jl_smith: All of the "no EVF" complainers who are telling Canon they fail at life are OBVIOUSLY better at running a multi-million dollar company than Canon is, so I'm *amazed* they haven't hired you yet!
It's about market segments and potential engineering limitations, people.
On the marketing bit - you have to keep the camera below certain price points to appeal to your target customers. The semi-serious P&S crowd isn't going to give a great deal about an EVF - they just want decent images and lots of zoom.
The serious P&S shooter IS going to care about the EVF and will spend the extra money to get it (assuming they go with this model).
Of course, one would hope it was an engineering decision instead of a sales/marketing one.
At $999, did Canon *really* hit a desirable price point for this camera? I think many would argue no.
mpgxsvcd: You can always think of this camera as a $1250 camera with a removable EVF. Then it is simply overpriced but it actually has a feature advantage in that you can remove the EVF when you don’t need/want it.
A removable EVF is a good thing and not a bad thing especially in a camera this small. It allows you to have a flash and an EVF simultaneously. There simply isn’t a place on this camera to put a built-in EVF without removing the Flash or the hot shoe.
If you think about it that way you will see that Canon designed it exactly right. They just didn’t hit the price point they really needed to hit.
Well the problem with these removable EVFs is that you NEED to remove it in order to use the hotshoe. And you'll maybe even WANT to removed it during times when you don't want this bulbous thing sticking off the top of your compact camera. None of these things are an issue with built-in EVFs.
I've been using a removable, tilting EVF on my Oly PEN body for a few years. I thought I'd like a removeable EVF for the same reason you cite: "I can remove the EVF when I don't need/want it". I no longer like these hotshoe EVFs. It hogs up your hotshoe. And it protrudes from your camera in an awkward way. I now much prefer built-in EVFs that are nicely integrated into the shape and form of the camera body. When you have a nicely integrated EVF, you don't find the need to remove it. I used to think detachable hotshoe EVFs were a good idea. Not anymore. I don't even think it's worth having for the tilt feature. Tilting on a tall detachable EVF makes a vulnerable EVF that much more vulnerable.
joelakeland: It had me until I read the $250 EVF. At $1250 I can buy the Olympus OMD E M5 with 14-42($499) plus the 40-150 ($99), 25 1.8($299), 45 1.8($299) and 9mm f8 cap lens($88). Well, $33 more...
So what's the practicality of handholding a 300-600mm equivalent focal length without a viewfinder with the G3X's slower max aperture at those focal ranges? LOL.
And at least with the Oly, you have the option of using other lenses, rather than being stuck with a slow, impractical megazoom for the life of the camera. Plus, I don't find lenses with such a massive zoom range to be optically very good. Too much optical compromise to achieve such massive zoom range. And it's not as if you can swap it out for a shorter zoom range or better optical quality like you can with the Oly.
@Sdaniella - you show your desperation by cherry-picking Oly f/2.8 pro zooms as a means to compare price and weight. That's pathetic. All your calculations just show a desperate attempt at defending a fairly lackluster, overpriced camera. Why bother? It's just a camera. If you like it, buy it. The rest of us are going to pass. I suspect a lot of people are going to pass on this camera.
Joe Ogiba: $999 ? The new Samsung NX500 with much larger APS-C sensor has 4K UHD , 28mp and with 16-50mm power zoom OIS lens is $599. It has the same sensor as the NX1 that I just got that works great with my old lenses.http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/56004675
@dwill23 - yes, powerzoom is very valuable for video. But at least with the NX 16-50 powerzoom, it's removeable!
fatdeeman: If it had an EVF and decent AF it might have been a handy tool for wildlife, airshows etc but I don't like the idea of framing at 600mm with sun glaring off the lcd much
It's also harder to handhold at such focal lengths without an EVF. So to make this camera usable at the extreme focal lengths that this camera offers, you really need that $250 EVF, which unfortunately makes this overpriced camera even more overpriced.
Zeisschen: Canon see EVF impossible!
There's something seriously wrong with Sdaniella's head if she things that fixed eye-level viewfinders are " impossible to tolerate", LOL.
Sdaniella: at the momentfixed evfs are like fixed lcds (fixed stuck behind the camera body shooting perspective)
offering both flexible tilt-angle lcd and tilt angle evf opens it up for vari-angle shooting perspective away from just behind the camera
add the option for wifi remote shooting (included)
the only thing missing is top-centred fully articulated vari-angle swivel screen(which is better than hinging at the classic left-side of body (obsures grip-side fov) or worst, at the bottom side where a tripod could obsure fov)
... and missing ... vari-angle swivel EVF (naturally, modular, and also detachable by design), and inherently an accessory much like it is in Cine-cams
Having a tilting EVF might be fine and dandy, but having one that hogs up your hotshoe sucks. The other issue with hotshoe-mounted tilt EVFs is that they protrude from the camera, making "compact" cameras not-so-compact anymore. I've used a hotshoe-mounted EVF on my Oly PEN body for a few years now, and I've come to realize that they aren't as desirable as a built-in EVF. As for the tilting feature, I don't use it nearly as often as I thought I would. And besides, the tilting feature on a hotshoe-mounted EVF makes a vulnerable EVF (because of how much it protrudes from the top of the camera) even more vulnerable when the EVF is tilted up. If you're going to have a tilting feature, I'd much rather have it in a built-in one, where it can be made more solidly and where it sits lower on the body, rather than sitting way up high off the body.
These days, based on my experience with hotshoe EVF, I would avoid cameras with hotshoe EVF. Go for built-in EVF, even if it doesn't offer tilt.
$1K with no EVF. Awesome. It must be great to handhold at its full 600mm-equivalent focal length.
taktak91: A cheap, plastic camera for those who desire cheap, plastic cameras.Which isn't necessarily bad.
Are you seriously trying to argue against the benefits of image stabilization? LOL. You're really grasping at straws, aren't you? And you're seriously trying to argue against the benefits of high FPS for sports, too? Come on! Are you seriously trying to take all these specious positions for the sake of being a Rebel fan? Cameras are tools. Features and specs are tools. I find it silly when people argue against a particular spec simply because their particular camera doesn't have it. It reminds me when Nikon didn't have FF DSLRs, and Nikon fanboys argued, "Who needs stinking FF? FF is a dead format! I don't need higher rez or higher ISO quality that FF might offer. I will never, ever need to shoot higher than ISO 1600!"
I, for one, find it great that we Canon users now have more options aside from just Canon bodies. I love that Sony is heading in a direction where we can more effectively adapt our Canon lenses to Sony mirrorless bodies.
@photominion - with big lenses, you hold the lens. The body is just along for the ride. And if you do have a particular situation where you are using a bigger lens and you want more camera to hold onto, you can always add a battery grip to the A6000, just like you might do with a Rebel. And you can take it off when you don't need it. That also extends its battery life, obviously. So this allows you to take advantage of the A6000's blazing 11fps and huge buffer.
@dark goob - For a lot of us, whatever "cons" an A6000 might have are easily outweighed by its "pros." You can catch more interstitial moments with 11fps.
It has better and smarter focus tracking across the entire screen.
It's also a much smaller package that you're more likely to carry with you everywhere. Plus, I think the next generation A6000 successor will have IBIS, which means that any adapted Canon lens you put on it will become stabilized! I think that's a considerable benefit, especially if you already have Canon lenses that don't have stabilization, or don't want to have to buy new Canon lenses to get stabilization. Heck, just imagine the inexpensive Canon 40/2.8 or 24/2.8 pancakes with stabilization! These lenses aren't that fast, but adding stabilization to them makes them that much better. All you need is a Sony body and an EF adapter.
yzhenkai: For camera body, this is just an entry-level DSLR. But there are a lot of Canon lenses out there. Such as EF-S 10-18mm and 24mm pancake.
Is it really much more ridiculous than the same lenses on a Rebel? I don't think so. Besides, with these larger lenses, you're really holding the lens. The body is just along for the ride. This is even the case when using larger bodies.
Regardless of whatever mental "ridiculousness" your emotions might feel, I think it'd be worth it to have IBIS for all lenses. There are a lot of Canon lenses with no IS. I have the Canon 85/1.8, 50/1.4, and 35/1.4L, all without IS. It'd be great to have IS for these lenses! A steadier shot is always a nice thing to have, particularly when the light gets low. Or you can pick up a Canon 400/5.6L for only $1249:
Stick the lens on a monopod, mount an A7R II to it, and you get a nice image stabilized rig! This lens is not so appealing to many users due to the lack of IS (even though it's super sharp). With IBIS, it's much more appealing.
samfan: I suppose it's good for Leica that they are being competetive and not stuck in the past, but personally I still don't see much point of having a Leica camera without a rangefinder.
It's strange that the one thing Leica is missing the most is a more affordable rangefinder camera. I'd take something with a APS-C sensor, a fixed tri-focal lens and a rangefinder. Something like that would work best as a stepping stone to owning an actual M. Because M cameras are frankly quite price-prohibitive, especially with a lens, doubly especially for someone who haven't had an M before.
"I still don't see much point of having a Leica camera without a rangefinder."
Rangefinding is merely a means to an end. The Leica Q manually focuses just as effectively with focus peaking and focus magnification. You'll still get a good manual focus experience with a Leica Q, just like with a rangefinder. You'll still have a good ol' focus tab on the lens. It may even be a better focus experience than a rangefinder thanks to the high level of magnification offered by 6x focus mag and the broader field of vision offered by focus peaking. You no longer have to stare at a tiny rangefinder focus patch that exists only at the center of the screen.
@photominon- To put things into perspective for you, the Sony A6000 with 11fps and 22 shot RAW buffer has a list price of $649. Its street price is $549. The Rebel T6S has a list price of $849! The T6s has a list price $200 higher than the list price of an A6000.
Currently, a T5i sells for $150 less than its list price ($799 list, $649 street) on Amazon. That is its current "EOL" (end of life) price. So if we are to expect a similar $150 price reduction for the T6S ($849 list, $799 street), that still puts it $150 more than the *list* price of an A6000 or $250 more than the street price of an A6000. A Rebel T6s would have to have a street price $200 less than its list price just to *match* the FULL RETAIL PRICE of an A6000.
...which, as time goes buy, you'll very effectively be able to use on Sony mirrorless bodies, if the Sony A7R II's new AF system is any indicator. I'm looking forward to a successor to the Sony A6000 with IBIS, 11 fps, and fast AF with my adapted Canon lenses. It would easily would outspec a Rebel T6, and probably cost no more than a T6.
Except that the price isn't very cheap. So it's an overpriced cheap, plastic camera.
Sarge_: Until they offer pro grade fast zooms and primes for this lens mount, I can't see this as more than an expensive toy. 24-70mm f2.8, 70-200mm f2.8, etc.
As a pro, I don't hate the idea of the smaller body, as long as the ergonomics (buttons for quick adjustments like other pro bodies) and lens lineup are strong...
For bigger, faster glass, just adapt Sony A-mount FF lenses or even Canon EF lenses. There are plenty of pro grade fast zooms and primes in Sony A-mount and Canon EF.
cdembrey: How soon 'til the A7s2 come out? I prefer 12Mp over 42Mp.
I strongly suspect that an A7S2 would get a bump in resolution. 12mp is a bit low by today's standards.
munro harrap: Again folks, all speculation. The camera is unavailable. There are no RAW files to look at, and AF time, shutter lag and AF accuracy are all unknowns. Lets wait until all that is known.
Munro, Sony has a very, very strong track record with sensor development. Currently, nearly half of the image sensor market is dominated by Sony. And they continue to lead the way with the best sensors in the market. I have no reason to believe that image quality from this latest Sony will be anything but excellent.
As for AF times and whatnot, these are not "all unknowns". Early testers have been very impressed with the A7R II's AF performance, even with adapted Canon lenses:
Sure, we're all going to "wait and see". But it's still a very exciting camera, and I think people have good reason to be excited about it. FF, BSI, 5-axis IBIS, 4K, 42mp, 399 phase detection AF points, fast AF even with adapted lenses, a new refined shutter system, silent shutter mode...that's quite a list of improvements.