Kevin Fitzsimons: Are you kidding Canon?? No built in wifi? You can put wifi in Powershot cameras that sell for less than $200, but now I have to pay over $800 for a wifi add-on! It's built into the 6D! I've been waiting for the 7D replacement, but I'm not buying until they put wifi into the camera. I use wifi all the time at events and sports I cover. I've been getting by with the 6D. This is a real bummer Canon.
"Transferring large JPEG's or even RAW's would take forever over WiFi."
On bad Wi-Fi implementation, as found in many current cameras - may be.
Wi-Fi is capable of 10MB/s transfer rates. That translates, with overhead accounted, into 2-5 seconds per RAW, or 10-30 RAWs per minute.
"I for one would not want to control via my Tablet."
You wish for *less* fully optional, unobtrusive features? Ridiculous.
The main advantage of the remote control with smartphone is that you do not have to be next to the camera to shoot with it. IOW, you can set up the camera on tripod close to the point of interest, but remove yourself 10-15 meters to not scare away your game.
Cipher: Canon...your DSLRs are so boring. The G7 X compact is a step in the right direction. You should get the same team who designed the G7 X to add some excitement to your DSLRs. Look at what Panasonic is doing. The LX100 with a large sensor and fast zoom in a small package. The GM5 with a large sensor and m43 mount in a teeny tiny body with EVF and wifi.
@NetMage, the "tiny zoom range" corresponds to (and is slightly longer than) the traditional 24-70mm standard zoom lens range. Or you label as "tiny zoom range" the CaNikon's 2.8/24-70mm lenses too?
beavertown: This shows Canon will always be ahead of Nikon.
Sad for no competition.
Have I missed announcement of the D400?
MikeF4Black: So it's as big as a full frame DSLR, it weighs as much as a full frame DSLR, but it's got a small sensor.
This camera is designed to be a workhorse.
Not a bragging rights medium for forum divas.
ThePhilips: Goodbye mode dial! We will not miss you!
@querza: "Where would you put your C1, C2 [...]"
Anywhere but the mode dial.
The problem why I use C1/C2/C3 not as often, is that they are quite far away on the mode dial from the A/S/P modes. And using one of the custom modes for the plain A/S/P mode is just a waste.
I'd rather take a mode dial with only Auto and C1-C6 positions, but not Auto + C1-C3 + PASM + Scenes modes + This + That + More of the same + Art Filters + Creative Mode + Movie that + Movie this.
I'd personally "reduce" the mode dial to single physical button which pops 4x3 (or more) button grid (with large buttons! usable with thumbs!) on the touch screen where I can conveniently pick the mode I need.
Wow. The 35-100 on the GM5 looks very good. The product images of the 35-100 don't do it favor - but on GM it sits simply right.
LukeDuciel: This could well be the last generation of behemoth "pro-grade" slr featuring only APSC sensor.
@BaldCol, because full frame is fuller and framier than APS-C. Also it has more megapickles and ISOs in it.
mark finn: Having switched mostly to Fuji over the last couple of years I pulled out the old 7d yesterday to shoot some motorsport. I was immediately blown away by the responsiveness of the thing - such an amazing machine to use. I think one of the problems Canon had in updating this camera was that they got so much right the first time.
Fuji X is one of the slower mirrorless systems.
If you want a responsive mirrorless camera, check any Panasonic, any Oly or the Sony A6000.
Goodbye mode dial! We will not miss you!
Gabriel Chan: The reason of getting the M4/3 system is because people wants a light weigh system which gives decent image quality...I will rather stick with the Panasonic m4/3 lens, the weigh of 7-14 + 12-35+ 35-100 are about 960g......this olympus lens alone is 880g already....
But Pana doesn't have anything for 2.8/150mm.
IMO Oly did the right thing. Another 35-100mm would have been really redundant. People were asking for the longer reach - and Oly has delivered.
Now m43 users have the choice: either 35-100 or 40-150. The only choice missing is something with price below $1000... :(
aandeg: Wow what a price for a lens without stabilization. Looks like Olympus put the stabilizer in the body and left the cost in the lenses.
"Looks like Olympus put the stabilizer in the body and left the cost in the lenses."
No. It's Olympus being Olympus.
Remember. They have designed 43 format from ground up to be able to create near-perfect zoom lenses.
Problem with the "near-perfect zoom lenses" is that they are large, heavy and expensive. Just like this 40-150.
Michael_13: To all the 'equivalence guys':Go and buy your equivalent lens and keep quiet here in the forum.:-)
How many times we should repeat it? - There is no concept of "winning the argument" on the Internet.
Finally that rumor is put to rest.
chiane: Why do 95% of super zooms start at 18mm?
> it makes it easier to assemble lens collections that do not duplicate focal lengths.
I'm not collecting glass.
I'm shooting with it.
Overlapping FLs is a great help. This is precisely the case when more is better.
Water/oil-repellents are bit old. (Though nice to have it prepackaged.)
For interested, check "NeverWet" on YouTube. Basically it is a nano-coating spray, which makes surface to repel fluids.
xpanded: Surprised Fuji is not going full frame. Hopefully next time dropping the X-Trans sensor as well.
All 135 format would have done for the X100 is to make it more expensive, further limiting the market.
There are really no advantages to 135 format sensor in a walkaround camera.
If you really want one, go get the RX10.
... or just buy a smaller camera and a wrist strap. That's a lot of birds - with a single stone.
I think you made a disservice to GH4 by comparing to A7s. The GH4 is a mature product, while A7s is literally a Sony's first shot at a hybrid.
A7s has exclusively one thing going for it: the high ISO. That means, vice versa, comparing it to GH4 is making a disservice it too. Just watch the (sorry, have no other word for it) orgasmic review of A7s by Philip Bloom:
The need for the "extreme" high ISO for video shooting is well explained.
Overall, I think the comparative review was worth the shot. And it is not DPR's fault that in the end it hasn't worked out.
tbcass: $1700 for a 4/3 body. It seems way over priced to me but the G4 is a nice camera, esp if video is of major importance.
Yeah, mate. I'm 100% with you on that. FF is overpriced.
mpgxsvcd: I applaud Richard for taking a chance and trying something new. However, this simply just didn't work. These cameras are completely unrelated and they each deserved their own review.
The problem is that one can not just make a studio scene video "shot" to see the differences. DPR had to improvise how to pitch the cameras at each other.
The inherit problem with the "versus" comparative reviews is that subjects are compared on what can be compared in them, leaving aside their own specific strengths. Yet, GH4 and A7s are way too different. Probably the GH5 and the A8s - but right now the offerings are simply way far apart.
Overall, I think the first forays of DPR into the video-gear reviews were generally positive.