LensBeginner: Cons:1. never shot jpg2. ditto3. that's a problem with lenses, not camera4. true. But it's a camera, not a videocamera5. true
...not many cons there, are there? ;-)
And this is why I would be happy if these DPReviews ended at the pros and cons and discussion, leaving each of us potential users to decide how important the props and cons are to us, instead of attempting to reduce all these many aspects to a single number, or a single color of award.
Manfred Bachmann: again a new akku? slowly i think nikon needs a break!
akku is German slang for battery I think (as in "accumulator").This uses a new smaller battery along with its new smaller memory card format, microSD.
BJL: Why is the sensor called "APS-C" size, when its output is in the wide-screen 1.89:1 shape of cinema 4K (4096x2160), not the 3:2 of "APS-C", and is likely instead to be something closer to Super 35mm format?
It is strange to describe a digital motion camera's format in terms of a failed still camera film format of different shape (3:2) when there is are well-established motion camera formats like Super 35mm that describe the situation better.
Agreed that "super 35mm" is used loosely when describing video sensors. But it makes more sense to me to indicate roughly the format of a video sensor by comparing to a similar, well-known, widely used motion picture format than to compare to an obscure, failed still film camera format in a quite different shape: this sensor is in the roughly 1.9:1 shape of cine-4K, 4096x2160.
Joseph S Wisniewski: Wonder how many uFT lenses will cover the 25.3mm Super35 image circle.
Weird. If Panasonic hadn't recently dumped all their JVC Kenwood stock (they were JVC's largest single investor for half a century) I'd say "oh look, a Panasonic subsidiary has joined four thirds".
But right now, it makes no sense.
P. S. Also "Super 35mm" is being used as loosely as "APS-C" these days. The actual sensor seems to have a 23.7mm diagonal for the cine-4K format, which is only 1.2mm more than the 22.5mm diagonal of official 4/3" format (18x13.5mm).
dark goob: This is just wrong. Super35 is 24.9x16.6.
21x12 is the same thing BlackMagic's Production Camera uses.
For Reference the GH2's multi-aspect sensor is 18.9x10.6mm at 16:9.
The phrase "Super 35mm" is being used with digital video the way "APS-C" is used with digital still cameras: as a rough indication of the size using a hopefully familiar film format, which Super 35mm is for cinema and video professionals.
I do not see many people complaining about using "APS-C" to describe sensor formats as small as Canon's 22.3x14.9mm, when the actual APS-C film format is 25.1x16.7mm, larger than any "APS-C" sensor.
APS-C film format was 15.1x16.7, so 3:2. In fact the "C" refers to the "classic" 35mm film frame shape of 3:2.It was always strange describing digital formats by using the name of a film format that hardly anyone ever knew and is anyway different (bigger). On the other hand, Super 35mm has a well-established meaning for motion photography, both film and digital; in particular, the customers for such a camera know what Super 35mm means. So why not use motion camera format jargon when describing a motion camera?
From the press release http://www.jvckenwood.co.jp/en/press/2014/04/press_140407.html
Proposal for new 4K-compatible camera system1. [Reference Exhibit] 4K mini camera system... This proposal will provide a new solution to expand the shooting field of the 4K camera system.
2. [Reference Exhibit] Interchangeable 4K compact handheld camera recorderA “4K compact handheld camera recorder” will be on exhibit, featuring a 4K Super35mm image sensor, and MFT* Mount to flexibly accept a wide range of interchangeable lenses.
Item 2 makes me think that MFT mount is being used mostly as a "universal recipient", through which many lenses can be connected via adaptors.
But the Item 1 comment about "a new solution to expand the shooting field" intrigues me..
Why is the sensor called "APS-C" size, when its output is in the wide-screen 1.89:1 shape of cinema 4K (4096x2160), not the 3:2 of "APS-C", and is likely instead to be something closer to Super 35mm format?
The 21x12mm mentioned in the article is a bit smaller than Super35mm, which is 24.9mm wide. So either that is a typo, or JVC is proposing a slightly smaller variant of 35mm cinema format (there are already plenty of variants around!). It is also only a 1.7mm larger image circle diameter than the 22.5mm diagonal of the official 18x13.5mm of official 4/3" format, even if current MFT sensors are a bit smaller than that.Since many lenses cover a comfortably larger image circle that the format they are for (in particular, longer than normal lenses and zooms at all except their shortest focal lengths), I doubt that vignetting will be much of a problem. Also, mild vignetting in the corners of a video frame could be corrected with "lens correction" firmware.
Does it come in Apple bayonet mount?
razorfish: Why doesn't anyone have the guts to make a 17-120mm for a dslr or mirrorless? That would be a dream standard zoom, but everything starts at 24mm only so you still need to carry a true wideangle
This is for Super35mm movie camera format (frame width about 24mm) so its wide-angle coverage is comparable to 24mm with the 36x24mm frame of 35mm still camera format.http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/professional/products/lenses/cinema_lenses/cine_servo_lenses/cine_servo_17_120mm_t2_95_pl
Joe Ogiba: The smaller Panasonic GM1 has a larger sensor.http://camerasize.com/compare/#545,491
"LxWxD" gives the volume of a box needed to store the camera with no lens attached; that does not strike me as a useful measure of portability.
Depth (front to back) with a lens attached is often the main constraint on fitting comfortably into a pocket or purse.
mpgxsvcd: How is this better than a Panasonic LX7? You get a brighter lens with a bigger zoom range for a lot less money. Sure it has a bigger sensor than the Panasonic. However, the Panasonic's lens is much brighter(More than 2 stops).
The LX7's combination of 1/1.7" sensor with a very bright f/1.4-2.3 zoom lens gives about the same DOF wide open as 1" format with f/2.4-3.9: shallower DOF than with either of the initial two NX-M lenses, the f/3.5 prime and f/3.5-5.6 "25-75mm equivalent" zoom.
Also:- the lower f-stops of the LX7 allow use of lower ISO speeds by a factor of about 6, so it probably has better low light performance.- the LX7 zoom range of 24-90mm equivalent goes a bit wider and longer that the NX-M zoom.
So interchangeable lenses (not many for now though!) and the "selfie-screen" are the main advantages of the NX-M.
drawer77: i have a question about Red cameras for you gurus out there. i know the Red camera are modular cameras. But do they use a reflex system like a DSLR or are they mirrorless ?
Do you see an OVF on the body in the photo above?
REDs are purely video-out cameras, with very big, high-quality EVFs and external LCDs available to attach to the basic 'brain'".
Anastigmat: I wonder if Canon and/or Nikon will shake up the market by making its own medium format CMOS sensors, cameras and lenses.
Almeida:(1) Phase One management has said that the Sony sensor is available to all; no exclusivity. So I hope for a Pentax 645DII using it soon.
(2) One big barrier for Canon, Nikon or Sony offering a full system in a format larger than 35mm is developing a range of high quality lenses for what is always going to be a low volume market with vastly loess total revenues and profits than the 35mm and APS-C format DSLR markets. I doubt they see sufficient return on investment there, compared to investing in their 35mm and APS-C format systems.
After all, Canon and Nikon never bothered with MF film cameras (nor did Minolta or Konica or Olympus or ...), and that was a far larger and more profitable market than digital MF. (DMF has higher unit prices and profits, but only about one tenth the sales volume of MF film cameras, and about one hundredth the unit sales of 35mm format DSLRs.)
James Pilcher: I'm a µ4/3 user and I'm glad to see the OMD E-M1 receving such recognition. The E-M5 received similar accolades last year. Having used 35mm film cameras since 1971 before switching to digital, I have to wonder why the giants Nikon and Canon are not better represented at the forefront of camera development right now. Are we awaiting an explosion of technology from Canikon, or is something amiss at those companies?
I am very happy with the innovations in Micro Four Thirds (and from Fujifilm X and Sony E), but since Canon and Nikon DSLRs still dominate system camera sales and profits, their apparent lack of innovation might simply mean that they will only have a profit motive to take mirrorless systems seriously when those newcomers bite deeper into DSLR sales.
In particular, Canon is probably in a good position to make EOS-M a more serious competitor, by adding an EVF, dual pixel PDAF, and a few more lenses. All of which might already exist in the R&D department.
neo_nights: One more thing: did anyone actually read the WHOLE study?
Anyone who has done an academic research knows how frustrating/infuriating it is to spend months/years reading, reasearching and such, write pages and more pages about something and then the press just publish a couple of lines about it, about its conclusion, and then everyone starts b*tching about it.
Be careful with pre-judgements, people.
Some commenters here do not even seem to have read the whole of the DPReview article; maybe they scanned the headline and jumped straight to the comments.
The second quote from the research paper indicates that the effect is likely to be only when people just take a quick snapshot and move on without otherwise paying attention to the subject, whereas looking at the subject carefully enough to compose a good photograph has the opposite effect.
In other words, some commenters here looked at the article in the the same way that some sloppy snapshooters look at the objects they are photographing; in either case, little is learnt.
He overlooked the classic"Circle of Confusion: a bunch of photographers sitting around a table arguing about depth of field".
scrup: Will the compact flash card die now! all it takes is for canon and Nikon to stop using this format. SD cards are getting faster and faster. all laptops have sd card slots.
The battle to replace CF is now between SD on one side and the two new rival "post-CF" high end formats, CFast and XQD on the other. The latter two offer higher speeds and capacities than CF or SD, and so might win some of the high-end video camera market, but I suspect that SD will continue its path to overall market dominance by becoming "good enough, supported by far more computers and cameras, and a lot cheaper".