mpgxsvcd: “The Canon XC10 may be the first true 'convergence' camera.”
If you have your head buried in the sand and don’t realize that the FZ1000 came out last year for 1/3 the price.
Gotta love these "biased" comments. Just for curiosity, took a look at Gold awards for the last 12 months. Panasonic cameras - 3; Sony - 3; one each for Nikon, Fuji, Pentax. For Canon - nada (though Canon did get a couple of Silver). It's clear - you're obviously biased against Olympus and Samsung.
mpgxsvcd: The Panasonic LX7 goes for about $200 on the used market. Even a used LX7 is a much better choice than any of these cameras.
He bought a new GX7 not LX7
UncleLary: What, not text review?
Do not have the time, nor the patience for the video. Might be useful as a conclusive detail after analysis.
But not at first.
In my office we bill by the hour and every moment has value. And economically, we are the target audience for a camera like this ( or the D810 too ).
Nobody on our staff of 4,500 professionals wanted to view it either.
I only write this so that maybe you guys will go back the written reviews, with the video as augmentation. We like your tone. Approachable. Low key. Reasonable accurate-a rare thing in today's online world. We would like to continue to use DP for info. But life is short, and honestly, to many competitors that do give us the aforementioned format.
Hopefully, we will see the text back.
If you took a few seconds to scroll through the barely 60 comments that were here when you wrote this, you would've seen a full review was also coming, and saved yourself the important billable time it took you to write this pretentious remark.
Fudgington: This seems a rather negative review and one not borne out by other users on the focus issues. I was hoping to get this camera as an improvement on the S120 as a carry around camera, so this is a little disappointing. I guess the best thing to do is try it out for myself rather than place too much store by reviews...
No problem Richard...I figure you guys take enough flak here, just wanted you to be aware I wasn't adding to it! Plus I also clarified what I meant for anyone else reading what I originally wrote. Appreciate BTW how fast you guys got this review done.
Richard - what I said wasn't meant as a criticism of your review, sorry if it sounded that way - I'm sure your experience is as you stated, and you are apparently not alone. What's baffling is my experience is completely different - and I also am not alone. There's a pretty big gap there, and unlike with some other reviews, a number of people (like me) who are satisfied with their G7X seem genuinely puzzled about the difference. That's why I suggested anyone considering the camera really should try it out for themselves if they can and see what they get. It may be that Canon has some work to do on consistency and quality control. It'll be interesting to see how things develop down the road.
I'd definitely recommend trying it for yourself. There's no way any reviewer would consider the G7X I have as anything other than fast and accurate (as was the store demo), and many others in the forums have said the same thing. So it's looking as if there must be a significant problem affecting a subset of individual cameras, several of which have found their way to reviewers. And it's really unfortunate to have such a range of experiences as to make people uncertain whether or not to purchase the G7X. I find this to be a wonderful camera, for my purposes. The only time I had any AF issue under any circumstances or lighting situation was trying to focus at a distance with the camera set on macro; it won't. That behavior did seem a little unusual. Flip it back to normal though, and no problem.
Pablo4: To my eyes, at base ISO (where I shoot 90% of shots) the camera produces mushy RAW pictures. There is definitely some NR going on, or the sensor/lens isn't that great as fanboys would like. Just look at it and compare to the NEX 5N, 7, Olympus XZ-1 or M5. All cameras I had are sharper. Yuck, no thanks.
As per R. Butler down below:
"Bear in mind the wide lens on the X100S means we have to shoot very close to our test target, so depth-of-field is shallower than for most cameras."
fad: I went to the gallery show in NYC.
The photos in the book are much better than the prints.
I'm glad she's getting all this posthumous praise. She must have worked very hard on her SP.
But I'm afraid all the publicity and the high quality of the images in the books is giving her a reputation she will not be able to sustain.
She is disciplined, but not professional. She has a good eye, but lacks the artists ability to be evocative.
Compare her to her contemporary, Vivian Cherry, and see that her images lack artistic resonance and professional discipline.
See my comment above regarding two apparently different collections of Vivian Meier photos being presented in different media.
From what I can tell (others may have more info), there are two groups involved with the Vivian Meier photos. One is John Maloof, who seems to have the largest part of the collection (starting with partial contents of her unpaid storage locker he bought at auction) and who seems to have started the ball rolling in his 2009 Flickr thread - "what should I do with all this?". He authored the above reviewed book (vivianmeier.com).
Another group includes Jeff Goldstein, who bought a smaller group of items in 2010 from another buyer at the auction; he heard about Meier at a Chicago flea market. These photos appear to be the ones in the current Steven Kasher gallery exhibit in NYC (vivianmeierprints.com).
Articles the last several years may reference one or the other group: NYT Lens 1/7/2011 is Maloof; NYT Lens 2/16/2012 refers to Goldstein.
So consistency of the photos shown may vary between the book, articles and various exhibitions depending upon whose Meier collection is used.
Richard Murdey: That's it, dpreview has jumped the shark.
I have nothing against dogs, pictures of dogs, or people taking pictures of dogs, but I personally have no interest and, more to the point thats not what I come to dpreview to read about.
Keep the front page to camera reviews.
No, I was just pointing out my own opinion that a lot of the content is useful with the content they've been including. It wasn't meant to be critical of other points of view, mostly it's a message to dpreview that I like it.
The name calling is a little silly.
While I appreciate the technical information on dpreview, since I don't have the funds to frequently upgrade or buy new equipment, I do come to this site for articles like this, as well as other tips on how to use the equipment I have to take better pictures. From that perspective, I often skip the equipment reviews.
Whether or not this particular set of pictures is your cup of tea, it's an article about being creative, thinking outside the box, and I take it as a starting point for generating new ideas about how to look at things in my photographs. And while there are many wonderful photographers posting on this forum, there's plenty more people with less excellent photos who could benefit from some creative thinking.
I also specifically appreciate the tips about dog behavior, and am looking forward to the additional segments.
Finally, although I like having these articles on dpreview, not all of them are as good, or interest me, a problem I solve by just not reading them.