system, which is a total pain in the ass. I predict the Mk. II will go down as Canon's greatest machine ever overall.
Love my TS2, but please, Panasonic, control the noise! No, it's not smudged like my Sony WX10, but it's nasty and blotchy. Otherwise, it seems a well-designed, rugged machine- unlike the new all-touch screen Sonys!
SammyToronto: I guess with camera phone sensors being as high as 12mp these days, camera manufacturers feel they have to cram even more mp's into tiny sensors to make their point and shoots seem superior to the average customer. Point and shoot sales have been dwindling recently, with many would-be customers using their camera phones for point and shoot duties (e.g. iPhone is the most used "camera" on flicker!) and the new, more compact breed of mirrorless cameras also having an impact.
I, for one, don't think I'll ever buy a point and shoot -certainly not one with 18mp- unless as a gift. I have a compact mirrorless camera (e-pm1), a DSLR and a good camera phone (Nokia N8), which cover all my photographic needs. I also have a clutch of old point and shoots currently collecting dust in my closet.
I'll stick with my WX10. Flimsy, but really sharp (if you can put up with the NR) and GREAT video. Blows out flash shots, but all Sonys seem to. For all-weather, it's the super-durable Lumix TS2 for me- NO DAMN STUPID TOUCH SCREEN! If only I could merge them both...
My 2 cents: I'm a pro and I own the Tamron 17-50 2.8 VC. It's a truly spectacular lens which I highly recommend. I originally owned the Sigma, but rapidly discovered it had focusing issues with Canon bodies. The Tamron turned out to be superior in the end anyhow. Also highly recommended- the Tokina 12-24 f/4. Solid build, great optics. And hey, any chromatic- present in MOST aps-c lenses- is easily dealt with via Lightroom anyhow.Best advice: TEST more than one of any of these independent brands at max aperture in-store, if possible. They DO vary in quality! Demand the pick of the litter.