Interestingness: Jumped right to page 9 and checked out image quality. Did you all see the 3200 ISO JPEG's? That would make me stop shooting RAW - WOW!
Now change it to RAW and look around - this holds it own against everything except the Canon 5D3 all the way up from there (why no ISO 6400?).
Either this or the GX7 is going to be my next camera. Availability and street price will be the deciding factors. The Olympus has the edge in IQ and in body IS - the GX7 the viewfinder. Decisions, decisions...
Holds its own against everything? I'm sorry, but the output, compared to the Fuji X100s or any recent APS-C dSLR is not there. Especially in the RAW.
Plus you have to factor in the fact that larger sensors = better control on DoF, a benefit that dwindles with these smaller sensor cameras.
I just don't see this price working based on the physical and software capabilities of the output, especially with pros or prosumers.
Mark Prince: Geez. The station initially acted despicably by using the photograph without permission. No doubt it's not the first time they've done this. But once it was pointed out to them, they owned it, made a low ball offer of compensation, were polite and... had to deal with a photographer at DEFCON 5.
I am in no way defending the radio station here. But Ms. Cameron is so completely unprofessional in her correspondence, I find it difficult to side with her, and I speak as someone who has to deal with photography theft almost on a weekly basis. If I get a polite, responsible response to my cease and desists, you can bet I act professionally and polite in all corresponding discussions. Ms. Cameron did none of this. Just this alone brings shame to our industry, and she was in the right at the start.
Also, typically you charge 2x 3x your stock rate for copyright infringements - at least most of my peers do. Her $2K demand is quite out there.
It's extremely high for what is essentially stock photography - the client has / had no use for custom, specific-for-the-job photography, and from my understanding of this image, it was already used on a promotional website (where the radio station found the image via a google search).
It's a pretty long stretch to find any client willing to pay for staged, models-hired custom photography for internal marketing slide presentations.
Geez. The station initially acted despicably by using the photograph without permission. No doubt it's not the first time they've done this. But once it was pointed out to them, they owned it, made a low ball offer of compensation, were polite and... had to deal with a photographer at DEFCON 5.
Sigh. I guess all my hoping and praying for fixes to the X100's various focusing issues including poor manual focus, sketchy auto focus, slow auto focus, etc etc, not to mention work Fuji still needs to do and fix in the firmware is not working. A bit disappointed to see that they've apparently given up on the X100 (while doing these updates for the Pro and other models)
T3: The only objection I have to this camera is price.
I don't want more than 22mp. The last thing I want to do is shoot an entire wedding in 36mp RAW. Yikes! Wedding clients aren't asking for billboard-sized enlargements of their images. 22mp is plenty. So I think the 5D MKIII is a more *practical* camera for the working photographer.
But like I said, I just wish it weren't so pricey. $2500-2700 would be great.
Oh, and I also would have preferred an on-board flash. Handy to have that on-board wireless flash controller like on the Rebels, 60D, and 7D.
@ Louie C - it's not just wedding photographers who want the mpixels to stay steady; I shoot still life and products (food, mostly beverage including the items to make said beverages) and you simply cannot compare APS-C to FF - I'm able to much more control DoF with FF, including wider lenses where DoF would be wide open on a APS-C or smaller sensor. And I want uber-clean, managable RAW files. I'm sick of the noise in RAWs from my 5D MkII at higher ISOs (like 640 and 800).
This is also why it's very neophyte to even dare to compare the D800's FF 36mpixel sensor to medium format sensors with the same or higher mpixels. Mpixels don't matter: just as DoF latitude and control is better on a FF compared to APS-C, it's even better on medium format than it is on FF.
Jens_G: You can spot the noobs very easily: They're the ones who think more MP = better camera.
This camera is perfect. Perfect resolution, Iso range, OH AND THE AF!!!
The AF was the one big let-down for me on the 5D2. Now the 5D3 arguably has the best AF in any camera.
Erm. Pro photogs use the Phase one and other medium format cameras, not for the megapixels, but the increased control and latitude in DoF. Medium format can take photos no 35mm digital slr can (including the 36mp D800). Even if they are less mpixels like models from a year or two.
The "comparing the D800's output to what medium format cameras produce" thing is pure marketing drivel and until a full fram 35mm sensor can come close to the DoF control (esp with wider lenses) that MF can offer, it's also a red herring.
deckhanddavy: All of you Nikon elitists do realize that regardless of your opinion of the hyped up Nikon flagship DSLR, most Canon users will never change to Nikon because of the large amount EOS glass they own????
So silly. In the end...it's always about the glass.
Not to mention that Canon glass across the line is still slightly better than Nikon's optics. I own both and while neither touch Leica's masterworks, Canon is still edging out Nikon on the glassware.
HowaboutRAW: Damn, cool! Canon didn’t engage in the stupid mega-pixel war!
Completely disagree with your comment. First, yes there was a megapixel war, or have you forgotten the "shock and awe" over the 22mp the 5D MkII created when it was first released. And everyone going nuts (both in the right and wrong way) over the D800's ridiculous resolution.
My biggest gripe, as a still life product photographer, with the 5D MkII was not its autofocus system (I shot most of my pro shots using liveview and manually focusing) but its excessive, and IMO, not ready for prime time high megapixel count. I still get annoyed at how much noise even ISO640.800 shots have with the MkII. Canon's sensor technology simply wasn't ready for decent, natively clean images from a 22mp full framer 3 years ago. Now things have progressed somewhat, and 22mp seems like it might be okay today for uber-clean, noise free native captures up to 400, and maybe higher. Part of me wishes it was 18mp.
The list prices for the primes seem very high; not sure what the street prices will be, but the 28mm f2.8 is a $450 price jump (street price vs. list) over the existing 28mm f2.8. I own the 1.8 28mm (quite happy with my copy of it), and it's street price is under $500; the list at $800 for the new 2.8 IS seems quite high.
Tee1up: Having spent more than 2 decades with film SLRs, it's actually painful to watch all the compromises that pros/enthusiasts have to make with modern day digital cameras. Sorry if this makes you roll your eyes but I would head off to the most remote parts of the planet with a suitcase full of Kodachrome 25/64 and a F3HP and the only thing I ever had to worry about was a small battery and local food quality. I sadly sold my film rig and am still trying to find a satisfactory replacement that doesn't need a support team of electrical engineers to fix/explain malfunctions. I am not a pro so I have resisted going after a D3/D4 but increasingly I am getting the feeling that for an agressive photographer, this may be the best option.
What's a F3HP. ;)
Seriously though, my three most cherished cameras in the world are, in order: Leica M6 TTL, Nikon FM3a, and my fully kitted out Nikon F4 (incl two grips, high-tech data back, and three prisms). I still think there hasn't been a more impressive camera made since the F4 in terms of technology bundled into one camera (and everything accessible via a dial, button, or switch!).
But there's no denying the convenience, control and range that a modern high end dSLR offers. Which is why I shoot with them 90% of the time.
and... no mention of fixes to the horrible X100 firmware? Disappointing.
Get a weekly update of all that's new in the digital
photography world by subscribing to the Digital Photography Review