To continue loving video games, their programming while doing & improving my professional photography, punish the guilty, reward the good, educate kids and fight for all that is good. :-)
CameraLabTester: The marketing spin doctors at Fuji should follow the Canon style of promo:
Keep all three (X10, X20 and X30) as current!
That way, there are choices of different arrangements.
Canon still keeps the 600D churning, even if the 650D and 700D have been launched.
A lot of people still want the X10 and X20 but can't find them on shelves.
Marketing 101, Mr. Fuji...
To me the RX100 (I & II and probably III) all handle horrible. I tried to like it, but passed on it because of this.
Looking forward to see what Panasonic does with the LX8.
I really think that at this size, an 1'' would have been a more attractive proposition. I suppose the price is not horrible considering they give you a reasonably good lens with that zoom range, but still.
steelhead3: Where is the Pentax Q in all of this verbiage.
Happily selling in Japan and Asia ;-)
I don't mind the sensor size as much, but I mind it's the same as the previous generation camera in the line. I was expecting to see an improved version of the sensor. Would have been nice to be a 1'' given the size of the camera.
Marty4650: A really interesting "update"...
1. Canon SL1 - 17 months old2. Canon T5i - 17 months old3. Nikon D3300 - 7 months old4. Nikon D5300 - 10 months old5. Pentax K-50 - 14 months old5. Sony SLT-A58 - 18 months old
It's like a trip to a museum to see the dinosaurs.
In a world of photographer insecurity where the camera makes you a better photographer (allegedly) and appearances that's very important to know.
In a world of real photographers using very capable cameras to create a photograph regardless of brand, I find your comment pretty irrelevant.
locke_fc: Sorry, but a 1/1.7" sensor is no longer acceptable. Might as well use your smartphone instead.
Barnet- given the Q7 / Q-S1 is an 1/1.7'' sensor, and given it has an F1.9 lens option I don't understand how you think it is comparable. And the ultra wide lens of the Q is much better that what you have available in that other realm.
NoRules: I did this with my Q7. I think it's good enough.http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3672812
@Everyone - watch NoRules and his Q work! I see he does some good work!
waxwaine: As Q is a "she camera", now have 2 propper nipples.
And you twist the left nipple and you get different effects... ok I'll stop now :-)
locke- well if you consider saying "a volkswagen rabbit can run as fast as a Porsche 911" an opinion, then I would have to agree with you. ;-)
Locke- that's fair but there's a difference in stating it categorically or stating that it doesn't work for you, because there are other people that are obviously making it work for them. But if that's what you meant, sure. Not every tool works for everyone needs and wants.
There's much more to a camera than simply a sensor. And if you are going to say "may as well use a smartphone" just shows that there's a lack of understanding of photographic opportunities a Q system presents over a phone- not saying you can't create good work with either.
Eugene232: don't understand success of Q system in Asia,perhaps because it is very small?
The price of the V3 (in USA) makes everything else look cheap :-)
locke- that's fine but keep in mind what you are doing is citing some paper conclusion and not the real experience of many customers. I am not saying you should buy it, but look at your very first statement where you started the thread and it's a bit silly.
The sensor is acceptable for many.
larrytusaz: Are you kidding me? You are taking a trip to another country, with all of the photographic opportunities that presents, and you use a PHONE? What next, a Casio Swatch Watch? Be real. Okay, a Canon 1DX and L glass perhaps would've been a bit heavy to lug everywhere, but would using something like an Olympus E-PM2 or Sony A6000 have killed you?
It should be REQUIRED by a licensed photography governing body that if you call yourself a professional photographer, you MUST use a real camera for every single professional pursuit you engage in and publicize as part of your "brand," or your license to practice photography professionally will be revoked. This is a bunch of nonsense, and people like that should be MADE--yes, MADE--to do otherwise, or run out of town on a rail.
But, since apparently you have quite the misconception when it comes to professional photography, look at someone like Eugene Jarvis, or Giulio Sciorio and many other pros- they all seem to say the same thing- it's not the equipment. You think they are not pros then? Do you think that's a confidence they all say the same thing in one way or another?
Yes, except that some of us have portfolios that sort of show perhaps that we know some photography. Basically It's a bit like the guy out of shape, that keeps out of shape, telling the guy at the gym in much better shape how he is supposed to work out properly :-)
Your opinion is hardly smart if you can't show that you know what you are saying. Like I said, a quick look at your gallery doesn't seem to yield truth to your claims, unless you have some awesome gallery somewhere.
As for shame the only person who should be ashamed of themselves is the one who thinks they know what they are saying yet have no real skill int he field they are saying they know how it's done. (refers back to gym example).
In any case, photography isn't a sport. It's art, a bit different. "Better equipment" depends on what you are trying to accomplish.
peevee1: There is exactly one 1/1.7" sensor produced, so Pentax is stuck with it on this joke of a system. At least they could try to make it half-useful by producing native supertele and macro lenses instead of essentially renaming Q7 into Q-S1.
"Since when are sales number an indicator of quality? Especially what sells in Japan."
I didn't say it was an indicator of quality in by itself as much as simply that the "joke of a system" is a viable system that is selling and people are buying it.
Of course you wouldn't know any better if the Q system is a quality system or not. I bet you haven't even tried it and you have no photos to show, so doesn't look like you know what you are talking about.
"In Japan, they buy used panties from vending machines. Just saying."
Sounds like a racist remark to me. Not that they sell that but what you are implying with sales of a camera then. Moreover, that doesn't have to do anything with it. :-)
Revenant: The naming scheme really makes sense. First the Q, then the Q10, then the Q7, and now the Q-S1. Anyone dare to guess what they'll call the next one?
Joe Ogiba: If you want the smallest system camera look at the smaller Panasonic GM1 with much larger MFT sensor .https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3882/14648806550_a17da78c6f_b.jpg
What that picture doesn't show you is that using a GM1 is a PITA. I looked into it no less than four times and every single time I ended up hating it. It has a great sensor. Pitty, Panasonic should have designed it after their LX5.
Raist3d: The following photos were taken with the original Q body. The original Q did not have an 1/1.7'' sensor, but 1/2.3'' sensor which is even smaller.
http://raist3d.typepad.com/files/imgp7492.jpghttp://raist3d.typepad.com/files/patricktakingmyshot.jpgMandatory cat shot in all equipment discussionhttp://raist3d.typepad.com/files/imgp6249.jpghttp://raist3d.typepad.com/files/imgp6968.jpghttp://raist3d.typepad.com/files/godsave.jpghttp://raist3d.typepad.com/files/imgp4768.jpghttp://raist3d.typepad.com/files/imgp4981.jpghttp://raist3d.typepad.com/files/imgp5372.jpghttp://raist3d.typepad.com/files/imgp6122.jpghttp://raist3d.typepad.com/files/imgp3782.jpghttp://raist3d.typepad.com/files/imgp3887.jpg
If one thing I have learned over the years at dpreview is that a lot of people that are vociferous armchair critics have no clue what they are talking about and they can't demonstrate much photographic competency at all.
I am not saying you are necessarily one of them- but if you can't show anything then it's hard to take your assessment seriously.
Oh and btw, I never suggested I an a descendant of Henri Cartier Bresson. I never insulted but you seemed insecure enough to attempt that. Stick to the facts, and let's see what you are capable of then if you hare going to suggest that's what I think I am. Because you are moving into barking territory with no bite to show.
@halfwaythere- "I don't have to prove anything to you because I didn't ask for anyone's photos. Maybe I haven't reached that level yet where everything in b&w must be artistic but at least I don't act like a pretentious little man every time someone critiques my beloved equipment or photos."
If you are going to make claims all the photos above I posted are ordinary, then I say yes, post your photos. It's good to know what kind of skill you have so I can apply the proper weight to that comment because otherwise you could just be someone that doesn't know what they are talking about.
Also if you are referring to me as acting like a "pretentious little man" please explain how I have acted so?
I have no problem with photo critique. The problem is that since I don't know who you are and you have no photos posted, it's hard to tell your skill level to take your critique seriously or not.