Amnon G: 8MP frames from a video creates a whole new capability of extracting the best photo out of a video instead of continuous shooting. This could be very handy for many things, from sports to kids to animals.
I could see weddings shot this way. Oh, I guess they already are with 50Ds and a heavy finger.
racin06: I’m an experienced RC airplane and helicopter pilot/enthusiast. I want to clarify the legalities of performing aerial photography with multi-rotor RC helicopters (MRRCH)…I hate the term “drone.” There is no license required to fly a MRRCH as a hobby or for not-for-profit. Currently, it is only illegal if you are flying MRH commercially and/or for pay. Now, even though you may be conducting aerial photography as a hobby or for not-for-profit, there are still rules that must be followed to fly RC aircraft in a safe manner. I strongly encourage visiting the Academy of Model Aeronautics (http://www.modelaircraft.org), which is the sanctioning body for the RC aircraft hobby. These RC aircraft are not toys and command respect and proper training to learn to fly. Anyway, below is a rent video of my flying my electric-powered 87” Sbach 300 RC airplane. This is a fantastic hobby!
Touchy aren't we?To the vast public they will always be drones no matter what you want call them. Saying "my MRRCH took a dump "will elicit a blank stare.
Drone sounds way cooler.
GRUBERND: it would be amazingly helpful if manufacturers - and if not, then dpreview - would start listing the flashsync speed on these cameras as a default spec. for some it is still a very important difference if the camera can sync at 1/500 or faster with any flash or only with pseudo highspeed techniques commonly referred to as FP-sync.or did i miss something somewhere and the real sync-speed is mentioned somewhere?
Historianx is correct on all his points.
They both use leaf shutters and thus sync at all speeds up to their max. This is not a "rumor". Leaf shutters just do that.
Panasonic also offers an electronic shutter that goes to 1/16000 but you cannot use flash with the electronic shutter at all.
Another fact not "rumor".
David Eichler: Regarding the Canon 16-35mm F:4 IS, I think there are a substantial number of people, myself included, who will find the IS more useful for handheld, low-light still photography than the extra stop of the F:2.8, non-IS, version, and not only for completely static subjects. In particular, I think that event photographers and photojournalists who do a lot of low light photography will welcome the IS.
Also, as some have already mentioned, Canon's MTF chart suggests that this lens may have significantly higher image quality than either the 17-40mm or the 16-35mm F:2.8, both of which are good performers for what they do (assuming you get a good copy), but leave something to be desired with regard to edge performance. Of course Canon's MTF curves are theoretical and only part of the story with regard to image quality, but they are useful for comparison purposes.
Now, if I can just get a good copy of the lens to try. Canon's quality control is not great and I find too much misalignment.
My biggest gripe with the whole lens purchasing adventure is the need to get a "good" copy.QC should be a given.
When Nikon came out with their 14-24 they were able to wipe the floor with the Canon 16 2.8 much to the disgust of many Canon shooters. If their 16s were bad copies or just optically inferior is not clear. What was clear was that they switched to Nikon.
JKP: Has enyone figured out, what specifically Nikon means when that say D800E has effects of AA filter 'canceled', while 810 has it entirely left out? What is the difference between the two cameras?
In the D800E they had an OLPF and then an "inverse" OLPF to to bring it back. I am not reading the literature but that is the concept IIR.
dubstylz: Sorry but that was a boring set of photos!
Well, its a style that has its adherents. I noticed there is scarcely anything new under the sun.
peevee1: $589? Good luck to Tamron, they are not going to sell anything at this price, Pana HD 14-140 WITH stabilization is $399, the new Pana 14-140 (with even better stabilization) and Oly 14-150 are about $600.
It is probably the kind of price to quickly take half off and call it a sale. In Japan it is 26,000 yen according to 43rumors, about $250.
How could it be smaller? The optical formula is probably identical to its competitors and limited by physics. Why is there so much magical thinking regarding optics?
As with all the third party mtgs. the MSRP is always a lot higher than street price.
It is tempting to give DPP another try but LR has so many features that I can't get elsewhere such as the brush adjustments and the perspective correction that I can't see any advantage in doing so.The notion of slightly better color is a poor incentive given the ability to fine tune LR.
Juandante: Still no FF Fuji ?
Fuji has created arguably the best APS-C system around.
If FF is a must for you there are three systems out there for you. Just don't come back whining about size, mirror slap and the size and expense of their lenses.
Seems to be a brilliant addition at an especially sharp price compared to Sony's offering.It would seem that apart from the super shallow DOF fanboys this camera would make most photographers very happy.
I would also observe that most pros would not be averse to using this for paying jobs except for the concern of being accused of using amateur gear.
ProfHankD: Quite good IQ against other 1" sensors. When you compare to an APS-C body, this isn't as good at 100 as the A6000 is at 1600... and the A6000 isn't bigger nor more expensive (actually, the FF A7 is smaller than the FZ1000). The FZ1000 lens is fast and long, as the smaller sensor permits....
In sum, it's a very good camera, looks more than equal to the Sony RX10, but I'm not a compact user looking for a DSLR-size-and-shape camera without the IQ benefits. Is that really a big market?
The market is seen as valuable for two reasons:1. Increased margin2. Whiners who buy on price can justify the fact that they can get a full range of FLs AND 4K video AND relatively light weight AND can brag about specs (irrespective of real world results).
Judging from DPRs comments section this is a gigantic demographic.
D1N0: Beavis and Butthead should comment this video.
judging by some of the comments, they have.
Biological_Viewfinder: Because of this website, I have purchased several Panasonic cameras over the years. But I've come to the conclusion that there has never been a top-notch Panasonic anything, ever.-The Sony isn't perfect, but I'd rather pay $1300 for the Sony Rx10 and have a camera that produces output that I can enjoy, than pay $800 for a Panasonic that I won't even use because the output is lacking.-Once again, let me remind you that I've purchased several cameras from Panasonic over the years. *NONE OF THEM* produced images that were useful to me. I've owned the Nikon D800e and others. I was *NEVER* happy with any Panasonic product. My biggest complaint is the ugly, chunky noise and horrible low-light capabilities.
Sorry your experience was poor. Mine has been the opposite. I have bought and been delighted with several of their M43 cameras. I use Canon 5DmIIIs for work and I find the IQ of the Panasonics excellent. For the P&S cameras creating JPGs I think almost all of them stink except the Fuji and Olympus ones. Shooting RAW or JPG gives me excellent results with Panasonic. Setting your JPG defaults well makes a big difference.
DoctorJerry: As far as I am concerned, they can skip all the video crap and then drop the price to something more affordable. I can enjoy photography without having to worry or even use video. Would that make the camera lighter, faster? Maybe Panasonic should have 2 models, one with and one without 4k video.
They will sell this to a lot of people who will never shoot video and also to a lot who will never shoot stills. Creating two models with the aim of being able to sell smaller quantities of each at lower prices makes poor sense.
Super useful for the commercial photographer needing the flexibility. Fair price for this quality and market.
mosc: RX10: $1300A77 with 18-135: $1100K5IIs with 18-135: $115070D with 18-135: $1300D7100 with 18-140: $13007D with 18-135: $1400K3 with 18-135: $1400
It's not that it's priced like an APS-C camera, it's that it's priced like a TOP END APS-C camera. I mean those lenses are all a LITTLE less of a zoom and their apertures favor wide to tele (which IMHO is an advantage) but this cam's got a lot of high end competition. Not like the RX10 fits in your pocket.
Pointless carping.If you cannot see the use or the difference buy something else. Trying to "prove" that something is better with apples to oranges comparisons wastes time.
webrunner5: Well, that certainly is a video worth watching. Some nice interesting tips and well produced.
Would be neat to be able to go all over the world, but sort of dangerous anymore and pretty expensive on top of it.
Not as dangerous as the media would have us believe but more expensive than they would have us believe.
photoreddi: Handing out free Fuji Instax photo souvenirs to the street people you're shooting is a great ZA tip, especially if Fuji supplies the cameras and the Instax film. Great stuff. Credit card size photos (2.4x1.8") using 20 exposure ISO 800 film packs at $13.40 per pack (B&H price).
I wonder if Zack ever owned or even used an Instax before doing this Fuji promotional video? Here's a tip for Zack. Next time he can look like a pro by getting a Lomography Diana Instant Back + for the Diana F+ Camera.
> This amazing accessory will now allow you to turn your Diana F+ camera into an instant camera, with some tasty twists. The Instant Back uses Fuji Instax Mini film, which is about the size of a business card.
Handing out instant images is what we did in the 60s. Instant crowd of admirers.