Upload & Sell: Off
.... I am a strong Canon user, all the way back to an original rebel film camera, to Elan 7, and then the digital craze.
IOW, a pretty recent convert to photography.
Like everyone else lately, I thought the Fuji x100 would be absolutely perfect for my style of shooting. Well, the focus was really tough to get used to. I didn't like the menu structure. And I had trouble adapting to different software. For my workflow, it just wasn't going to work. I returned it after a week. So, I have been thinking about all this and have decided, why not just throw a 24mm 2.8 on a Rebel T1I that I already own? The high iso is great. It makes it a small, light camera. I know the software very...Show more →
I really do think you're missing something.
Most of us that have been at this for any length of time have wanted a small, take anywhere, use anytime, high IQ camera, and for all practical purposes they just don't exist. Up until now, the closest small, high IQ camera has been the Leica M9 (FF body only is $7k, and lenses typically run $1.5 to $5k each).
In the film days, you could get lots of small P&S cameras that were "pocketable", allowed you to choose your film (within reason), and made inconspicuous, high IQ, shooting possible. A DSLR doesn't do that. Even a X[whatever],T[whatever], or [whatever Canon offers in general] doesn't fit the bill. They never have in the digital era. I've thought about it and rejected the idea of using a small rebel/lens combo 100x in the 8+ years (been shooting digital 12+ years now). Unfortunately, it means you're often right back in the same boat and potentially carrying lots of large and heavy lenses. Sometimes I just get tired of lugging around all my gear, and I've been doing this for decades. Even my (new) F-1 (Canon's top of the line from the 80's, with lens(es)) is smaller than a rebel kit.
The new Fuji's - IMO - have done a lot for the world of photography - the x100's crazy focus issue aside.They (x10/100) may not be perfect, and are idiosyncratic to some, but many people love them. They provide exactly what many people want - extremely high IQ, small size, reasonable price(s), good-to-great lenses, etc. Take it out of your pocket and shoot great images.
Sony has the Nex series, which from everything I've read, will more than likely compete - and beat nearly everyone else out there with features (focus peaking, ISO, IQ, lens adaptability, etc.). The 24MP nex 7 will be hard to beat. And as an added bonus, I can attach my old Canon FD lenses to a Nex if I want - and I do see myself doing that.
I've been more excited by Fuji than anything that Canon has done in 5-6 years. Canon bores me; they just milk the market, play catch up with barely enough to defend their territory, and while I'm sure some of the soon to be released cameras will do a great job, I find them incremental and boring. Nothing they offer provides anything new. Who really needs 14 FPS? I don't. I have barely used 10FPS...
Personally, I don't think Canon cares about this market much. I'm unimpressed by their new G1x - though it is probably better than any previous G series in some ways (certainly not all). They're joining the fray only because they're a "me too" company now, and decided to offer "some thing" (and then hit it in the head with a slow lens to bring it down).
The market is changing, or has changed, and Canon is about to be caught flat footed. More people want to carry their cameras, and the mirror-less option will allow them to do just that. A new HTC cell phone with a 16MP camera should drive that point home. I'm 99% sure that any photography expenditures I have in this year will NOT be with Canon (I don't know what they might release, so that could change). Given what I know, my money will go to a company that understands it's about creativity, flexibility, high quality, and importantly, options, and not just protecting their turf. That rules out Canon, and Nikon too (see Nikon's tiny sensor V1/J1 offerings).