Read more.Quote:
New compact uses automatic creative styling and cropping with wireless sharing.
Printable View
Read more.Quote:
New compact uses automatic creative styling and cropping with wireless sharing.
The ultimate instagram :L interesting that they've put a DIGIC 5 inside - I guess the creative effects take a fair chuck of processing.
Well they have large stock of DIGIC 5 - no point re-ordering an old design in fewer numbers.
And I'm impressed. I think it's neat, and a great expression of taking digital cameras beyond merely emulating their analogue ancestors.
Here is a preview of the camera:
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/991...st-impressions
it is instant instagram, or iinstagram!
:)
I must be getting old because I find the flood of new digicams with these "connected" features pretty annoying. Quite like the idea of smarter cameras that can do in-camera processing, but I really can't see the point of the ones that make upload to Facebook etc a number one feature - unless you're talking about cheapie "handbag" point-n-shoot fodder of course.
And, of course, no one makes mention of the hit on battery life that all this wireless and smarts would have. :(
So this is a low quality camera, with lots of image processing.... Kinda reminds me of the Q, only without interchangable lenses, and costing more.
But it has a screen that can flip to 90°, I mean that is always wanted and needed. No one just ever uses burst fire, the old spray n pray.
? It's going to be about half/ 2/3rds the price of the Q. And definitely not aimed at the interchangeable lens user!Quote:
Originally Posted by TheAnimus
The Q is < $300 with kit lens.
The Q10 is > $300.....
The Q kit was around $800 RRP, more if you got lenses to give equivalent focal lengths to this. The Canon N is $300 RRP. Prices naturally go down once past the early adopter bump, and I don't see any reason that the N's wouldn't also. I haven't seen the Q for under $300 though.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheAnimus
The Q10 kit RRP is $600 for a single lens.
But it's silly to even compare them really - they are completely different tools.
I guess what I'm saying is, who is this for?
People who want something 'more' than just a Point n Click compact? If so:
http://www.engadget.com/2013/01/08/p...ands-on-video/
And the like are there. The Q for instance made huge things about its HDR modes, the ability to do all sorts of effects in body, most of them differen't and more impressive I suppose than instagram.
This graph needs to be updated for instagram :D
http://www.f1point0.com/wp-content/u...h-1024x858.png
But people interested in the N are not going to want an interchangeable lens camera in it's place. Far too much effort/thought required. This is the opposite of all that - don't think, just shoot.
The competition for the N comes from camera phones, whose owners are going to ask the question we once found unthinkable: why would I want a device that /only/ takes photos(/video)? Wireless capability won't be enough to compete with mobile sharing - now if they add 3/4g support it would be another matter. Taking the photo is one thing, ease of sharing is the other in the social media world.
Exactly why I almost without mentioning anything in my thought processes discounted them as competing with a camera phone.Quote:
Originally Posted by kalniel
Because surely this can't go up against a fondlejabber? I mean its size for one thing will be a problem. Hipsters of instagram seldom want powerful zooming. I mean, most photos on instagram are narcasistic, so just want to take the person in "fashionable place A".
How does a zoom help there?