Just posted: Canon EOS 100D + EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM samples gallery

I refuse to buy it until it comes in red. :-)

I have the 5D Mk II, and I am buying this camera to use all my lenses and have something small enough to throw in my briefcase. I could care less how plastic it is... it will be with me, and that makes it far better then the magnesium alloy body of the camera that I left at home.

How many FF lenses can you attach to it and put it in the briefcase?

At least 3 that I can think of.

1. 40mm f/2.8 pancake
2. 28mm f/2.8 IS or not
3. 50mm f/1.8

HAHA

If all you ever shoot is sunlit pictures of slow moving subjects you'd ever need is a 260 (which I recommended to and is used by my girlfriend, so I have no problem with the camera). Taking a low noise picture at ISO 100 is like shooting fish in a barrel, especially when the camera only outputs JPEGs that have been oversmoothed and oversharpened (not to mention over saturated and over contrasted) in the camera.

They say if you can't articulate why you need something, perhaps you don't actually need it.

But travel snapshots like these are not the only thing this camera is capable of. Portraiture, night shooting, sports, landscape, macro, and professional quality video are just a few other things this camera can do significantly better than a compact like your SX260.

To me the main difference would be the handling of a DSLR.

I have an SX230, and while I do see the difference between an SX230 and a DSLR in IQ, it doesn't make much of a difference in the sizes that I print at. What is nice to me about DSLRs is the viewfinder and the responsive shutter. I find it easier to be productive with a DSLR (and more fun). The advantage of a travel zoom like the SX230 or SX260 is the size and reach, so it is not a no-brainer. To get the reach of the SX260 with this camera, you're talking about several lenses, some of them big.

To me the real question is this: if these pictures are not the only things the camera is capable of doing, why not SHOW those other things? WHERE are the sports shots? Why not show us a football match or a car or something moving faster than a statue here, and in, say, the case of the Panasonic G6 samples, so we can actually compare and see which camera has better AF on MOVING subjects?

Is there a reason not to do this?

I doubt we'll know what limitations are placed on the DPReview employees with regard to time and subject choice. They will test AF, but posting an image here of a fast moving subject says zero about what the camera is capable of. It would just mean that together the photographer and camera were able to get a certain shot.....you don't need ultra-fast AF to get a great shot of a moving subject. They'd have to tell you how the shot was taken, how many other shots were attempted and failed, and even then you'd only know how that one single scenario fit into the camera's capabilities. You can't compare one image to another and have any clue how their AF compares unless one camera is completely incapable of achieving good focus and the photographer has no ability to compensate for some shortcoming and get focus despite the camera's limitations. You're boiling down a whole lot of testing (different light, speeds, directions, techniques) into an oversimplified process that doesn't exist.

Don´t complain. Recycling is good for the nature. I hope they use the same 18mp sensor type the coming 6-7 years too....not! Strict boring conservatism. If I didnt has so may canon lenses I would change to Nikon actually.

Spitze, don't listen

I'm not sure what pinxit's agenda is but other than the occasional CA (and its not terrible by even modern standards) these are better than fine - all the texture you'd expect to be there is and for OOC work the few examples I looked at (including 0101) don't look 'overprocessed'

there is a trend amongst commentators to expect every new camera to be better than everything previously, regardless of market, intended functionality or price.

No these are not better than a Nikon D800 but are comparable with even recent cameras of comparable sensor type in the 16-20 MPix range. If the size is right and the price is right there isn't much to choose between a whole raft of sensors and output - its all about the getting of the image these days - if high speed and weather proof is important - don't buy an entry level cam. If price, size, weight and value for money are - then do

j

Spitze - quite simply, you are right: there is nothing really wrong with any of these images. The 100D will be a smash for anyone looking for a small back-up body or a light-weight travel companion: you get the nice DSLR AF, with (almost) the size advantage of a mirrorless.
Like you, I am of a certain age :-) and the biggest photographic upgrades I have ever enjoyed were due to (i)more practice, (ii)shooting in RAW and (iii)getting a nice monopod. For me, gains between 16-18-24MP sensors are marginal and meaningless to anyone outside the marketing departments of camera companies.
Here is a challenge/experiment I would like DPReview to set up: produce 50-odd A3/A4 prints with cameras from the last 10 years and check whether anyone can tell the difference.
Put it on Kickstarter and I'll be happy to contribute :-)

Yes, but it you put the wonderfully sharp Canon EF 40 2.8 on it, you've got an incredibly small package capable of excellent IQ.

The only 'new' thing I believe this sensor has is a lower production cost :).

More of the same good IQ - smooth color tonality and nice skin tone :-)

Nikon (and everyone else except Canon) has been different.
D5000 -> D5100: improved 16 MP sensor, with less shadow noise and better high ISO performance
D5100 -> D5200: 24 MP sensor that retains the same low noise characteristics.

Canon: 550D->600D->650D->700D: no improvement in image quality at all

I don't think any product will cure boredom of the gearheads.

Every 18MP APS-C Canon resleases is supposedly "NEWLY DESIGNED". If you buy that, I've got some beautiful land in Pripyat, Ukraine to sell you at only $1000/acre!