AngryCorgi: This selfie nonsense is getting out of control. First off, people don't act the same way with legitimate cameras like they do with idiotic cell phones. Second, the average consumer of these products is NOT a 13 year old girl.
Camera industry: knock it off! Your market analysis is lying to you!
As a couple I used to take lots of selfies, long before smartphones even existed. And before I owned a camera, we used photo booths. C'mon, everyone did this, you even see it in a lot of movies.
RedFox88: Thing is, the sand pic has a foreground element: the ripples in the sand. Try again!
Thimg is, he says that in article. Read again!
photogeek: Cyber-espionage features are built in for free.
It's a smartphone, so it's a given. Brand doesn't matter...
papa natas: A camera that NEVER went to the moon as well as the crew.
"papa natas" or "papa açorda"?
Horizon not horizontal.(Stupid predictive text)
Sailors knew even before scientists that the world is round. You see the masts rising out of the horizontal long before you ser the hull...
Unless you bring something new to the table, just let the rest of us discuss a camera that "didn't go anywhere".
piratejabez: In slide 3, the upper fourth or so of the image is blurred (look at the mountain top)... assuming this is post-processing?
At first it seemed it might be fog, look at the right mountain. But then it also appears on the leftmost trees, where it doesn't seem like fog. So probably some PP.
What I want to know is: will it bend?
Honest question: what about android? The app needs to be updated or already has this?
Google glass should just take random photos from time to time, and then let you know when it thinks you have just taken a great photo!
MikeF4Black: Most commenters here have no idea whatsoever of Japanese business culture, let alone of the successful part of that business culture. It takes some reading between the lines to grasp what he's saying.
My only question is: did DPR really "make time" for him, or was it possibly just the other way round? ;-)
@MikeF4BlackHonest request: write about what you read between the lines, otherwise this is just pointless discussion.
vFunct: 4k should only be done on a professional cinema camera.
It should NOT be in any dSLR.
In fact, dSLR for video is useless. A real cinema camera is always better than dSLRs. The dSLR body is not designed for video, since the mount points are always near the center of gravity, causing it to be unstable and shaky.
Additionally, the full-frame sensor causes everything to be out-of-focus. Professional editors constantly complain how horribly unfocused dSLR videos are. You end up with much better shots with a smaller sensor, like super-35mm.
At this point, only amateur photographers shoot video with dSLR videos. I never hire dSLRs videographers and always choose cinematographers with real video cameras for jobs.
Once you add all the cinema accessories to a dSLR rig, you're just better off with a real video camera, for better quality results.
I hope Nikon comes up with a separate cinema system, like what Canon did.
Some random thoughts (amateur opinion), after hearing about 4k for a while:- 4k might be the only option for the footage to look good on a big screen (eg. movie theater);- 4k downscaled to 1080p gives sharper footage and better colour space;- 4k allows room to crop in post to 1080p, so you can for example simulate camera movement (dolly shot), simulate focal lenght change (alternate between wide and tele without changing lens and without stop recording) or just correct a wide shot;- 4k futures proofs your work.
Jon H Laake: Can the flash tilt for bouncing?
The answer is in page 10 of the hands-on.
MrPrime: These are nice cameras but they are simply too expensive.
Remember the film days - low cost cameras with decent lenses, light weight, no batter charger to worry about. Entry price was low because nobody figured a lifetime of film expenses into the equation. And the short lifecycle of digital cameras means a $1000 compact camera is worth half that in a couple of years. Too expensive, waaaaaaaay too costly. A smart phone is a must-have and if it comes with a decent enough camera the step-up cost for the cameras shown above is simply laughed at.
These compacts have to be good enough to replace an SLR to get long term traction, and they aren't there yet. But they are getting closer.
A smartphone It's not a must have, It's just a luxury as a $1000 camera is...
Boss of Sony: WHY IS THIS CAMERA BIG NEWS? RICOH RELEASED A FULLY POCKETABLE CAMERA WITH AN !!!APS-C!!!! SIZED SENSOR 2 YEARS AGO (RICOH GR). THE ONLY THING THIS PANASONIC HAS OVER THE GR IS THE 4K VIDEO AND AN EVF. WHO CARES? NOBODY HAS 4K TVs. PLUS IT HAS BEEN PROVEN THAT FROM A NORMAL VIEWING DISTANCE, THERE IS NO VISIBLE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 4K TV AND 1080P TV, so anybody who buys a 4k TV is mad. Most photographers are not interested in taking 4k video anyway, unless they want to make documentaries, in which case, who cares whether you have a pocketable camera or not.
Careful man, you seem to have turned off the caps lock key at the end!
Roman Korcek: "the exposure comp dial is odd: turning it to the right decreases exposure"Funny, so you turn it right to say +2 and this +2 setting actually decreases exposure by 2 EV?
No, they mean you turn the dial to the right (so counter clockwise), the button shows -2 and the indicator on the lcd goes to the left. It seems strange to turn the dial to the right and see the indicator move to the left.
Almeida: How is this a "portrait lens"?
The news is different now, no mention of portrait.