When I took apart a T5i I was surprised that the sensor was no better than the one in a T2i. That made me angry.
Canon marks the 6 year anniversary of their last great sensor technology improvement (5D Mark II).
Please Canon do something spectacular at PhotoKina this year. I remember a time when we read the Canon announcements to see what great new technology would be added to their cameras instead of reading the announcements to see what witty comments people would have.
Not a ton to praise here but also not a lot to hate on. A nice solid little camera. I still think the Olympus E-PM2 is a better value at $170.
I applaud Richard for taking a chance and trying something new. However, this simply just didn't work. These cameras are completely unrelated and they each deserved their own review.
I don’t need any new cameras at all. I have a Panasonic GH4 and a bag full of lenses. I am all set. However, my friends and family are all having babies now and they want a decent camera. They are never going to mess with changing lenses so a compact camera with a fast lens is what they need.
They will all buy whatever I recommend to them. I am leaning towards the upcoming LX8 but this is not a bad effort from Fuji. I just wish Canon had a decent offering in this large sensor small camera category. It would be a much easier sell if I could recommend a Canon because everyone knows that name.
If it has a smaller sensor with better performance are you still going to complain about the sensor size? The difference in depth of field going from a 2/3” sensor to a 1” inch sensor is not significant when you factor in the fact that the lens would have to be slower to be the same size.
If Fuji can produce high quality images with a smaller sensor then I am all for it. In the past they have had smaller sensors that do exactly that. I hope that is the case with this camera.
No matter what you do someone will complain. If you use a 2/3" sensor then some people will want 1" or 4/3" or Bigger.
If you include a viewfinder then some people will complain that they don't want the extra size or cost. If you leave it out some people will say it is an absolute necessity.
No one camera can fit everyone's needs. Instead these manufactures should concentrate on making several models that are all similar cameras with different options packages. If you make a few different packages with the most common features then people won't have to explore other cameras to get what they want.
The point is that you don't want to give buyers a reason NOT to buy your camera. If you give them choices then they won't complain about not getting what they want or don't want.
I would love to see them announce a small camera with a bright lens and a limited zoom without a viewfinder but with a flash. Then also have almost the same camera with a viewfinder and more manual controls.
Is this camera just going to point out all of the imperfections of the lenses?
I didn’t even read the story. I went straight for the comments. Ironically, this actually seems like decent technology with a very specific scope.
A Leica without the Red Dot is just a Leica.
Nikon could be sitting on top of the industry right now if they had just embraced mirrorless ILCs. And no the 1-series was not them embracing mirrorless. That was Nikon making fun of mirrorless at their own expense.
Nikon’s only hope is to swallow their pride and make a full frame mirrorless camera. Use the fabulous Sony sensor and give it all of the excellent photography controls of their DF camera. The main thing is that they have to come up with a unique and excellent Electronic Viewfinder. They need something to set their camera apart from all of the others.
Right now there really aren’t that many small cameras with a tremendous view finder. Some People still want that and they are willing to pay for it. Nikon you need to wake up and take their money.
I find it interesting that everyone keeps saying “Look at the Market Share Nikon has” instead of “Look at the profits Nikon is not making”. Having a big market share is a good thing only if that market has growth potential and is already profitable. Having more of a non-profitable market is actually a bad thing.
Another product defect is the last thing Nikon needs right now.
The single biggest thing to remember here is that Sony, Panasonic, and Olympus all depend on revenue from something other than Digital Cameras to keep their businesses going. Canon and Nikon are Camera companies first and foremost.
Slumping camera sales will hurt Nikon and Canon way more than it would for Sony, Olympus, and Panasonic. If Nikon and Canon stopped selling DSLRs and compact cameras tomorrow those companies wouldn’t be around for long.
Cameras like this are the best bet at continuing to sell cameras to the mass market. Canon and Nikon have abandoned this market almost entirely.
mpgxsvcd: Wait till October when they announce a 4K @ 30 FPS GoPro 4. The sales will come back then. However, after that I don’t think people will upgrade. I don’t think the long term will be that great for GoPro.
"High(er) resolution with greater FPS will always be a selling point."
No after you get to a certain point the average person no longer wants to pay for the extra resolution or FPS. What they have right now fills 90% of the needs.
Sony and Micro Four Thirds may not have caught up to Canon and Nikon yet. However, Canon and Nikon are not progressing at all in this class of camera while Sony and M4/3s are picking up steam steadily.
You guys do realize that this camera is targeted towards people who DON’T want a viewfinder. I am sure they will also realize another model that is targeted towards people who don’t want a viewfinder. The point is that they will offer cameras that fulfill everyone’s needs instead of forcing people to like what they think is best.
Canon and Nikon think this is a great camera.
Minimum focus distance? 20 miles?