Photomonkey: Yes it is expensive. It is a Leica.
It is a testament to the brand that it has lasted these many years. Great brands selling at similar prices have exited the stage over the years. Zeiss, Alpa, Rollei etc. These are legendary brands as is Leica. Arguably, they expired because they did not charge enough to support their expensively produced excellence.
Leica have survived and thrived despite a few near death experiences because the quality is undisputed and their careful moves into digital have broadened the appeal of the line. They have also wisely refused to discount their brand.If you do want to spend less and get a Leica you can, but it won't be an M.
When I owned a Leica M4 everyone could see the difference in the negs produced by it when they hung drying side by side in the darkroom. We even shot the same subjects at the same time with the same film and processed in the same tanks. I had noticed this earlier and THAT'S why I bought a Leica.As for pricing of lenses, I noticed Pentax is not shy about the price of its 645 lenses. I am not critical of that. They are not producing many and they are superb.
Yes it is expensive. It is a Leica.
They call me Hans: I understand that Leica glass is the gold standard but god these price points just hurt my insides...
I guess you haven't been following Leica for very long. ;)
Old Cameras: If it wasn't so outrageously expensive, nobody would buy it.
When I owned an M4 I was always waiting for a raise as the lenses were always a months pay.Whenever I got the raise I noticed Leica had gotten a raise too. ;)
Karroly: If the price of this lens was 5x lower, couldn't Leica sell 100x more and make much more profit ?
Pricing for any business is about maximizing profit for the long term. Discounting this lens to the territory of a mere Otus (humor) would drive off the market seeking the ultimate in lens construction and design. As Howaboutraw notes the scaling up of production would lead to a decline in quality but more importantly add overhead that in the long run would degrade the brand.Years ago, I ran a photo lab with some very skilled workers. I was tempted to expand as the demand for our work was great but the inability to find skilled printers and camera operators meant that we needed to stay small. While we could train them, the skills needed to do the work to our expectations took about two years of experience to acquire. A costly enterprise. Leica face the same problem. Scaling a craft business of hand made product is far more expensive than buying another donut machine.
mpgxsvcd: I really liked the content of the images. However, far too many of them were simply ruined by stopping down too far. That produced motion blur, shutter shock blurring, and low detail images because of diffraction.
The person taking these pictures treated the camera like it was a full frame camera. There was absolutely no reason to stop down that far in several of the images.
No wonder everyone thinks m4/3s can’t be used for action sports. If you shoot with the camera in this manner you definitely will not have a good keeper rate.
Shutter shock had nothing to do with the blurring in these images. A pan will completely eliminate an visible shutter shock by replacing it with motion blur. The set is a good example of real world use of this camera. The very blurry image is one that I would have left out but in truth is closer to what so many get when working with the technique.
Bargain. Pure and simple.No IS means lower price, weight and simpler optical design.
This is what people have been asking for.
MarcMedios: Honestly, I didn't find it that good at all. I think one might be jaded by the sheer amount of photography one sees on a daily basis.
I think you are correct in saying you are probably overwhelmed by the volume you see on a daily basis but her work is solid classical quality.These days , children scorn anything lacking over the top processing or staging. The key here is she delivers solid work to paying clients as opposed to fashion wannabe's cluttering the web.
Thanks for the Q&A. I admire he work and the ability she has to share her photographic career with her daughter.
The gear is real immaterial, she is a person with a great eye and brain.
zsedcft: GoPro will no doubt ruin this company, but at least they got autopano 4 out of the door first. They really nailed it with 4.0. The previous versions did not blend tones anywhere near as well as photoshop, but this version has definitely made them the best stitching software.
Someone really needs to challenge GoPro. They basically sell phone cameras (without a screen) in plastic boxes for $450 + accessories. Apparently all of the people who make the phones were sleeping for the 5 years it took GoPro to become a billion dollar company.
So..... how will they ruin the company? As I see it, Kolor did not have to sell. Rather they could have embarked on the strategy you outline and ruled the world. But they didn't.Apparently everyone but you and your two friends are stupid. We are anxiously awaiting your billion dollar idea.
Mohamed Rizwan: $2500 for this camera where as Gh4, FZ1000, LX100 are available for less price. Canon made this camera for foolish peoples who thinks canon is god. SONY coming with rx10 mark2 and rx100 m4 with 4k. Come on canon stop preparing useless cameras. Learn from panasonic and sony.
The fact that the hobbyists here do not understand the needs of ENG and other video makers is of no interest to Canon. The same trolls derided the prices and specs of the entire Cinema EOS line yet the cameras remain very popular with real professionals. Silly comparisons of paper specs and price ignores usability in the real world and the value thereof.
mpgxsvcd: I think the biggest problem I have is that Dpreview doesn’t understand its own audience. We simply don’t want to hear about this camera. It isn’t something that we would ever consider buying. We accept that you don’t EVER talk about products from RED or the high end Panasonic video cameras because we know that not many people here would ever buy those.
So why is this camera so special? What makes Dpreview think that their readers want to have this camera shoved in our face every couple of days. For once and for all. Stop pimping this camera to us. We get it that you think it is revolutionary. However, we simply don’t see it that way.
Stop feeding the troll.
fuego6: Bah... typical Adobe minor adjustment features that should just have been made available in an incremental update. How about allowing floating toolbars (like the rest of the CC package)? How about beefing up the library function? How about speeding up the export option (takes FOREVER to export photos)?
See Ya LR... I'm out!
I looked at Sagelight. While it has some appealing features it is clearly an amateur outfit with no Mac support, incomplete website and only the slightest passing reference to RAW image processing. It looks from its website to be an image editor and not a LR competitor. Adobe gives me pro product and except for C1 the rest are amateur hour.
I am sure you will be happy with any of the LR killers out there. Oh! Wait, there are none except maybe a peer in C1 but then what is a few hundred bucks for a cutting edge power user such as yourself.
Tiderace: DSLR Controller costs less than $10 and does more than this for all android devices. Yes, it only works as a monitor for iPads right now. That said, get a Nexus on eBay for $50 and you are good to go. Or use your large Phablet Android phone as your monitor. It has a large number of controls for your camera and in addition works beautifully with video mode as well.
Manfrotto is actually a company that pays its employees to design and build stuff. DSLR controller, while a nice-ish product, does not seem to.I doubt that we can really build a business on the products of hobbyists whereas I am sure a hobbyist is just fine using it.
IEBA1: I agree with all the posts that wonder about the point of this article. Given how few "opinion" pieces are on DPreview, why the XC10 gets a positive opinion piece makes the whole web site suspect.
I laughed out loud at: "The XC10 represents an important step on the path to convergence between the still and video imaging worlds, though it’s important to recognize that it’s an early step."
Wha? Can you even find a camera any more that doesn't do both?
Years ago, I hacked a GH2 for fantastic video, stills, and augmented it to use cine servo zoom lenses for capabilities still lenses simply cannot provide. Last year I upgraded to a GH4 and haven't looked back. It is a stellar tool. You can see gobs of my technical videos here:
The only unique feature is the rotatable grip. Something I had on my first HD camcorder, the JVC GR-HD1. Yes, I'm an early adopter. Thats why it bugs me when I see article like this that are _years_ behind the curve.
Apple was also accused of overpriced and under featured products so this is no different. While enthusiasts can criticize the product much as they did the Cx00 series of cameras from Canon the fact remains that the people in the industry have a high regard for Canon products. The actual specs are sure to deliver quality video in a useful form factor that offers a lot of flexibility despite the spec critics here.As for matching the GH-4, that is an excellent camera but still has the SLR form factor that requires a ton of additional kit to work smoothly in the video world. It is still an eye-level SLR form and has all the compromises that brings. Note that purpose built video cams do not look like the GH-4.
While others may have introduced features first, Canon has the market muscle to make things happen.
Apple did not invent the computer, phone, music player or tablet but that didn't stop them from succeeding at it.
It is a notable camera because Canon is doing it. THIS is why Canon was working on when everyone was hoping for a new sensor.This is a far more meaningful step as it has far greater implication for photographers everywhere.
The sensors will come, the lenses will come and the price will come down (and go up). But in the end this will be seen as a landmark.
rallyfan: I suspect a used X10 would be a more reasonable proposal given the high pricing of this, and the modest IQ.
As to the layout and controls, we are rapidly approaching the stage when neither will have any sort of context, in that generations of photographers are coming that will have never used "classic" controls and will have never used a film camera.
This is great news, because we'll finally break free of the "film" mentality and move forward. The nostalgia is not just pointless, it's counter-productive at times.
Anybody here work as an X-ray tech, an orthopedic, or a radiologist? Do you miss the days of developing and fixing X-ray film and autorads? Do you wish you could get the "feel" and "control" back today, or would you rather use a modern interface and have your patients get their results instantly, with the possibility of further analyses using a computerized interface? Hm...
Why are photographers still stuck when everyone else that uses imaging isn't? Must be hobbyists.
One IS paid for the process as there is no image without process.To the extent process needs to aid the production of the image the inclusion of controls to effect that is important.Film processing is no longer a part of photography for the most part, however control of the camera with adjustments derived from film cameras that actually are effective is useful to the creation of the image.Your question has been answered several times in this thread and your insistence that it hasn't does indicate trollish tendencies on your part.
If you were a professional photographer you would pay a lot of attention to process as it is intimately involved in the final result. Photography is often conducted in disparate environments that require quick, reliable adjustments. Radiology is comparable to studio photography in that the conditions are tightly controlled thus changes are minimal after initial setup. Snarky comments about artistry don't make you look clever, they make you look like a troll.