I concur about the sample images - they do seem very, very soft. Even my cheap 70-300 on my 300D does better than that with a low quality lens and a 6mp sensor.
Not sure what this camera is supposed to prove TBH - the sort of people who buy bridge cameras tend to do so specifically because they want something with more range of features than a compact without the bother of changing lenses, whereas those of us who go for SLRs tend to do so because we don't want the compromise of a bridge camera.
This seems to be an answer to a question no-one has asked, and not a very good one at that.
Softness samples:
http://regmedia.co.uk/2009/01/28/g1_28.jpg
http://regmedia.co.uk/2009/01/28/g1_6.jpg
I appreciate that the are full crops, but even then, that seems a bit iffy to me.
And for £500...um, I'd rather a 1000D methinks. It might be based on tech developed for film, but I can't see how this tech offers any advantages other than the live preview really.
Register
@ jason eariss
I concur about the sample images - they do seem very, very soft. Even my cheap 70-300 on my 300D does better than that with a low quality lens and a 6mp sensor.
Not sure what this camera is supposed to prove TBH - the sort of people who buy bridge cameras tend to do so specifically because they want something with more range of features than a compact without the bother of changing lenses, whereas those of us who go for SLRs tend to do so because we don't want the compromise of a bridge camera.
This seems to be an answer to a question no-one has asked, and not a very good one at that.
Softness samples:
http://regmedia.co.uk/2009/01/28/g1_28.jpg
http://regmedia.co.uk/2009/01/28/g1_6.jpg
I appreciate that the are full crops, but even then, that seems a bit iffy to me.
And for £500...um, I'd rather a 1000D methinks. It might be based on tech developed for film, but I can't see how this tech offers any advantages other than the live preview really.
Steven R