whyamihere: Dear Nikon:
Wrong camera system.
Marike6: Yes, unpopular. Maybe not Canon EOS M unpopular, but, "Eh, maybe if it went on clearance," unpopular. Amazon's metrics aren't exactly a gold standard for tracking sales figures, especially here in the US. Never mind the fact that MILC make up less than 25% of all ILC camera sales, so even if the Nikon 1 system cameras rank in the top 5, all they can really claim is to be one of the slightly taller children in the kindergarten class.
Marike6, AnHund: You should probably read the preceding 170+ replies prior to mine. I don't see a lot of people excited to pay $900 for a lens that only works with an unpopular camera system. There's also little doubt there's a larger market for an 85mm f/1.2 for DX or FX cameras than there is for a 86mm f/3.2 (eqiv.) for the CX format.
If I were to make a minor edit to make you happy:
Just About Everyone
MrTritium: 420g with battery?! The Nex-6 and X-E1 weigh only 350g, and the nex-3n 269g. Is this camera made of LEAD?
I wonder if you missed the part of the spec sheet on the 2nd page where it says: Body Material - Metal.
It's not like this is the first PEN E-Px that weighed more than the competition.
Here's my perception of the problem:
Adobe has ostensibly decided that the Master Collection is no longer for people who don't make substantial amounts of money from their products. It's well established that most large companies will swallow the monthly cost and carry on. Smaller production houses will weigh their options and move forward accordingly.
Hobbyists & semi-pros are furious because the non-pro products are weak, and perpetual licenses make more sense due to the infrequent need to upgrade hardware/software to achieve results.
Education institutes are angry because Adobe has basically driven up costs substantially. Every institution with a design or architecture program just saw their projected software license costs explode.
When your business model for a product effectively sidelines the layman and the education sector, you're essentially left with big businesses. It may be good for improving revenue, but it certainly suffocates the potential for new customers.
Jim Evidon: Still no eye level finder either optical, EVF or hybrid. Therefore, not a serious camera for serious photographers. I'll stick to my OM-D and avoid the hand/arm shakes, thank you.
I've been photographing with a GX1 for over a year, and I've never had a problem with 'hand/arm shakes'. Nobody should, assuming you know how to hold a camera and can lift and hold a few pounds of mass. Never really felt the need to buy a viewfinder for the thing, even after I bought a decent Nikon and Canon DSLR.
If you think every 'serious camera' needs an eye-level viewfinder, that just means you're incapable of adapting to different circumstances. Good photographers make do with what they have.
Sergey Borachev: Sorry I read the preview up to this line
" - 16MP Four Thirds sensor (as used in GX1)"
and lost interest.
...And I read both of these comments and thought, "Since this is a GF camera - which is very obviously Panasonic's entry-level upgrade enticement camera - at what point did you think you were possibly getting a new sensor?"
Why would Panasonic upend their current lineup by introducing a superior sensor in a camera that is at the bottom of their product stack? If anything, you should be glad this has the GX1 sensor, which means the replacements for the G5 and GX1 should have better sensors than they do right now.
This upgrade pretty much went where I expected it to, especially after seeing the D5200 with the sensor and AF improvements (and little else). While I wasn't 100% certain that we'd see the 51-point AF system, I'm glad Nikon decided to take the D7000-series in that direction. I'm also quite interested to see the 1.3x crop in action - this would be a boon for wildlife/nature photographers if a 70-200mm could be converted into a 140-400mm with a few button clicks.
I'm also pretty happy they've pulled in design cues from the D600. I found the D600 to be quite comfortable to hold and easy to navigate, though I wish someone at Nikon would finally admit the placement of the ISO button is just silly. (At least put a raised braille bump in the middle or something to clearly indicate where it is without pulling your face away from the screen.)
I could honestly care less about the lack of GPS, Wi-Fi, or any of the video features. That's just me, though.
thx1138: I couldn't care less about the 70D, what I want to know when we'll see the 7D replacement. Until they have a high pixel count, high frame rate FF, there is an urgent need for a high performance crop camera with the demise of the 1D IV. 7D has 48MP FF equivalent and it'll be a good 3-4 years before we see a FF with that pixel count that can do 8fps and when it does, it'll be a hell of a lot dearer than any 7D APS-C based replacement.
"I want to know when we'll see the 7D replacement. Until they have a high pixel count, high frame rate FF, there is an urgent need for a high performance crop camera with the demise of the 1D IV."
The 1D Mk 4 was 1.3 crop. It also cost more than 3x than the 7D at launch. Perhaps you want a 1D X?
"7D has 48MP FF equivalent [sic]"
Not really, unless you're talking about what would happen if the photosites of an 18MP APS-C sensor were spread across a full frame. Even then, 'equivalency' wouldn't be a proper term. 18MP is 18MP.
"it'll be a good 3-4 years before we see a FF with that pixel count that can do 8fps and when it does, it'll be a hell of a lot dearer than any 7D APS-C based replacement."
It may be a lot longer than that. Getting perfect wafers to cut from, engineering the tiny photosites to capture the light fast enough, and then getting it to not cost as much as a full sized sedan are big hurdles.
meland: I suspect in time the market will shake out to look something like this:
* FF DSLRs - for Pros and top end enthusiasts
* APS-C (or similar) mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras - for mainstream enthusiasts
* High IQ compacts offering large zoom or fast aperture - for people wanting better than smart phone quality
* Smart phones - the new mass market compact.
I suspect most APS-C DSLRs will disappear having been replaced by mirrorless cameras that offer similar IQ but which are smaller in size. And low end compacts (from the established brands at least) will also vanish.
I have to agree. If the crop-sensor DSLR market is in decline, it's a rather slow one. People tend to forget that it's quite easy to make decent lenses for APS-C DSLR cameras - much easier than it is for a mirrorless camera with the same size sensor (otherwise there would be tons of native lenses for Sony's E-mount and Canon's M-mount). Mirrorless cameras also don't offer such an easy transition to the coveted full-frame market, which is part of the bait to get certain people buying a APS-C DSLR in the first place.
I don't think this market is going anywhere anytime soon, short of a technological revolution that makes top-end mirrorless cameras and their associated lenses much cheaper and easier to obtain. (Read: For the APS-C DSLR to kowtow to the mirrorless market, an OMD EM-5, a GH3, or a EOS-M has to MSRP at $500 on day of release. Until then, people will buy a D3200 or a T4i without thinking twice.)
I must admit, that's a lot of zoom to fit into a single lens. Combined with the smaller physical size and weight, it makes the smaller aperture understandable I suppose. The next-closest in Micro 4/3 is the Panasonic 100-300mm f/4-5.6, and that thing is pretty bulky & heavy (though it also features OIS, which is handy). The tradeoff here is more reach and a smaller, lighter package in the Olympus, versus a big, heavy Panasonic lens with a wider aperture and OIS.
As we prattle along in the comments section talking [complaining] about specs, people who want such a lens will make the decision that's right for their needs and likely find themselves happy with their decision.
Combatmedic870: If its better then the old then why not... It would be nice if it at least matched the old 14-45 lens.
Agreed. If the image quality of this new lens at least matches the 14-45mm, I'd gladly make the trade just for the internal focusing alone.
RStyga: Unless a very specific (usually subjective) requirement is in place, there is little point in arguing whether 6D or D600 is "better". They are both equally "good" and, in general, state-of-the-art DSLR cameras. There is no significant difference between them, and where there is, it is on very specific features, which brings us back to the beginning of this paragraph. Personally, full-frame cameras where out of my interest radar due to their increased weight, volume and price. Canon changed that with 6D. I also checked D600 but, after handling it, was not convinced of its physical (weight/volume) improvements. Price-wise, I was fortunate to to get a 6D on a much lower price than D600 due to a retailer discount scheme and Canon's rebate program. Well done, Canon.
I also have to agree with Gothmoth, and that's another part of my conclusion when comparing these cameras in practical use: Neither felt to me like they were worth $2,000 for just the body. There were just enough compromises on both that ate away at my feeling of perceived value. I'd gladly buy one or the other once the selling price drops to $1,700 for either.
I have to agree with the first half of RStygas statement. I had rented both the 6D and D600 and put them to practical use in an attempt to make a purchasing decision. I became comfortable with each over that time, though neither was perfect. The image quality is comparable, especially if you shoot RAW and do some light post-processing. While there are more AF points on the D600, the center 9 cross points aren't nearly as sensitive as the one in the center of the 6D. Both have their AF points mostly in the center of the frame, which makes them both pretty mediocre at tracking moving subjects - the D600 being slightly less mediocre (though this leads me to say the difference in FPS is pretty negligible if a camera can't track a subject worth a darn).
As someone who isn't invested in either company's lenses, they're both good cameras when held at arms' length. They both have their individual and shared deficiencies, but they're great for almost anyone who's not a pro sports photographer.
I'm thoroughly enjoying the public freakout now that the legal language that has represented this service (and others) is being phrased in terms that normal people can understand.
Since it's part of my job to read the complete ToS for many apps and services, none of this is surprising at all to me.
One of these days, you'll all learn to read the agreements instead of hastily clicking the 'I Agree' or 'Ok' button. In this case, any service that offers to relocate your data for ease of access reserves the right to use, change, or delete your data. It's still yours, but you don't have as much control over what happens to it once that data hits their servers without their consent. That's how it works, and that's how it has always worked.
Doug Pardee: I dunno. I find it hard to see the similarities between the two. The old terms said that you expected them to publicly display your non-private photos and gave them the rights necessary to do so. The new terms says that you give them the right to sell your public and private photos without paying you.
Where in the old terms does one find "may pay us"? Where in the new terms does one find "except Content not shared publicly"?
I've been on Streamzoo for a while. Their T&Cs say, "All rights of uploaded content by our users remain the property of our users and those rights can in no means be sold or used in a commercial way by Company or affiliated third party partners without consent from the user ." I'm killing my Instagram account.
szedman: The author's characterization that the new language simply makes more transparent the rights they already claimed in their old agreement language is NOT accurate. The old language is vague in ways that make it difficult for them to use or commercialize the photos outside the context of their existence as uploaded photos on instagram. They could try to commercialize/monetize them in other ways, but it would invite a class action they could very well lose, based on the vagueness of the agreement. The new agreement language is much more specific -- spelling out how they can commercialize and monetize the photos in specific ways. No vagueness and therefore no worries about a class action. It absolutely expands their ability to commercialize and make money from your photos.
In a word: Nope.
The old language is 'legal terms' whereas the new language is 'plain language'. It still means the same thing. I've read more than my fair share of ToS agreements, and there's little to differentiate what is said between the two versions other than you don't have to understand the implications of specific legal language to understand the new version. That you can understand the new ToS but not the old doesn't mean it's different: It means you read it wrong.
On the whole, this isn't terribly different than agreeing to the ToS for using cloud storage or music download services or Steam games (where at least Steam comes out and says in their ToS, "You may have paid money for this software, but you don't own it and we reserve the right to revoke your license.") You're volunteering information, and they have the right to re-use it to make money because no internet service comes free... unless you want to pay for Instagram.
Guidenet: I really don't like the term "Travel Lens" when it comes to these optically poor long ratio zoom lenses. I think this is an excuse to put convenience ahead of quality for someone who has lost some of their passion for photography and are looking for an easy way out. I know that sounds insulting and I really don't intend it to be so, but have a really hard time understanding interest in these type zoom lenses.
When we travel, it's often a special time away from the daily grind of work or maybe the boredom of retirement. Regardless, we're going somewhere we wish to visit maybe more exciting than staying at home. Why would we want to record this special time with mediocre glass? Wouldn't we want to take the extra effort to carry our best when taking once in a lifetime shots?
What do we use our "good" glass for that stays at home during these holiday events? Do we own and use good glass? I would think traveling is a special time where we can really put the good stuff to good use. :-)
I think noirdesir and M Jesper have a point: Knowing full well that most of the people surrounding me are more interested in capturing a moment away from home (a memory) than creating gorgeous photos (art - yeah, fine line, I know), I can understand the allure of the DSLR equivalent of the super zoom lens.
Another way of looking at it (and Kai at DigitalRev put it well): Who wants to lug a bunch of equipment around on vacation trying to get perfect photos when you're supposed to be enjoying yourself? Heck, a more technologically savvy co-worker just asked me what P&S camera he should buy before he goes on a cruise with his wife - and I know that man owns a D90 and some seriously expensive glass that he has put to good use for publication purposes. Sometimes, convenience trumps quality.
Lastly, and I say this will all due kindness (and I've said this before): If you can't justify the purchase in your head, it's not for you.
The functional bits are already out there to combine for an awesome camera: Fuji's X-Trans sensor that removes the need for filters, well-engineered lenses from several manufacturers, mirrorless designs, EVFs that match OVFs.
What nobody seems to be thinking about these days is ergonomics. If anyone handed me the camera above and asked me to shoot with it, I'd probably chuck it after 10 minutes merely out of frustration. There are 12 frickin' dials on the thing, mostly single purpose.
For example: The dial under the mode dial on this concept - why doesn't that adjust aperture in A mode or shutter speed in S mode? Why does it only adjust one value? What's with all the switches on the front? I'm sure there's a more sensible way.
I'm not trying to pick on the person who designed this. This is more of a general rant on camera design in general. I've used several cameras by many manufacturers, and there was always one plain-as-your-face silly ergonomic decision. I think that comes first.
cs hauser: The webpages are still only 950-pixels wide. Seriously? It's 2012, and most people have screens that are 1920-pixels wide. More than half the screen is being left blank.
And if that wasn't bad enough... about 350 of those 950 pixels are used as a navigation column. That means the active portion of the screen in forums & reviews is only 600 pixels wide. That's just ridiculous. It's like dpreview was designed for viewing with 800x600 VGA monitors from 1995.
I realize dpreview is trying to preserve space for potential advertisements... but come on! A 950-pixel wide screen is obnoxious. At least try to widen it to 1680 pixels or even 1280 pixels.
cs ahuser: Two words - mobile devices. Lest you forget, some people use their phone or tablet to view this site, and those devices still average at VGA to SVGA resolutions at best - retina Apple iOS devices aside.
I call it good, versatile site design that I see everywhere.
If you want the text to fill the horizontal span of your 1920 pixel-wide display, I'd invite you to press "Ctrl" and "+" until it fits. Either that, or recognize there are other resolutions in use beyond your desktop display.