File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
It seams that Panasonic reveals it first micro four-thirds system camera, DMC-G1.

http://panasonic.jp/dc/g1/index.html

I just bought my LX3 yesterday...
>> Anonymous
It's like 0.5 inches smaller than a 400-series Olympus. And STILL has quite a bulge where the prism was - I thought this will be the first thing to get rid of. And that kit lens looks no smaller than a regular 4/3 kit lens, probably because Panasonic insists on using their in-lens stabilization (which is quite retarded on Micro 4/3).

The 1.5 megapixel viewfinder sounds nice, though. We'll see if it's fast enough.
>> Anonymous
IT HAS A SCENE MODE CALLED "FOOD"
YOUR ARGUMENT IS INVALID
>> Anonymous
>>252737

And TWO baby modes.
>> Anonymous
>Autofocus only available with:
> Olympus Zuiko 25 F2.8 'Pancake'
> Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 14-45mm F3.5-5.6
> Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm F4-5.6
> Panasonic Leica D Summilux 25mm F1.4 ASPH
> Panasonic Leica D Vario-Elmar 14-50mm F3.8-5.6 ASPH. Mega OIS
> Panasonic Leica D Vario-Elmar 14-150mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH. Mega OIS

Lol, so much for compatibility.
>> Anonymous
Meh. I was waiting for something nice and rangefinderish, and *that thing* comes out. I feel that Panasonic totally missed the point of µ4/3 with G1.

At least they got LX3 right.
>> Anonymous
>>252752
>rangefinderish
Panasonic already failed with the "rangefinderish" L1, so I guess they're being very cautious now.

On the other hand, even if it doesn't look like a rangefinder, this thing will still be capable of using rangefinder lenses when the Chinese/Russians make some adapters. And this is AWESOME.
>> Anonymous
>>252752
Seeing as they have a 20mm (=40mm) f/1.7 lens in the works, it's a good bet they'll make something looking like a rangefinder in a year or so.
>> Martin !!ve2Q1ETWmJH
I want a metallic red camera :(
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
>>252756
DMC L1 is not a rangefinder... OK maybe it's a DSLR with a rangefinder-like body.

These new micro4:3 cameras are crap. Do not want!! I'll wait for true digital rangefinders to come to substitute the Leica M8 and the Epson RD-1. Or at least to make both them low the prices...
>> Anonymous
>>252764
Wasn't it a digital rangefinder? That's the one with the little film-advance lever that doesn't actually advance film, right?
>> Anonymous
>>252765
DMC-L1 didn't have a film advance lever.
Epson RD-1 is a true digital rangefinder camera with a film advance lever which, obiously, don't advance any film but it's used to cock the shutter. Leica M8 cocks the shutter automatically.
>> Anonymous
>>252767
Ah, my bad. I would make that purchase just for that damn lever. You know, if I a) had that kind of money, and b) could find a damn place to purchase it from.
>> Anonymous
>>252769
which one do you want to buy? the RD-1?

you can try on e-Bay or the market at rangefinderforum.com
>> Shu
http://www.akihabaranews.com/en/news-16701-Live+Tokyo+and+Hands-on+%3A+Panasonic+put+Some+colors+in+
its+latest+DSLR%2C+the+Lumix+G1.html
>> Anonymous
it looks awesome. i want a camera in that paint scheme. it's good that there is some progress with the designs, although i too hoped for something more revolutionary rather than evolutionary like this.
>> Shu
I also think it looks great, one huge worry is... DUST! Is it just me that thinks it will take no time at all for this system to be caked in sensor dust?

I love the design and flip screen for portraits and am curious as to the pricing for the lenses, isn't this after all supposed to be a "peoples" dslr system?
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
i, for one, welcome our new flying 4/3s overlords.
>> Anonymous
>>252788
Why would this have any more problem with dust than a normal SLR? It still has a shutter. Besides, it's not like it's that difficult to blow off the sensor once in a while.
>> soulr !lK4GD5SleY
so DSLR's will be a fashion accessory now?
>> Anonymous
>>252792

When was the last time they were not?
>> Anonymous
>>252794
70s
>> Anonymous
>>252792

It's all Canons fault.
>> Anonymous
tis just a glorified p&S , rplace midrange superzooom, dslr have on niche
>> Anonymous
>>252799
wat
>> Mutt !!mIF4ZkWn+B/
>>252799
Forget the larger and higher-performing sensor, eh?
>> Anonymous
>>252791
Yes it has a shutter. But you do realize that the shutter is going to be OPEN the whole time it's in Live View mode , right? Which is every time that you are using the camera?

It's basically the same setup as a regular PnS, but without the sealed sensor/lens cavity. They had better have hella dust removal to make this work.
>> Anonymous
>>252735
It says it's 60 fps. As long as there isn't smearing and it can adjust quickly to different exposure levels, it sounds pretty cool to me...

I actually think it's a good idea that they make this camera. If I had some extra cash to burn on something totally frivolous I might buy one and a pancake just cause it's cool.
>> Anonymous
>>252827
But do you realize the shutter is going to be CLOSED when you have the lens off, which is when dust will enter? And all interchangeable lens cameras already have awesome anti-dust systems, it's called a fucking blower.
>> Anonymous
pedestrian
>> Anonymous
Shallow and pedantic.
>> NatureGuy !se3A3TwzdY
     File :-(, x)


Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 MacintoshImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:08:14 22:05:45Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width725Image Height713
>> Anonymous
Fucking sweet. Curious to see what comes out of Olympus along these lines...
>> Anonymous
I was under the impression that this used a smaller sensor than regular four thirds, but I guess that's not true. This is basically P&S on steroids with a much, much better sensor. Sweet.
>> Anonymous
>>253072


...and interchangeable lenses.
>> Anonymous
So basically, it's just a dumbed down SLR.
>> Anonymous
>>253074


...in what way?
>> Anonymous
I guess I'm a little confused here, how does the viewfinder work without mirrors?
>> Anonymous
>>253078

It has an electronic viewfinder. dpreview.com says it's really impressive.
>> Anonymous
>>253082


Supposedly the LCD screen is actually usable as a means of focusing given its pixel density. I want to try one of these fuckers out.
>> Anonymous
I looked through the preview of it and I'm still curious, does this retain the 2x crop factor or is that changed now that the sensor is closer to the lens?
>> Anonymous
>>253092


nop, still 2x
>> Anonymous
I wouldn't mind one of these and the L1's sweet kit zoom (14-50 mm F2.8-F3.5 Vario-Elmarit) paired together. if the price is right of course
>> Anonymous
I have a feeling these are going to be like 900 bucks with the lens. :\


Still really cool, and I like the possibilities with the Micro Four Thirds standard.
>> Anonymous
>>253150
don't forget the 25/1.4 summilux! that'd be a bitchin lens to put on one of these puppies.
>> Anonymous
This is a pretty sweet piece of photographic technology. I mean the concept is simple but the more I read about it the cooler it is. The Viewfinder is like this kickass miniature ultra-high-res LCD in there, and the outside LCD is ultra-res, too. I reallllly want to try one of these fuckers out.
>> Anonymous
>>253078
Oh yeah, they don't broadcast this fact. It's a digital live display, not an optical viewfinder. Apparently it's the fastest and greatest and best display ever or something, but still, it's digital, not optical
>> Anonymous
>>253163


Yeah, but according to dpreview it's pretty impressive. Supposedly it's the equivalent to like a billion trillion pixels in there.
>> Anonymous
To be more precise:


Viewfinder
Live View Finder(1,440,000 dots equiv)
Magnification: Approx. 1.4x/0.7x(35mm film camera equiv) w/50mm lens at infinity; -1.0 m-1
Field of view: approx. 100%
Eye point: approx. 17.5mm
Diopiter Adjust: -4.0 ~ +4.0 [m-1]
So it should be pretty good...and 100% coverage (of course) FTW.
>> Anonymous
>>253164
still a digital view. slower than pentaprism, no possible way that can be avoided. i suspect they will be down-playing this and up-playing (?) the size and sensor
>> Anonymous
Yeah, was hoping for something a little different rather than just a miniature dslr.
>> Anonymous
>>253173


Definitely true. I'd like to know what kind of lag we're talking about here. I think the refresh rate (if I rememebr correctly) is 60fps which should be fine, but if the lag is noticeable it's a drawback. If it's unnoticeable then awesome.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
From DPReview:
>Panasonic's research has shown that its target market (particularly in Japan) still prefers a camera that looks like a camera is supposed to, and wasn't going to risk falling at the first hurdle by producing something too radical.
Urgh. Panasonic, you are DOING IT WRONG. You are targeting the market who is not going to buy this camera because they already have an investment in Canon or Nikon or Sony. You should be targeting the market of people who don't want a big bulky SLR. That's the whole fucking point of u4/3.

Grr.
>> Anonymous
>>253185
I shoot mainly with a small sensor Panasonic EVF at the moment, an FZ8. Lag is noticeable but not bad in low light (where it has to gather more in) but usually not in daylight, etc. This will probably improve on that with the larger sensor, probably better electronics, and faster lenses (delicious 20/1.7 wide normal versus what I use 90% of the time, the zoom at 7/2.8) will of course help.

Any lag is actually really easily overcome with experience- one eye, off the camera, watches the motion, the other frames with the finder. I know it sounds hard/complicated/half-assed/whatever, but it isn't. Think of it like the eye trick one does with a brightline finder.
>> Anonymous
>>253205
Oh, and since the FZ8 and this share the same body shape, etc., I can assure all of you the ergonomics are GODLY.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>252833
>But do you realize the shutter is going to be CLOSED when you have the lens off, which is when dust will enter?
Turns out this isn't the case. From DPReview again:
>The G1 is the first camera to make use of the new, miniaturized Micro Four Thirds mount. Remove the lens and you'll be confronted with an exposed sensor - it's of the familiar Four Thirds size but rather disconcerting to see it in the nude. The focal plane shutter stays open until the point an exposure is made.
>> Anonymous
>>253210
And how often does one have to change lenses, really? If you're a zoomfag, chances are you've got some standard zoom that covers all the useful lengths. If you're a primefag, chances are you leave one wide or normal on almost all of the time, and sometimes switch to a longer lens for portraits or something kinda further away, or a wider lens for the things people use wides for.
>> Anonymous
A couple of things about sensor dust:

It has sensor cleaning built in, so that helps. Other than that if you're careful while changing lenses I don't see this being an issue.

Wouldn't it be easier to blow off the sensor with this setup, anyway?
>> cloud !!WK+Lu8k4giy
>>253214
Exactly, and it's not like this camera will be a professional dslr, it's entry level obviously - it's not like first-time dslr buyers will be buying all sorts of lenses with their first "real" camera. a beginner photographer, if anything, would probably be SCARED to take off their lens, amirite?
>> Anonymous
>>253224


Maybe. And I mean you can still use a selection of Four Thirds lenses that would be compatible with a 4/3 DSLR.

As someone who already has a DSLR this camera interests me as a backup camera. The quality will be much better than a P&S and if you're carrying 2 cameras it would be nice to have a pretty small one as one of those. amirite?
>> cloud !!WK+Lu8k4giy
>>253226
True, I was actually considering an oly evolt e-420 for that very reason, sort of an easy way to catch anything if i see anything. No point lugging around shit for no reason.
Never got around to purchasing it, actually, though..
Might look into this lumix if it's cheap enough haha
>> Anonymous
>>253227


I'm thinking this isn't going to be all that cheap, at least not at first. Something along 900 with a lens. Still, I really want to try one of these badboys out.
>> cloud !!WK+Lu8k4giy
>>253230
Ah, definitely. I've never tried a lumix dslr, but i did own one of their bridge/superzooms (dmc-fz20) a few years ago. Epic noise on anything about ISO 400, no joke. I'd love to see how they improved haha
But seriously, I can't imagine any professional photographer relying on a panasonic for all their shots in the near future..
>> Anonymous
>>253236


Well keep in mind this isn't going to have a P&S tiny sensor. If anything this will be a slightly improved Four Thirds sensor, and they were pretty good to begin with.
>> cloud !!WK+Lu8k4giy
>>253239
Exactly. If it weren't going to be 4:3 and everything else, I would've brushed it off.
haha guess I've got to wait until someone I know gets that "awesomecool new red/blue camera" (:
>> Anonymous
>>253236
Good thing it's not a professional camera then.
>> Anonymous
I'm interested in getting one now. The EVF sounds pretty damn cool just to try out, and I like the size quite a lot. Can't wait for some store near me to get one that I can try...too bad almost no one here carries Panasonic stuff.
>> Anonymous
I'm wondering if the EVF will really come in handy in low light situations where, since it's digital, it can brighten the image in the viewfinder.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
LOOKIT THAT LENS.
I WANT. NOW.
>> Anonymous
>>253281


YES
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>253214
>And how often does one have to change lenses, really?
Personally? I change lenses all the fucking time. Mostly between my standard 35/2 and my big telephoto for when I see something far away that I want a shot of. Or to my kit lens for something really close. Etc.

But yeah, if I had a u4/3, I'd be a lot more likely to just slap one lens on it and leave it there. Especially if the 20mm f/1.7 pamcaek is real. FUCKIN' DO WANT.

>>253226
>The quality will be much better than a P&S and if you're carrying 2 cameras it would be nice to have a pretty small one as one of those.
This is why I was really excited about u4/3. But this first camera is still way too bulky for my tastes. I'll wait for the next generation--hopefully they'll design some that are as small as they can be rather than just making them look like an SLR to appease the collective dick size insecurities of the Japanese.

My penis is enormous, dammit, and I want a tiny camera to compensate for that.
>> Anonymous
>>253281
how much does that lens cost?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
     File :-(, x)
>>253432
Looks like it won't actually be available until 2009 (assuming that they don't just kill u4/3 entirely). So there's a good chance the price has not yet been decided.

Hopefully by then there will be an awesome body to go with it.
>> Martin !!ve2Q1ETWmJH
>>253435
>7-14 f/4.0
delicious
>> Anonymous
>>253435

I'm gonna get that 20mm f1.7 for my e-410.
Just as killer kit as the g1
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
>>253450
Pity it wouldn't work. 4/3rds lenses fit on u4/3, but not the other way around.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>253450
...
Good luck with that.
>> Anonymous
>>253452
>>253454
zzz, why the hell can't they make a better pancake for the 4/3 system?

I guess that's never gonna happen now, with this micro shit going on.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>253455
Meh. Regular 4/3 is lame anyway. Artificially limited SLR system with no real advantages. Micro 4/3, on the other hand, is made of potential win and awesome.
>> Anonymous
>>253455
micro 4/3s give them even more reason to make pancakes.

>>253456
BAAW NOT CANIKON
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>253462
>BAAW NOT CANIKON
The hell? I think you misread my post...
>> Shu
Mind if I ask "what is so good about the pancake lenses"?

I never, ever saw anyone use one when we lived in Sapporo or Tokyo, tons of slr photographers there, and back in London have also never ever seen anyone shoot with one...

So, what's the big deal about them? Good for portraits or something?

We have a Canon and Minolta SLR's and a few lenses for both and I'm just curious not trolling or anything ok?

I mentioned dust before, as even though I was pretty damn careful with the 40D we had, dust prove so much of a hassle it got sold pretty quickly and its back to film for the moment. But this new system looks quite sexy...
>> Anonymous
>>253479
>pancake lenses

They're cool to look at, that's about it. Very compact lens relative to the sensor size.

I personally like em, though I think an even cooler thing is an old MF or LF lens on bellows with a leaf shutter, mounted on an old body cap or an adapter of some kind. Sweeeet.
>> Anonymous
>>253467
>Meh. Regular 4/3 is lame anyway. Artificially limited SLR system with no real advantages.

BAAW SOMETHING DIFFERENT is more or less what i meant.
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
>>253479
While small lenses for any system are pretty cool, it's especially important for more to come out for 4/3rds because that's what they promised us when it was first announced - smaller lenses and smaller bodies. While the current E series is objectively smaller than the competition, in practice you still have to hang them around your neck or stick them in the same sized bag you'd put a Rebel or D80 in. So we're waiting for Oly/Panasonic to make good on the small promise, because 4/3rds' shortcomings would be all forgiven if they made portability a real advantage.
>> Anonymous
>>253493
Think they'll make adapters to go from (anything) to u4/3? It seems like, since the flange-focal distance is so short, just about anything could be adapted to go on it. I am picturing one of these on the back of an EF 1200 (hee hee 2400mm).
>> Anonymous
>>253456


Um, wat?

The 4/3 sensor was specifically designed to overcome limitations inherent in larger digital sensors, such as light falloff and cromabs at the edges. Zuiko lenses are some of the best performing lenses around right now. The only real disadvantage is a little more noise at higher ISOs, and it's really not all that bad. Its like people just sort of say things when it comes to 4/3 and hope it sticks.
>> Kilz2latex !!3htj9hFDMA4
>>253493
what shortcomings are you people talking about?
noise? the fact that its crop factor is 2x? i dont get it, /p/ just needs someone to hate.

the biggest downside is that they dont have a full frame camera, and you dont go buying into 4/3 if you want a full frame camera.

i can definately say my e-510 feels better than a rebel or some shit like that.
>> Anonymous
>>253647


The XT and the XTi were built like shit. From what I've seen about the XSi it seems a little better. Still, I agree with what you're saying. The posters on /p/ are the biggest brandfags I have EVER seen, and I post on a few photography forums outside of this one.
>> sage
>>253479
>Mind if I ask "what is so good about the pancake lenses"?

Most of them are around 40mm, which translates to 60mm on a crop, which is closer to a true-50mm than nifty fifties.

Also they're more discreet, more pocketable, and PANCAKES.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>253486
>BAAW SOMETHING DIFFERENT is more or less what i meant.
Right, okay, but my issue with 4/3 is that it's not different *enough* to make up for its inherent limitations. Read the next sentence in my post where I posit that u4/3 is made potentially of win and awesome.

If they come out with a really small u4/3 camera that I can mount that 20/1.7 on, you can bet your ass I'm buying it. For big SLR systems, though, I'm sticking with Canon.
>> Anonymous
>>253688
>For big SLR systems, though, I'm sticking with Canon.

Having seen your photographs I'm more convinced than ever that Canon is for BRANDFAGS ONLY.
>> Kilz2latex !!3htj9hFDMA4
>>253688
WHAT LIMITATIONS YOU FUCKERS DONT EXPLAIN THIS.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>253647
>what shortcomings are you people talking about?
The lack of a full-frame upgrade path option, as you mentioned, is the big one for me. And the fact that, at a given technology level, at a given resolution, the 4/3 camera's always going to be a bit noisier than an APS-C camera.

I will grant you that neither are *huge* issues, but what advantages does regular 4/3 come with to make up for them? They're a little bit smaller and a little bit lighter, but as a previous poster said, they're still big enough that you're going to have to carry it around in a camera bag rather than sticking it in your pocket. It's not brandfaggotry, it's just that a 4/3 SLR offers no real advantages and a few real, if slight, disadvantages over Canon and Nikon.

I mean, look at your post. It wasn't pointing out any advantages to 4/3, it was just saying "I don't know what you're talking about, the problems aren't *that* big". That is not what we call a ringing endorsement.

And your E510 feels better than a rebel to you because you're used to it. When I pick up a Nikon--who are widely regarded as having the best ergonomics in the business--I tend to think "Wow, this isn't nearly as comfortable to use as my Rebel was". So check your own personal biases before throwing accusations at us.

u4/3 changes all this. u4/3 is a compelling system because it actually tries to be a different thing than Canon and Nikon do rather than just trying to be Canon and Nikon but less good.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>253691
>Having seen your photographs I'm more convinced than ever that Canon is for BRANDFAGS ONLY.
The last couple pictures I posted here were taken with my Nikon D50. Does that mean Nikon is for brandfags only, too?
>> Anonymous
>>253696


I understand that you have your reasons, and for all intents and purposes you are correct, but there are advantages to the Four Thirds system that you seem to willfully overlook.

>Telecentric optical path means that light hitting the sensor is traveling perpendicular to the sensor, resulting in brighter corners, and most importantly improved off center resolution, particularly on wide angle lenses.

The larger a digital sensor is the more pronounced these issues are. Reading reviews of, say, the 1Ds MkIII on dpreview.com you'll see that these problems are very real, but most people overlook it.

In my mind it comes down to how important noise is to you. It's a tradeoff; a little more noise at higher ISOs for a little better performance at the edges of the sensor. What do you use your camera for?
>> Anonymous
>>253647
>>253614

Word up yo.

Don't think there's a zoom around that can match the 12-60SWD
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>253705
>It's a tradeoff; a little more noise at higher ISOs for a little better performance at the edges of the sensor. What do you use your camera for?
Taking pictures of subjects who tend not to be at the very edges or corners of the frame, mostly. In low light. ;)

Corner shading and a bit less resolution at the pixel-peeping level rarely affects real-world pictures. Especially if I eventually get a full-frame camera (which tend to have a stop or two advantage over APS-C, and therefore an even bigger gap over 4/3), it's a tradeoff I'm certainly willing to make.
>> Anonymous
>>253708


The 12-60 is one of the best performing lenses from any system in that zoom range. After reading about it online I borrowed my buddy's E-3 with the 12-60 and the results were fucking amazing, even wide open. To each his own, I'd say.
>> Anonymous
And by the way, the jacket I'm currently using can easily fits my e-420 + the 25mm pancake.

A couple of my pants with fairly big pockets on the side of the legs too.

It's more portable than the G1 with the zoom-kit lens.
>> Anonymous
>>253718


What about the G1 with a pancake? FIGHT!
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>253718
> And by the way, the jacket I'm currently using can easily fits my e-420 + the 25mm pancake.
>A couple of my pants with fairly big pockets on the side of the legs too.
>It's more portable than the G1 with the zoom-kit lens.
Yeah, well, I prefer to wear tight assless leather pants when I'm out shooting, and it certainly won't fit in those.

Seriously, though, with the jacket I wear in the winter, I could fit my Rebel with 35/2. But it's a very cozy fit, and a 420 wouldn't be all that much smaller. I'm not that excited about the G1 specifically, I'm excited about what it represents from the future. Eventually someone will come out with a really small u4/3, at which point I will buy it and stick the pamcaek on it and will carry it around with me when I don't want to lug my huge Canon system around.
>> Kilz2latex !!3htj9hFDMA4
>>253696

i was referring to build quality more than ergonomics when i said that.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>253729
"Feels like it's going to break" is not the same thing as "Is going to break." I beat the shit out of my Rebel and never had anything on it break. I realize that that's anecdotal evidence only, but it's more than you're giving.
>> Kilz2latex !!3htj9hFDMA4
>>253742
well id like to be confident in my equipment, if it feels like its going to break to me then i will treat it like its going to break.

would you buy a car that feels cheaply made though?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>253746
>would you buy a car that feels cheaply made though?
Back in like the 50s, cars tended to be made from huge chunks of steel. The got atrocious gas mileage because they were heavy as fuck, and if you got in an accident in one, the car would probably come through it without issue while you'd go flying through the window. By the standards of the 50s, all cars nowadays feel cheaply made. Doesn't mean they are.

My Rebel felt quite sturdy to me. My 40D has a magnesium body and doesn't feel particularly more sturdy, just heavier.
>> Anonymous
>>253168
>Live View Finder(1,440,000 dots equiv)
Right, that would be twice as much pixels as the Olympus C8080's viewfinder has. The C8080's is definitely usable to make all your autofocused shots, but when it comes to manual focus, pretty much unusable. I'm not so sure if this G1 will be a lot better in that respect... Perhaps we can zoom in, like with Nikon's live view?
>> Kilz2latex !!3htj9hFDMA4
>>253757
ok so your saying youd buy a MODERN car with 50s technology?
or that youd buy a shit Ford over a Toyota?

lol it doesnt even tell me to capitalize ford like it does for Toyota
>> Anonymous
>>253827
>lol it doesnt even tell me to capitalize ford like it does for Toyota

Ford isn't only a brand name, durhur.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>253827
The point I'm trying to make is that your feelings on what is "good build quality" might not have any real basis in reality, and that that's a problem on your end, not Canon's. Your E510 feels cheap and flimsy compared to, say, my old ca. 1970 Minolta. Doesn't mean it is.

Either way, though, it's completely off topic for this thread. So sage.

(And if you're genuinely curious, I drive a Toyota Prius.)
>> Kilz2latex !!3htj9hFDMA4
>>253833
i wasnt..... just a coincidence
>> Anonymous
The age of digital has brainwashed us into thinking we must chase technology to make good photos
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>253840
>The age of digital has brainwashed us into thinking we must chase technology to make good photos
Pfft. You think that this is new since digital? People have been chasing technology since Niépce. The only difference nowadays is that it moves a bit faster and more people are doing it.
>> Anonymous
>>253840


wat? Who is saying that? With advances in digital technology more options open up for the consumer to take high quality photos in more situations. How is this bad in any way?