waxwaine: "Mirrorless is the future" ( with deep serious voice) ... jajaja(lol)You can't replace photographic experience with an lcd. Ask any photographer kow much they love the sound of mechanical shutter.Then, MILCs can be replaced by phones, but this is not the case for DSLRs.
@waxwaine " holding a MILC and view through a little lcd screen..."
I hate to break it to you waxwaine, but one advantage of EVF's is that you can make them any size you want to, whereas an OVF viewfinder is limited by the size of the image frame. In other words, APS-C OVF's have smaller viewfinders than FF OVF's because the APS-C frame is smaller than FF. However, with an EVF, you can have an APS-C camera with a viewfinder that is as large, or larger than, a FF camera's viewfinder! Furthermore, EVFs offer benefits such as focus magnification and focus peaking, which make it a lot easier to manually focus with. Plus, just look at the EVF in the Fuji X-T1, which is so large you can put two screens side-by-side, one for framing, and one for focus magnification!
This may come as a shock to you, but mirrorless cameras can have viewfinders, too. It's just that archaic flapping mirror that they don't have. As for the notion that "any photographer knows how much they love the sound of a mechanical shutter"...that's the older generation talking.
And as for the notion that "MILC's can be replaced by phones", that's not true either, because phones don't offer DSLR-size sensors and DSLR-like interchangeable lenses. So the more accurate statement is that "DSLRs can be replaced by MILC's" because MILCs can offer the *same* things that DSLRs offer (sensor size, viewfinder, lens interchangeability, etc), which phones can't.
Neodp: No it's ALL our fault. It's our fault every time we give-in and buy a camera with poor light gathering ability, unbalanced, missing, basic photographic benefits, and at far over inflated prices.
Nikon (alone) has lowered their projection to over 8 MILLION lens [ALONE]. Plus 6 million bodies or kits. Since we are all so versed in how much we can find these things and at that minimum price, learn to add!
No really, add-up (multiply) their MINIMUM gross sales from those numbers. All you need to do that, is there. Just figure the average system camera price that you know, and use the least price. You know it will be far more; but figure conservatively, to be fair.
Now tell me how the poor manufactures can't get it together enough to cover their expenses. I'm telling you.... they are waiting on us to demand real camera quality, comprehensive state-of-the-art benefits and at a reasonable price.
We are LETTING them sell crappy sensors/lens, and unfinished cameras; because they can.
If there's anything that's "our" fault, it's that we've given the manufacturers the false impression that camera sales growth would continue to rise indefinitely...when, in fact, with the rate that camera equipment was rising in quality and performance, there was no way that those levels of camera sales would be sustainable. At a certain point, people would start to realize that good enough was good enough...and sales rates would drop down to what they used to be back in the film camera days, where the upgrade cycle and purchase cycle for cameras was MUCH MUCH lower and slower. And that's basically what's happening. For example, for me, I've gotten to the point where I may not upgrade my DSLR until my current one dies! I'd just as well never buy another new DSLR ever again. And it's certainly not because newer offerings are so "poor". It's simply because my current ones are so good, or certainly good enough for my needs.
I see it in a completely opposite way. Basically, cameras equipment has reached a level of quality, performance, and capability that many people simply don't find the need to continually buy new cameras. At a certain point, good enough is good enough. All this non-sense about how terrible camera equipment is...is just rubbish. The reality is that camera equipment is better than it has ever been in the history of photography. It's mainly just the anal pixel-peeping equipment-addicts on DPreview forums who think that today's camera equipment is so "crappy" that they can't take any decent photos!
So, since people find that camera equipment is good enough, they've slowed down their camera purchasing. And the other factor is that for casual shooting, smart phone cameras have also risen greatly in quality, further diminishing the need for most people to be buying cameras.
Time to take your perfectly-fine existing cameras and go take pictures with them, people! Shoot more, buy less.
Antony John: Well Nikon are moving slowly in a 'new direction' with the introduction of NX-D software.
It's a bit mis-guided to assume that Nikon is moving into a "new direction" simply because they decided to update their own in-house image processing software. First of all, it's free, so that doesn't exactly provide a "new" revenue stream-- or any revenue stream, for that matter. And secondly, it's only for Nikon users, so it's not exactly a broad-reaching product. So, hate to burst your bubble, but the NX-D is not a "new direction" for Nikon. They simply updated their old NX freebie software. How is that a "new direction" for Nikon?
meland: The downturn in ILCs (both DSLRs and mirrorless) is partially our fault. Not the manufacturers, not lack of innovation, not high pricing, not even the economy.
No unfortunately it's our fault. It's our fault because of the negative image we as photo enthusiasts project to potential new entrants to photography.
Of course we can't help it that we are mostly old. But the anal, whining,tribal, harking back to the past, we know more than the unwashed, smug attitude sure isn't an attractive role model.
Not sure what the manufacturers can do about that though. Well I do but it's probably illegal.
This is complete (and weird) non-sense. No one makes a camera purchasing decision based on a broad-stroke characterization of an entire photographic community that is as diverse as-- if not more diverse than-- any other community. Nope, the reasons are much more banal: lack of innovation, high pricing, slow economy, and the rise of smart phone photography. These reasons may be a bit too mundane for you, but they are far more true than your absurd attempt at melodramatic sensationalism.
Wow, it must be particularly scary for Nikon, which is so overwhelmingly dependent on camera sales. 76.5% of the whole company? Yikes. It's times like these when diversification really pays off.
Chris Yates: If Canon put out a phenomenal no holds barred mirrorless, I betcha they wouldn't be in this situation. Period. No brainer.Otherwise, camera sales as such have long plateaud and have been on a decline for some time.
@RedFox88 - people pay a premium to get what they want all the time. That's quite normal. Sometimes, it's definitely worth it to pay more in order to get something you'll be happier with. Life's too short to always be a cheapskate.
miggo: Hi you all
Thanks for all the comments. Some really cracked us up (especially the one about grandma's bra strap), some a little less, but all in all we got some really important feedback.
A little about miggo: We're 3 partners, and we founded miggo after we left KATA – the camera bag manufacturer. After years of developing camera bags, we decided to go against the flow and try to introduce camera-carrying solutions which are not simply square black bags.
Miggo is the first of many products to come.We introduced it on Kickstarter 3 weeks ago and we were happy to see it succeed and receive considerable support from many people.
Yet with all due respect to Kickstarter, receiving feedback from photographers like you is more important than almost anything else.We'll be happy to hear your ideas or anything else you care to share with us.
My mail is: firstname.lastname@example.orgYou can also find us on Facebook
The idea of a neoprene cover with a built-in pocket for your lens cap is a nice idea. The idea of a super wide, thick, weird-looking strap with a zipper down the middle-- I think that's a little too weird. I would much rather have a neoprene camera cover with a much narrower camera strap. That way, you could cover your camera while you're carrying it around on the strap. The way you have it now, you can't use the strap if you want to use the Miggo to protect your camera. But if you have the camera wrapped in the Miggo, you can't use it as a strap. Plus, you have to unravel it from the Miggo, as opposed to simply slipping it off if it were a regular neoprene cover. And if you have the Miggo wrapping your camera, I don't think it'll fit too well in a camera bag that has a slot for your camera. And if you don't wrap your camera in the Miggo, you have a huge strap taking up a lot of space. So while your idea is unique, I think it'd be cumbersome to use in real life.
World's ugliest camera strap.
An alternative to this would be to just buy an inexpensive neoprene camera cover, while using a normal camera strap. That way, the neoprene cover protects your camera even when you're still using the strap. With Miggo, you either have it as a protective cover, or you have it as an ugly and thick camera strap, but not both at the same time.
Well, at least they get points for creativity.
Karroly: I am afraid IS on an ultra wide lens is just a sales gimmick. This lens is equivalent to a 18-35mm FF zoom. Thus it means one can shoot handheld at about 1/20s at 11mm and about 1/40s at 22mm. With the 3-stop advantage of the IS, it means speed can drop as low as about 1/2s - 1/3s at 11mm and 1/5s at 22mm. What kind of subjects can we shoot at such a low speed apart from paintings on a museum wall, where flashes are forbidden, or a landscape under moonlight without a tripod ? Personally, I found that shooting people indoor at speed below 1/30s, thanks to the OIS, generally produces blurred people in front of a sharp background, so I avoid it. Not to mention that ultra wide angle lenses distort people faces. I am rather looking for fast lenses and cameras with good IQ at high ISO for that purpose...
This may come as a shock to you, but plenty of people use ultra wides on tripods, too. Is that a gimmick? Nope. The fact is, anything that can enhance stability can help image sharpness.
Secondly, regarding your comment about ultra wide angle lenses distorting people's faces...maybe that's why we generally don't use ultra wides for portraiture. Duh! LOL. Sounds like you're making some really foolish and pointless comments.
Just Ed: Have looked at the camera twice (don't own one) and just can not imagine using it with a lens like the Canon L 100-400 or 400 DO or even the 70-200 f 2.8 (also Canon), just too small for that.
The evf flickered in both shops I tried it at (don't own it). Both had fluorescent lights and one also had a fair amount of daylight coming in from the store windows. Am presuming the evf reacted either to the low(ish) light level or to the source. While it did focus "fairly" quick under those conditions I can not image using it for bifs or indoor sports. It might however make a nice carry around camera with a decent compact lens for scenics and general photography.
An interesting design deserving of recognition, but the thing that bothers me is how the for profit mags and reviews are all hyping the A7/A7r with such similar superlatives. That doesn't mean it's bad, it just means that I don't trust the impartiality of the reviews. The latter is not focused at DPR.
Pick the right camera for the job. If you're going to be using very large lenses like the 100-400L or 400 DO, use a DSLR. For street shooting where you want something with a less noticeable visual profile, use an A7.
As for "hyping the A7/A7r", I think it's fairly justified because we finally have something FF that breaks from the ubiquitous DSLR mold. After all, you can only get so excited over the bazillionth new DSLR. Woohoo, another DSLR! With more focus points! And new buttons/knobs! Groan. Yes, DSLRs are great, but it's about time we have something different.
webrunner5: Wow as big as that is you might as well have a full size DSLR. I know some people will say well if you put the same lens on one it would be huge. Well with a FF camera I can crop to get a lot of the lens length, and I rarely need that much zoom anyways. I think that is the reason God gave us feet to be able to walk closer lol.
I will pass thank you.
You are just showing your ignorance regarding the size of the G1X compared to a full size DSLR. Just go ahead and put a full size DSLR next to the G1X MKII and you'll realize how silly and foolish your statement is. The G1X MKII is *significantly* smaller and lighter than any DSLR with comparable lens. In fact, the entire weight of the G1X MKII with lens (553 grams) is much lighter than a Canon 70D body alone (755g grams). Lugging around a big DSLR with lens is a very different experience than carrying something as compact as a G1X MKII. A G1X MKII fits nicely into a coat pocket, or hangs lightly from a shoulder strap or hand strap. You can't say that about a DSLR, especially a FF DSLR. And when walking around with a DSLR, it really sticks out like a sore thumb. Especially a FF DSLR. As a FF DSLR shooter myself, I can confidently say that there are plenty of situations where I would *much* rather have a more compact camera than my beloved FF DSLR. Hence, a body like the G1X.
PerL: I think it is nice with a very compact FF and the IQ should be impressive. However, I can't see how it gets a higher rating than the Nikon Df, a much more allround capable camera with 10x the lens system. (I would equal the high res of the Sony with the low light performance of the Df)
The Df has aggravating controls. If Nikon's intent was to "slow you down" with their controls, they definitely accomplished it. But they took it too far. It's retro done wrong.
Jogger: The 12-40 was shown to be all plastic inside with a thin metal casing... pretty sneaky if you ask me. The best built m43 lens so far is the Sigma made 75/1.8.. amazing internals.
Canon L lenses all mostly use composite bodies. It's lighter, more temperature stable, more impact resistant, etc. Metal is just...well, heavier. It's not necessarily better.
Is this now the largest fixed-lens "compact" camera in the market? It's certainly got to be the longest/widest.
I also wonder how it will feel/handle to shoot it in portrait orientation.
Well, at least it has one thing going for it: there's PLENTY of room for your fingers between the grip and the lens.
Too bad it doesn't make phone calls. It would make a great brick phone:
Retzius: What the Nikon 1 should have been...
@ monkeybrain - what sold well in Japan was the lowest level, least expensive Nikon 1, the J1. And it probably sold mainly to Japanese women, because it came in cute matchy-matchy body+lens colors. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if one of the more popular colors was the pink one! That doesn't say much for the strength of the system, how serious we should take the system, or the profitability of the system as a whole.
BarnET: "In most respects, the Alpha 6000 is a big step up from the NEX-6"
Well let's see24mp sensor vs 16. On paper a big difference. However the nex7 is famous for having inconsistent results with that pixel count.
AF points on sensor.It's an good increase. What effect that has remains to be seen. Knowing dp preview probably after summer 2014.
Viewfinder. 1.44million dots. That is just pathetic these days. It's main competitors have either 2.3 or more(gx7)
Screen is the same and WiFi was just needed. Everyone has that these days. All in all just a side grade no upgrade.
@Shamael - "The less WiFi is around you, the less it affects your health." LOLOLOL. That is hilarious. You are crazy and hilarious.
As for the utility of Wifi, there are a lot of benefits to Wifi. For one thing, it means you can remotely shoot your camera, without the need for a wired or wireless remote. Yes, you no longer have to hassle with a dedicated remote. You can just use the phone that's already in your pocket. And unlike a dedicated remote, there are some Wifi apps that even allow you to have TTL viewing, so you know exactly what you're shooting. Secondly, it allows you to seamlessly move images from one place to another without the need for wires or removing your memory card. And thirdly, yes, in today's modern age, we do a lot of telecommunication. It brings a level of immediacy and connectedness that increases the ease with which we can share our images, and have them be seen. Because, after all, that is the point of creating images: so that they can be seen.
Robert Garcia NYC: hmm, no image stabilization?
@The Lotus Eater - LOL, you seriously think that in-body IS makes the body bigger? Have you seen how small cameras with in-body IS are?
Donnie G: Someone mentioned that cameras with in lens stabilization were not capable of more sophisticated 5 axis stabilization as implemented in Oly's in body stabilization design. WRONG. Check the specs on Canon's G1 X mII. The new Canon gives you 5 axis stabilization with body and in lens IS and without moving the camera sensor around.
@Donnie, the problem with touting Canon's new 5-axis in-lens IS is that it can't be retrofitted to older lenses. That's always going to be a limitation of in-lens IS. With in-body IS, if a newer body comes out with more advanced IS, then that newer IS capability can benefit all existing lenses. Furthermore, there's no telling if or when Canon's G1X MKII stabilization system would ever find its way into any other product aside from the G1X MKII! So what you're touting is a rather hallow victory.