mpgxsvcd: There may be better cameras out there for specific areas of photography. However, if you can’t take a great picture in any situation with this camera then it isn't the cameras fault.
so few people print to that size ? How on earth would you know what I or other people do with their printing ? I regularly crop down and print to A2. May not matter to you, but for some of us, a sensor of that resolution is just not enough. Why do you think that Sony, in the very same camera series, produced a 36 MP sensor ?
The camera won't stop you taking great shots, but the problem for stills is the resolution. You aren't going to be able to print this to any decent size without upressing. 12 MP too small for my requirements for stills
En Trance: 5D IV would be the equivalent of Canon running back home with its tail between its legs. No turning back now. UNLESS you think one 5D at 50MP and one 5D at 22MP is somehow REASONABLE and not INSANITY!
That is almost exactly what Sony did with the A7 and A7R. No one complained, and they sold well. Why would it be insane to have two variants of the same model with different resolution ?
Dennissmith: WHY are people still believing the "Hype" over more and more MP...REALITY CHECK FOLKS...More pixels does not mean better QUALITY photos.So let me get this straight..Canon bring out a 50MP camera and overnight the Nikon D810 is rubbish because it ONLY has 36MP...You people are so dumb!EDIT...The human eye can only detect so much detail...More pixels on a camera is a way to get fools to part with extra cash..
Dennis, how many pixels are required is entirely dependant on how big you want to print. If all you are printing is A4, then there is absolutely no need to use more than about 15 MP. However, if you are printing to A2 or above, then the difference between a 15 PM image, and a 50 MP image becomes profound. There is no point pouring scorn on people who want or need more MP simply because you (clearly) don't need them yourself. I have no need for 8 frames per second. Many people however do. I do, however want 40-50 PM in a sensor to allow cropping and large format printing.
MarioV: Always amusing to read the comments.Its as if all products that get released somehow should have been designed for someone's specific use and couldnt possibly be released for a type of audience.
If you dont like it, move on to something that does suit your needs.
I think these cameras are brilliant and the next step in evolution. The samples are superb. They can and will only get better.
What particular type of evolution are you referring to ? The loss of high ISO performance or the absence of any progress in video quality compared with the previous 5D ?
Caerolle: "Mirrorless to outsell DSLRs 'in three years'"
The worst thing is how most of the effort seems to be put into video for most mirrorless these days, rather than stills.
And finally, Samsung, like Sony, is well short of a compelling lens system. Plus, I heard their lens opening or flange distance or something really intrinsic to the mount is all wrong. Well, and being Samsung, I would guess they have a bunch of useless 'whiz-bang' features that are far more trouble than they are worth, and get in the way.
Other than that, way to go Samsung!
Oh, I imagine their menus suck, too.
And BTW, wasnt it Samsung that made those adds about cameras not needing to look like dSLRs? By putting their little cameras in a dSLR body or something?
Caerolle, are you a former Kodak executive member ? I seem to have heard this story before.
well it appears that these is some question as to whether this is actually true
Paul JM: Erez, a couple of comments refer to the 'DR' of the A7, but surely there is some HDR action going on in post here ?
Yeah the HDR gig does not do it for me. I like photos to look as though I am seeing them with my eye. Just a matter of personal taste, but the DR in a couple of those shots, in real life, looking at the shadowed back of a wall while looking straight into the sunlight, would just never look that way to the human eye, and I personally dont like that effect at all. I dont think they are leveraging the DR of the camera, but are touched up in post. Happy to be corrected if I am wrong
Erez, a couple of comments refer to the 'DR' of the A7, but surely there is some HDR action going on in post here ?
erotavlas: The only people who were underwhelmed and disappointed by this are the gear fanatics who constantly obsess about having the latest and greatest.
Excellent comment, so can we then presume that you are still using an EOS 630, and only browsing this particular thread seeking inspiration for your film landscapes ?
Photato: Wow what an epic marketing fail...and to quote my Grand mom."Over Promised - Under delivered"
I suspect your Grand mom was a young woman when Canon last released something worth buying
what makes me laugh more than this is the continual defence of this company and their complete lack of forward thought, or meaningful innovation by the posters on this forum. Dare to post anything negative about Canon, and you are leaped upon within moments.
I have kept my Canon lens set waiting for some tangible step forward from my 5D mk2, but I continue to wait. And, in the mean time, have shifted my video work to Blackmagic, and my travel work to Fuji
The world is leaving Canon in its dust
taktak91: I'm rarely envious of Canon users, but today I'm very envious.
Of what ? Slightly upgraded version of the previous 7D, with no new trick, and certainly nothing to attract me away from my current cameras. What exactly about this camera makes you envious, compared with the previous model ?My 7D mk1 is for sale. OK for sports, but heavy, big, and about as exciting as a night with my mother in law
absolutely nauseating to see so many posts just canning the concept of flying quadcopters. Any one would think that they are all carrying WMDs the way that people carry on. They are a relatively new and exciting concept in obtaining new avenues to photography, in the same way that underwater housings, crash camsGoPros etc areIf you are not interested in embracing them, then FFS dont try and turn a DPR article into a pulpit for professing your views on their evils. Take that nonsense elsewhere. Like any new tool, they can be used responsibly or irresponsibly. If you are worried about their use, then perhaps better to offer constructive suggestions about guidelines rather than just nonsense like 'dont encourage them'. One could equally argue that the use of mid to long range telephotos lenses in urban communities is more intrusive (most copters use very wide lenses, and you are far less likely to see personal details than a complact telephoto on the beach)
abolit: Hey, Fuji! Enough of F3.5 - F5.6 crap! Start making some good stuff! F2.8 all the way thru or , at least , F4 . Sick of it!
Cobber, the top post on this thread referred to Fuji as producing 'crap'. If you really agree then why are you bother bothering to post here ?Perhaps you need a ..................reality check............
"Reality check"FFSNow I have heard it allAnyway, better late than never mate
Iudex I am pleased to see that u r another emerging Streisand fan. Make sure that u attach a large bowling ball to the back of your head to counterbalance that enormous lens that u crave
It is also about keeping the range commercially viable. You may well feel that a huge lens on the front of this camera is going to sell. Fuji clearly (up to this point) dont. If you want to put a Canon 70-200 f 2.8 on the front of this camera, go and by an adaptor. No point flogging Fuji simply because they chose not to produce such an absurd combination. Not everyone wants to put Barbara Streisand's nose on Kate Moss' face.
Nothing more annoying than this sort of ranting. There is no point opting for a compact system camera, and then screaming for a wide, long telephoto zoom. It must out of necessity be enormous. If you want such a lens, then buy a dSLR. Working with a CSC is all about embracing the smaller system, but accepting the compromises that a small size brings. If you want a fast prime, than Fuji have plenty. If you want a high quality zoom, then Fuji have plenty. If you want a high quality zoom with a long telephoto range, and a fixed 2.8 max aperture, you are looking in the wrong galaxy. Look at the options you have. if you compare with the Canon 24-70 2.8 (which is only about half as long at the long end) you are looking at almost twice the weight (490 vs 805 g). If you look at the Canon 70-200 2.8 with IS, then you are up to 1.49 kg ! Even if you accept f4 in the Canon 24-105, you are still at 670 g. So seriously forpetesake, take your whining elsewhere
Jogger: Its not good enough for professional use and its too expensive as a toy (which is what it is).
reread the posts mate. What are you referring to when you say 'this is be definition..commercial' ? We were not referring to any particular mode of use. Jogger mentioned commercial use, not me. Clearly this little drone is not appropriate for commercial use. And by the way, the law is different in every country. The FAA is of no interest or relevance to those of us who dont live in the USA. It is hilarious that you seem to assume that we all live there