I got an NX30 a month ago, really loving that camera. I'm glad I'm using the NX system now. I'm very impressed with it. I was never much of a fan of Samsung until recently. They are producing a very nice mirrorless system. The NX1 looks like a killer camera. Lots of fantastic lenses, too. Samsung's NX system is hitting all the right notes.
love2travelfar: It took them 16 years to improve something everybody was asking to be improved. Imagine if that was introduced 10 years ago when Canon was EVERYTHING. People would be waiting, not sleeping for the announcement. Now - nobody cares much I'm afraid...
@JoEick - the real issue is that the old 100-400L IS kind of fell out of favor a long time ago, particularly because a lot of users had an issue with its telescoping trombone design. It's not that users were necessarily jumping to competitors. It was that they just started to avoid the old 100-400L IS. When I sold mine a few years ago, I had a hard time finding a buyer for it because it was considered a bit outdated in design. So by taking so long to updated the old 100-400L, I think Canon lost out on a lot of potential sales, and disappointed a lot its user base. Plus, if there's any chance of them "losing money making a new lens", it's now rather than a few years ago (when this updated lens *should* have been introduced) because today DSLR usership is in decline, and there are more third-party options that are worth considering.
Plus, I remember when Canon wasn't just a reactionary company. They used to lead with their products, rather than simply following or belatedly responding.
I had the original 100-400L IS. I really loved that lens, before selling it. I actually didn't mind the trombone design. It's nice to see that they've finally the whole lens. But now that the new one is even bigger, longer, heavier, and more expensive, and so late in coming, this thing holds no appeal for me. It's just too late. Too bad they didn't introduce this MKII a few years ago. Still, it's nice to see an update to an old favorite of mine, even though I won't be getting this one. The original was a beast to lug around, and this one is even more so.
Ron A 19: At this price you could buy a sony a600 and adapt a leica M lens, or a fancy zeiss ZM lens and be way better off for images and build quality.
@HowaboutRAW - it's you who doesn't get it. The point I was getting is that there is a world of wealthy consumers out there with much, much higher levels of discretionary income than most people here at dpreview who are pouring over test charts and specs sheets trying to get the best bang for their limited bucks. These are the people who are buying the $10,000 business class airline ticket, versus the people who are on Travelocity trying to snag the $1,000 economy class airline ticket to the same destination. To these people, paying that price differential is not such a big deal, and it's worth it simply for the comfort. A lot of people here wouldn't be able to stomach that price differential, even if they could afford it.
People who are going to buy a camera like this aren't going for best bang for their buck. They aren't living paycheck to paycheck. They aren't driving the most economical cars. They have money to spend. The Leica X caters to people who are buying $5000 Gucci handbags and $10000 Piaget watches, and want a nice looking camera to throw in their bag for the next time they fly off to Paris for a getaway.
marc petzold: Richard Franiec does a great job with his custom grips, users of the specific camera model should be thankful. i've bought during the past 2 years 3 custom grips from Richard, for my Sigma DP1s, DP2s, and also the Merrill DP2M.
The haptics of my Sigmas really improved because of Richards custom grip for that.
If you say 35 bucks is too expensive for a well-made, CNC-machined custom grip, you should really look for a cheaper hobby..collecting beer coaster, mustard jars or something else...because it's totally worth it.
For instance, the cheap 15 bucks Sony RX100 series grip is really crap, and make out of cheap material, neither CNC-machined nor aluminium. I'd never buy this, if i'd own a RX100 series digicam.
Well, like I said, you don't see many DSLRs out there with bare metal grips. There are plenty of DSLRs that are made of magnesium alloy that could easily have metal grips, but for some silly reason manufacturers choose to cover that fancy, expensive material with "softgrip" rubber that "feels cheap", is less "sturdy" and that has inferior "haptics"-- according to you. I wonder why?
I don't necessarily think that a grip is better because it's CNC-machined or aluminum. Nor do I think that the RX100's accessory AG-R1 grip is inferior simply because it's made of rubber, rather than being CNC-machined or made of aluminum. Frankly, I find that a textured rubber grip is more comfortable to hold than a bare metal, CNC-machined aluminum grip. You don't see any DSLRs with bare metal grips, do you? They are all covered in comfortable, textured rubber! Why? Because rubber is more comfortable and grippier than bare metal. Ultimately, I think it's foolish to praise a grip simply because it is CNC-machined and made of aluminum. I'll take a supposedly "really crap" textured, grippy rubber grip over smooth bare machined aluminum, just like I prefer it on all my other cameras with with textured grippy rubber grips.
I don't care too much for hard, bare metal grips. Too bad these grips couldn't be textured rubber. You don't see DSLRs with bare metal grips. I guess it doesn't matter so much on a compact camera, but still, it would feel nicer and grippier. Plus, I think one of the reasons why this grip has such a prominent "hook" shape is because it needs it to make up for its lack of material/tactile grippy-ness.
maxnimo: Okay, I'm trying hard to not burst into laughter, but what would a serious photographer use a 7-14mm lens for?
The only thing I can think of is a sneaky, dishonest realtor who wants to make a small room appear huge.
Wow, what an idiotic comment. Yeah, NO ONE in photography uses wide angles! Yeah, right.
Shiranai: I don't get why they're releasing their interesting lenses just for uncommon systems like Sony and Fuji X. Makes no sense...
This isn't a mass market lens. It's a niche lens for a particular niche of users. So it makes perfect sense to aim a product at the group of users who are most likely to buy it.
Sven Witter: Well, she is used to Nikon if not a Nikon envabgelist. Someone who is used and in favour of Nikons way of treating colours, may not find right away the necessary workflow to satisfie their taste. So how much worth is her verdict anyhow? It's just a persons statement with some prejudice and not much proven expertise. I could even ask my sister - she once became an ELDAF-member (elite group of German amateur fotografers sponsored by a Colourfoto magazin)... as a hobby artist in fotografy her verdict might even be worth more.... Or I just trust my own verdict - cause my sister is a free minded artist and I do what my clients pay me for....
Uh, did you even read the article? LOL.
"the body feels sturdy and comfortable to hold, much like a 5D Mark III, which I love using."
"I've been shooting with a Canon EOS 5D Mark III and EOS-1 DX"
"For me, personally, I still prefer the 5D III and the EOS-1D X"
Nice of you to make up things out of thin air, rather than reading the actual article! Hahaha.
GPW: A newspaper reporter is hardly a pro photographer.
A newspaper photographer is, by definition, a pro photographer. They don't pull any punches. To them, cameras are tools to get the job done. That's what pro photographers do, and that's their relationship with their equipment.
Cubby1: This has to be a bias review; at least to some extent. (Otherwise, why would you offer a counterpoint at the end?) Usually I follow reviews on DPR and Cameralabs as the primary sites, and also look at the others. Generally, except DPR, they all seem to think the G7 X is pretty good, and responsive. And, the images are "excellent". So, who is out of step? This has to be the most negative review I have ever read on DPR. Either you had a bad sample, or you have it in for Canon, or......what?
Good reviews shouldn't hold any punches. All too often, we read glowing reviews that end up telling us nothing. Sounds like you are the kind of person who was looking for that kind of "review". You were merely expecting the reviewer to state "excellent, excellent, excellent" across the board. This is called "confirmation bias", where you are looking for information that supports and confirms your own pre-conceived bias or belief. But if a review doesn't support your pre-conceived bias or belief, you cry foul. So it's probably more likely that it's YOU who has the bias, not the reviewer who has actually handled and tested the camera.
Shot to shot times are too slow and laggy. Canon's internal processing is way far behind the competition. Maybe they should have bought their processors from Sony, too, in addition to the sensor. It might have a shiny new shell, but the internals seem terribly outdated. Canon seems to be earning the reputation of being the "old technology" company, always a few years behind. Geez, what is going on with Canon?
It probably would have been a nicer camera if it had come out 2 years ago. Then you'd be able to pick it up for a lot cheaper today. But as a new 2104 introduction, it's disappointing.
Boss of Sony: Apart from video, I can't understand the 4/3 sensor thing, especially in a camera this size. Sony is making the same size cameras or smaller, with APS-C or full-frame sensors.
You should consider the size of the lenses. I use m4/3, APS-C, and FF. There's no doubt that m4/3 lenses have a size advantage if you want small lenses. Many m4/3 lenses are absolutely tiny. Keep in mind that body size is only one aspect of overall camera size. Lens size is a pretty big aspect of overall camera size.
Besides, you don't want camera bodies to be TOO small, because then it effects handling and ergonomics. So even if all m4/3 bodies were the same size as FF and APS-C mirrorless bodies, I think that would be perfectly fine. But when you start mounting lenses on these bodies, that's where the size difference becomes apparent. Furthermore, if you have a whole bag full of lenses, the size differential becomes even more significant. So like I said, body size is only one aspect of overall camera size. Don't forget that bodies need lenses.
Zeisschen: OMG, I'm seriously glad that mirrorless cameras have no problems with lens calibration. Unbelievable for me that this is still an issue in 2014 on DSLR cameras. Great innovation from Sigma though for this redicilous problem.
@raincoat - how many DSLR shooters shoot in liveview mode? We use DSLRs because of the viewfinder. At best, liveview is a semi-part-time occasional-use feature for most DSLR shooters (not counting those who use DSLRs for videography). So to say that "it's not a problem at all on DSLRs with liveview focus" is ridiculous when you consider that DSLR shooters overwhelming shoot in non-liveview mode (aka. viewing through the optical viewfinder mode)!
justmeMN: The target audience for this advertising isn't the miniscule echo chamber of Angry DPR Ranters. :-) These folks just love to rant, for the sake of ranting.
BTW, I had a few friends who aren't into photography have a look at this Canon campaign to see what their opinions of it might be. When they looked at what the "reveal" was, they were pretty annoyed, disappointed, and underwhelmed, too. The responses from them were: "That's it?!"..."Lame"..."Stupid"..."Ah, they're just jerking us around"..."Fail"..."It's like opening up a big, fancy Christmas present only to find socks inside-- or nothing at all"...etc. So don't think it's just a few "miniscule" people here at DPreview that have been turned off by this campaign. Average consumers and "civilians" feel the same way when they look at it.
So who is the target audience? Canon fanboys (which are their own echo chamber)? That would simply be Canon preaching to the choir. Or is it aimed at ill-informed consumers? Is it Canon trying to sell themselves as a company that makes incredible, leading-edge "impossible" consumer products that no one else in the camera industry is offering? That would then be false advertising and very misleading.
Occasionally, companies need to be called on the carpet for some of the things they try to get away with. Online backlash is one of those avenues of feedback that consumers now have. Sure, there will always be those few people who rant for the sake of ranting. It's easy to ignore that minority. But when you get such an overwhelming MAJORITY of negative feedback, that can be a strong message to the offending company. There's something to be said for the overwhelming unanimity of disdain for this Canon campaign. It's not just a few ranters here and there.
stelioskritikakis: 'See Impossible': Canon counts down to... nothing
Countdown to a name change: Can-not.
Seriously, though, I hope this is a wake up call to Canon. Hopefully, they'll realize that talk is cheap, actions (and products) speak louder than words. However, if Canon sees there's nothing wrong with their campaign, and they choose to continue to get by with just marketing mumbo-jumbo, then we can mark this as a watershed moment for Canon...the moment when they began their decline.
Catalin Stavaru: It seems that the Canon campaign had its desired effect. This article seems to have the largest number of comments in dpreview's history :)
Really? So the desired effect was to generate the most negative comments in DPreview history? Bad publicity might work if you are a tabloid celebrity, but it's not so good for companies and brands. Why do you think advertisers shy away from highly controversial television and radio shows? It's because they don't want to be associated with anything that might tarnish their brand image. In other words, companies aim NOT to tarnish their brand image. That is NOT the desired effect that companies want. They want people to have a MORE positive view of their brand, not a LESS positive view of their brand. I think there is an overwhelming number of people who now have a LESS positive view of Canon after this campaign. So that is the "desired effect" they were going after?