I get along well with out EVF in most cases but NO EXTERNAL MIC INPUT and 4K video? Cripples the video capability.
Brilliantly original! Thanks for bringing this to DPR...
Super cool! Been here many years, as a river town located on the "western frontier" in the 1800's, Cincinnati grew very rapidly, peaking at the 5th largest city in US around 1900, resulting in many more interesting architectural and cultural elements than might otherwise be associated with a city of it's current size. Other favorite buildings of mine that are still standing: Music Hall, Union Terminal, Dixie Terminal and Carew Tower, each outstanding when first created and still going strong today.
LOVE another entry into m43 bodies and lenses, overall very good for the format.
camcom12: This release makes me believe Tamron might have been the contract developer for the original Oly 14-150mm u4/3 lens, and the exclusivity clause expired, or the market for u4/3 10X zooms is on fire, so Tamron is simply capitalizing on it. Methinks the former is more plausible. Unless this iteration has amazing IQ somehow, what's the attraction here?
I was wondering the same thing. My copy of the Oly 14-150 is very solid, pretty sharp across the range, a great value. Would like to see the Tamron distinguish their offering vs. the current Oly in some key way. BUT, regardless, I'm very glad to see another player in m4/3 lenses. Now please offer something distinctive.
RichRMA: All this "demanding" fast lenses. m4/3 buyers do not buy fast, expensive lenses. Remember the 4/3rds lenses like the 150 f/2.0 and the 14-35mm f/2.0? They cost like Nikon FX lenses, $2000 or more and very few probably sold. Tamron, Olympus and Panasonic are giving the average mirrorless buyer what they WILL buy, not what they fantasize about, without the funds to buy them.
Really? The hot zooms in m4/3 are the f2.8's by Oly. I own the 12-40 f2.8, great lens, opens lots of operating room vs. slower zooms. And your point about 4/3 lenses is hardly relevant, orders of magnitude small market size in 4/3 even at peak vs. m4/3. I see you own two m4/3 bodies? Are you saying YOU don't care about fast zooms for your m4/3 bodies? Fine. But you may want to let the rest of us just speak for ourselves..
fantastic, what is the story behind this shot?
Ben Raven: So let me get this straight,
Because some people MIGHT video a movie with a STILL camera, the REST OF THE POPULATION OF PLANET EARTH are now considered convicted co-conspirators. And without due process, must be assessed a penalty AND have our right to video ANYTHING for longer than 30 minutes straight revoked.Oh, and did I mention that this outrage is being imposed by a for-profit industry in conjunction with vulture camera manufacturers opportunistically using this pathetic excuse to attempt to squeeze more $$$$ out of their customers' pockets !!
One more important technical note--A quality HD video camera, unfettered by this limit, is capable of higher quality than the average still camera, and would be the obvious choice for intellectual property rights thieves.
Also, since more and more people are watching Blu-Ray level movies, the call for inferior video and wretched non-surround sound(with coughs) knockoffs is diminishing.
And we're supposed to be alright with this ?!?
Ben, you, I and Tevmar seem to be on the same page! I went to start looking up video recording limits here on DPR and they are kinda hard to find, they are not a standard item in the specs list or database unfortunately.
So, until we can get the manufacturers to do the right thing, I think we should request that record time be a standard specification item for each video format supported by a camera.
Marcel Kuemmet: I shoot long video recordings of legal interviews and testimony. A Panasonic AVCHD recording directly to 500 gb HDD recorder, as well as being rendered. The signals are split. Not in HD. A Canon HF 10 with a class 8 card will record (in HD) until the battery dies or the card is full. Have done it many times. I also use a Canon T2i, for special HD shots or footage. But I never shoot long clips or leave the shutter running for several minutes (I am told, but not sure) as that can apparently cause damage to the sensor? The T2i is running Magic Lantern on full manual.So, needless to say, I'm a little confused here. I have been doing for years what is said cant be done. And I know I'm not that good.I also blog ... here is one of my recent ones. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uM7lAx6HOF8
Marcel, you say you are confused, this thread is about removing the record time limits on still cameras with video. You mention the HF 10, that is a camcorder, not a still camera with video. Should record until you hit stop, the battery dies, or you fill the card, no one disputes that or says it "can't be done" with a camcorder. It just can't be done with many modern still cameras, that have built in recording time limits for video.
Ben Raven: Robbster (you've obviously been on this for awhile),
What your reference has clarified for me, directly and simply, and which the ambiguous DP item above did not -- and please correct this previously uninformed soul if I am not getting this straight --is that apparently it is the MANUFACTURERS THEMSELVES (and not the WTO as I initially thought) that are imposing the actual equipment level limits.
And that this is a profit based decision to BOTH avoid the tariffs and/or duties of many countries and the European Union on video cameras,
AND IMPORTANTLY:in an additional case of classic cynical Corporate greed and opportunism:
The said manufacturers, in order to maximize profits at the expense and cheating of their customers, are intentionally crippling the tech performance of their cameras, to in effect try and force people to have to buy video cameras in addition to their still cams, JUST IN ORDER TO VIDEO LONGER THAN A MERE 30 MINUTES.
As I see it, basically Yes and Yes.
The manufacturers /choose/ to limit video to under that required by tariff conditions to lower their costs, which with enough competition, lowers our costs.
Further, however, some manufacturers are exporting these limits around the world to countries where the same tariff conditions do /not/ exist. This is also a choice, and we can surmise that this choice would have two main drivers 1) to increase sales of video cameras for those manufacturers for whom this is a profitable business with similar or better margins and 2) to further reduce costs by not having to differentiate the cameras based on regional differences.
Here is where our voice to the manufacturers is important. Those who give us what we want will be rewarded in the market place with our spending and with greater loyalty in future purchases.
So, speaking up for what we want is key, to both the tariff authorities, and the manufacturers: no artificial limits on video!
Ben Raven: STOP THE MUSIC ! Just wait a cotton pickin' minute ! And excuuuuse me, and my uninformed naiveté.
But do you mean to tell me, that all this time: it WASN'T a technological obstacle ?it WASN'T the fabled over-heating problem ? it WASN'T a manufacturing cost issue ?
That right from the get-go, the 30 minute still camera video time limitation has been an artificial non-tech intrusion on our simple "we hold these truths to be self-evident" freedom to video whatever the hell we choose to video, for as long as we darn well want to ?!
Imposed by an international body of bureaucratic farts -- because of someEuropean tariff ???? As far as I'm concerned they're all full of, er, "duty" !
What's next, are we about to learn that all along there's been a tariff limit imposed on high ISO performance ?
Well, dear readers, pardon my PG rated profane outrage, but:
SCREW THE WTO AND THE TARIFF THEY RODE IN ON !
Yeah, Ben, I find it outrageous as well, BUT, I also want it CHANGED for the whole world! See the related thread in Open Talk that I referenced above...
Hurray! If you don't personally need this fine, BUT, please stop trying to talk for the rest of us who DO need this!
See past posts on this very topic for the various real world scenarios where 30+ minutes recording is needed...
Here is one such thread, I started this in Open Talk...
Ashley Pomeroy: It's a shame they couldn't build the wireless thing into the body. That's the way things are going. I've always maintained that entry-level photographers generally *need* pro-calibre cameras; they need fast, reliable autofocus to capture their kids, they need excellent high-ISO and flash metering for parties, and they need a built-in wireless transmitter to get the photos to Facebook. Until recently the only cameras that could do those things were pro-level, but now things are changing.
Entry-level camera buyers are essentially photojournalists, taking and sharing images of real life - maybe not whilst being shot at, but real life nonetheless. Something that future generations might relate to. Rather than boring seascapes and awful HDR rubbish that will die and be forgotten. The amateurs and the pros are alive; the people in the middle - with their tripods and graduated filters and waffling blog posts about their workflow - they're the dead ones. Dead inside.
Spot on, Ashley! Nicely reasoned. And now, the manufacturers are beginning to design against the real needs of capturing real, everyday life.
diforbes: f5.6/6.3 kit lenses? WTF? Where's the good glass, Olympus?
Yeah, this has been the bane of m43 for years, lack of fast zooms. BUT, part of my rationale for buying the E-M5 (and therefore sticking with m43) is the fast zoom glass coming in the new Panasonic X zooms for m43. These are looking like fixed f2.8, and I'll snap up one of these when it comes out if IQ is good to complement fast primes (e.g., f1.7 20 mm Panny). I would LOVE for Olympus to give us some fast m43 zoom glass as well as better primes. m43 potential is being held back by lens quality in the native mount, but there is enough on the roadmap to build a good kit. Let's hope we get to GREAT glass at some point in the native mount (Sigma, et al, you should be listening as well).
Silver on order with the sealed 12-50 zoom!
Goal: Replace my current GF1/GH1 (+ past Nikon D80)
+ Smaller than all+ EVF included+ 16MP sensor, expecting image quality of Pany GX1 (we'll see), which, if you look closely at results on this sight, rivals comparible APS-c units (e.g., Nex7) in high ISO/Low Light up to 1600++ Fully modern feature set and performance+ Leverage my m43 14mm and 20mm fast primes + Sealed for outdoor use/hiking+ Very advanced 5 axis IS on sensor, means ALL lenses benefit (so investment in lens is in IQ, not IS).
Considered the Sony Nex7, Pentax K01 and Panasonic GX1 + Pentax K-5 & Nikon 5100. Had a lot of heart for the IQ of the GX1, but stabilization on lenses only is major draw back. Sony IQ was not better than GX1 + lens limitations. Loved the thought of the Pentax K01 with almost all the same features AND all those K mount lenses, but no EVF is killer for long zooms. Finally, couldn't go back to mirrors size :-)
SO, Bring on digital "OM-D"!
+I want APS-C sensor (lots of options)+In smallish body (mirrorless Sony, Samsung..)+With image stabilization on on the sensor for greater low light/DOF flexibility from ALL my lenses and +a range of high quality lens options from established lens design/manufacturer.
Leaves me with one choice, the K-01
SO, I see some pretty basic enthusiast camera logic that would lead you to a K-01.
Of course, we'll need to see performance in the real world and some reviews and user comments to understand the rest of the trade-offs, but I'm just saying that the choice of specs is actually UNIQUE and is NOT just for P&S upgraders.
I use both DSLR (Nikon) and Mirrorless (Panasonic GH1). Nikon too big, Pany sensor too small. What I want is a blend of the two, taking the APS-C sensor from the Nikon and the convenience/superior video of the Pany without the lens/IS tradeoffs of Sony and Samsung.
K-01 at least specs the right way to meet these needs. Food for thought...
I've been on dpreview for MANY years, but SOME folks are getting out of hand here on the forums with rude and in some cases just plain asinine behavior. You, with the superior attitudes who are sure you know SO much, who the heck do you think you are??? No, really, who are you to bring the level of discussion down to such a low level?
Respect for different points of view is required for civil discourse.
Therefor, I say, please cool it, oh rude and pretentious ones, and make room for folks who want to discuss the topics at hand with a reasonable amount of respect for one another and the topics themselves.