peevee1: Friends don't let friends buy Rebels.
No, seriously, I would HATE to buy a Rebel (worst DSLR of 2012) today and in 6 (SIX!) days see, say, NEX-6 released, with (if the rumors are true) the wonderful Sony 16 mpix sensor with vastly superior IQ, fast Sony processor giving something like 10 fps (judging by NEX-5N and NEX-7) and better JPEG processing, on-sensor PDAF, pancake zoom, EVF providing clear preview of exposure and white balance settings (unlike any OVF, especially the dim pentamirror junk in Rebels not even providing a correct framing!), WiFi, in a package weighing half as much as the Rebel... for the same price or cheaper.
That would be really stupid, would it?
NEX lens selection is *weak*, especially compared to Canon's EF and EF-S lens selection. People buy into a lens system. Obviously, the Canon EF/EF-S lens system is a *bit* more mature and developed than NEX's. I think Sony should slow down on cranking out NEX bodies, and put a little more effort into cranking out NEX lenses because as appealing as some of these NEX bodies may be, a lot of potential NEX buyers are turned off by Sony's anemic NEX lens system.
Josh152: I really wish review sites would stop pulling punches when it comes to Canon's stagnated sensor technology. No one is confronting this huge elephant in the room. Canon's sensors aren't just a little behind in the race, They are being lapped. Worse it appears Canon is either unwilling or much more likely unable to do anything about it. No one is confronting the very real possibility Canon has simply advanced their sensors as far as they can with current technology.
Yeah, no one will ever be able to take any good pictures with this camera, LOL. Not! I think most people are too busy out taking great pictures with these cameras to worry about miniscule differences in sensor performance. I think for a lot of people, anal pixel peeping has become passe. These days, the biggest limitation isn't the sensors, but rather the person behind the camera.
There's more to photography than anal pixel peeping and obsessively comparing images at maximum magnification. In the REAL world, the differences are rather trivial. It's only on these equipment forums that are over-run by tech-heads like Josh152 (rather than true photographers) that these things become such an (overblown) issue.
In the audiophile world, it would be like people who obsess over differences in audio cables or amplifiers rather than enjoying the music!
meshal: i sometime pay hundreds or thousand of dollars for lenses to gain half or 1 stop and this one lose some in high iso. no thanks canon.
Lol, right, Canon is going to go out of their way to degrade the picture quality of each camera they are going to release in the future. Paranoid much!? Lol. Yeah, they are going to do that until we're back to the IQ of the Canon 300D/Digital Rebel! Hahaha. Cuckoo!
abolit: Canon, how about making something useful? Just trying to think who this camera is for..advanced enthusiasts or exhausted and retired pro's ? How about something like 5DII in rebel body and $999 price tag? I would say "thank you canon", but for this one? what a waste!
Huh? I think there will be a lot of consumers who will think that the multi-touch functionality of the touchscreen to be very useful. Same goes for the increase to 5fps. Same with the gain of all 9 sensors now being cross-type sensor. Plus, not everyone finds FF to be "useful" because it entails having a larger body and lenses than what you can get with EF-S equipment. FF fans tend to believe that FF is the end-all and be-all of photography, but it really isn't. In fact, for a lot of consumer photographers, it's really FF that is "a waste."
I shoot with 1.6x and FF bodies. FF is nice to have, but certainly not a necessity. There are plenty of other features that can be considered more "useful." And BTW, if you think that Canon can stuff a 5DII into a Rebel body and sell it for $999, you're nuts. Cuckoo!
Nishi Drew: Anyone know how much cheaper the 60D is now?Certainly cheaper than a rebel for some odd reason.Though, Canon has gotten pretty comfortable with asking incredible street prices and quickly following the market and slashing down the prices and hurting the resell value for the customers, better hold on your picture taker for a while or hold off from getting one right away~
Believe it or not, there are a lot consumers who will choose a Rebel over a 60D because there are a /lot/ of consumers who don't like bigger, heavier DSLRs. The 60D is larger and heavier. A 60D weighs about 750g while a T4i weighs 575g. Not all consumer decisions are based exclusively on specs. A lot of consumers say to themselves, "Which camera do I want to carry around with me all day when I'm on vacation? Which camera can I barely stuff into my purse? Which camera is going to be less of a burden on my shoulder?"
Believe it or not, this camera isn't exactly aimed at people who would spend "thousands of dollars for lenses to gain half or 1 stop" anyway, so I don't think this is going to be an issue for the average Rebel buyer. LOL.
Ubilam: I used a 7D today for the first time. Its like... a new Universe opened. Canon should make only 7D's.
@Nishi Drew, I've traveled around the world with an old unsealed Rebel XT in all kinds of bad weather, including rain, and shooting at the base of waterfalls like Niagara in the US and Iguazu Falls in Argentina where it's practically like shooting in the shower or a car wash, and my XT survived just fine. I don't think people realize just how much these cameras can take. If you don't believe me, what this torture test where the testers harshly abuse a Canon 550D (and Nikon D90), including pouring a full cup of hot tea on the camera...twice...and the Canon survives just fine.
jdrx2012: Canon has re-purposed their 18mp sensor so many times it is getting worse! Also, gotta say, I continue to hate on the 1.6 multiplier. Canon models, below the 5D series and 7D, stinks, plain and simple.
People who "continue to hate on the 1.6 multiplier" should be ignored. What kind of irrational non-sense is that? Tens of millions of users have been using the 1.6 multiplier for over a decade now. I shoot with 1.6x and FF interchangeably when I shoot weddings, and I see absolutely zero reason to "hate on" the 1.6x multiplier. Each has its pros and cons.
As for the "re-purposed" 18mp sensor, jeez, not every camera needs an entirely new and different sensor. These days, the performance of sensors is so high that the biggest limitation is the person behind the camera. Unfortunately, the art of photography has been overtaken by obsessed tech- heads like jdrx2012 who care more about tech than art. It's really sad.
gl2k: Nice cam but Canon seems to be years behind Sony when it comes to sensor technology. Compare the noise of the Canon with Sonys new NEX F3 in RAW mode.
I thought anally obsessive pixel peeping was getting passe. Are people still obsessed about scrutinizing images so closely? I guess so. Kind of sad, though, because there's so much more to photography than looking at images at 100% pixel-level magnification.
Shakens: don't like the idea of a touchscreen on my DSLRits bad enough keeping the screen on my phone clean.don't what greasy finger marks allover my camera too
I think people have gotten over being anal about pristinely clean screens. Obviously, touchscreen phones now dominate the market, and no one worries about touching their phone screens with their fingers anymore. The same will happen with these new touchscreen cameras. Besides, a camera's screen is more likely to get smudged up from facial oils getting on the screen than finger oils. Of course, it may be that some people have greasier fingers than others, but if people can embrace using touchscreen phones and tablets, I don't think it will be an issue getting people to embrace touchscreens on cameras.
I think I cared about finger marks on my Android phone and iPad screen the first week I had them. After that I never really gave it another thought, unless they got *very* smudged up.
The 7D is overkill for a lot of photographers. Not everyone wants to lug around the extra weight of a 7D, not to mention its much larger size, and expense. A 7D weighs 945g with battery. A Rebel T4i weighs only 575g with battery. That's a 370g difference. In other words, the 7D weighs 64% more than a Rebel T4i. Or to put it another way, a 7D weighs as much as one whole T4i plus 2/3rds of a second T4i. That may or may not seem like a big difference on paper, but the difference is immediately noticeable when you pick them up...and becomes even more noticeable after carrying them all day long.
Besides, unless you do high speed shooting or high speed focus tracking, most people will never even see the benefits of a 7D over a Rebel T4i. For example, if you mainly shoot portraits or landscapes or stills, a 7D isn't going to be much of a benefit.
arqomx: does the touchscreen operations still works well when using LCD protector?
Screen protectors work on capacitive touchscreen cell phones, so they should work on this capacitive touchscreen camera. The technology is the same.
AmateurSnaps: We knew all this, so nothing to see here
The 650D is a nice camera but in light of the competition it is now overpriced.
The 9 point AF was a welcome addition as was the increase in fps, but most of the other add-ons just look tacked on while canon decide which way to jump.
No reason why Canon didn't offer more, other than to protect its current higher end systems.
"We knew all this, so nothing to see here"
So you're saying there's no point in reviews? The same can be said of plenty of cameras. Someone is ALWAYS going to complain, "We knew all this, so nothing to see here." EVERY new increase or addition of specs or features is ALWAYS going to be considered to "looked tacked on" by someone. In other words, there are always going to be whiners whining for the sake of whining.
Sad Joe: Again I have to agree - the Nikon 1 makes no sense and should be binned as a format. As a DSLR user I select which camera/ which lens/which format and am loyal to my brands - Nikon & Canon. Of these only Canon seems to have considered the question of what next when someone wishes to progress but doesn't want the full size etc of a normal DSLR. If I were in the market today and wanted another brand or wanted to have as small a camera as possible it would be Panasonic or Olympus, not Sony menus too complex, boring lens range - last on my list would be a Nikon 1.
Nikon really do need a rethink - I predict that sales of the 1 will increase as each new model comes along - however such sales will be miles behind their main rivals and now we have the Canon EOS M to look forward too, not good for Nikon.
Time running out Nikon - bin it and move on...
@Jared Huntr, have you even seen a mirrorless lens in real life!?!? Even "large" mirrorless lenses are quite small compared to their DSLR counterparts! Furthermore, even a "large" mirrorless lens on a mirrorless body results in a significant weight reduction compared to a comparable DSLR lens on a DSLR body. Weight reduction is weight reduction.
As for your comment: "Now you have to use both hands to support the camera so that you don't stress the mount"...wow, you're complaining that you might have to use BOTH hands to support the camera!?!?! LOLOLOL. Seriously?!?! I use my Canon 70-200/4L on a tiny Oly E-PM1 mirrorless body. Yes, I use both hands. Why in the world would I ever want to shoot with this lens using just one hand, regardless of the lens mount? That's ridiculous. Your statements are just foolish. BTW, it balances just fine because every lens/body combo has a center of gravity.
itsastickup: This was fun to see in the National Geographic 25 years ago or more.
So just because something was done a quarter century ago (or more), it should never be done again? There are a lot of people today who weren't even alive back then, or were too young to consider it "interesting" or not. Furthermore, there are a lot of people who want to try this effect for themselves *today*, rather than just seeing it in a quarter-century-old magazine.
Andy Crowe: > Both cameras retain the ability to save all the original files
Well that's not real multiple exposure then, it's just taking a load of separate images and combining them digitally. You may as well just use Photoshop as you'll have more flexibility over the image that way.
Wasn't there a digital camera that could take real multiple exposures (opening the shutter several times before reading the data off)?
Andy, it's both. It's taking multiple exposures AND making a single blended image. The difference is that you still have those multiple original images to use for other purposes, or for a post-processes blended image. So it gives you the best of both worlds.
Blackfjord: Boring. A special effect that's not that special. Canon, you try to impress with this? Just make a solid camera with a huge viewfinder, dead on focus accuracy and speed, and a supremely comfortable body, and IQ bordering on medium format. You're charging plenty for this already. Just do it or get out of the business. Geez.
An effect is just an effect. A feature is just a feature. It's really up to the photographer or the artist to make it compelling. Canon gives you the tools. It's up to you, the artist, to make something of it.
Besides, this may come as a surprise to you, but this blending feature isn't the ONLY capability of their 1DX camera! LOL! So chill out.
Neal Hood: I also think its a special effect that's not so special. Other than maybe astro photography, multiple image capture just does't capture much except perhaps making the picture look busy. A single image should tell the story.
But when the "story" is the sequence of movements, I can see how these blended images do more than just a single frame.
Camediadude: Sure, the design looks to be thoroughly thought out (as to be expected), but the omission of a viewfinder in so many of these mirrorless debuts just irks me to no end. I will never again buy a camera without one... I was burned once and that was enough to last me for life! Nothing can replace having a little window to frame things and see it a little differently ...
"I was burned once and that was enough to last me for life!"
LOL, that's like saying, "I was burned by auto focus once and that was enough to last me for a life! I'm never using AF again!" I remember a lot of long-time manual focus shooters saying that about AF cameras. But obviously, AF cameras have done quite well. And likewise, cameras without viewfinders have done quite well, too.
The funny thing is that whenever I hand my DSLR over to a typical non-DSLR shooter, the first thing they'll do is stare at the rear LCD, expecting to be able to frame the image with the rear LCD. It doesn't occur to them that they have to look through the "little window to frame things." My point is that there is a whole generation of users who are more comfortable using a rear LCD.
BoyntonBlade: I would quit photography before I used this camera.
People are so narcissistic and self-centered these days that they forget that there is a world of people out there that aren't so narrow-minded and inflexible as they are. These days, people make great photos with all variety of equipment, from film Holgas to iPhones to medium format digital bodies.