particleman78: From what I've read about this drone; I think the biggest problem with this is the lack of object avoidance. It is bound to fly into trees, buildings, poles, or even worse people.
Exactly. I mean, going down a ski slope like they have in the video, how is it possibly going to avoid the chair lift or trees or all kinds of obstacles. If you cross the street, its going to get hit by a car or run into an over pass or power lines. This is probably the most dangerous quad ever. Its a super neat idea, but you need to be away from everything to use it.
It seems like the pan part should not be below the ball head. I need the ball head to level the base. Once that is done, the pan can be on the mount side. Who levels the legs of the tripod, that takes forever in the field if you need a set of balanced pan shots.
steve ohlhaber: The pricing is really getting nuts for canon. Bodies and lenses are crazy. If this shot 4k or at least 1080p 60, then I could justify it.
Mkay, the 5d2 was a breakthrough for VIDEO shooting. It got so many people into full frame VIDEO. That camera cost $2800 brand new. Now they are many years out and ZERO improvement to video when other makers have improved that feature and all at lower costs. Moreover, everyone complains about no real noise improvement, so that is for stills, and its all at a cost of $1000 more than a 6 year old body. So, yeah. I expect more.
The pricing is really getting nuts for canon. Bodies and lenses are crazy. If this shot 4k or at least 1080p 60, then I could justify it.
steve ohlhaber: I thought the main benefit was better and cheaper lenses due to a closer distance from lens to sensor. There is nothing like looking through the lens in the finder. Its a big tradeoff to lose that TTL finder for the gain of some size. None of IL mirrorless cams are really pocketable unless you use a crippled lens, so its a tough sell. You are big enough to not fit in your pocket, yet expensive enough to expect very high quality. If there is a significant improvement in quality and reduction of cost and the finder is at least good, then it may make some sense. It seems like you can get a DSLR for cheaper that is better with many more lens options tho.
What I don't hear enough of is, how much better are the lenses given the distance is shorter. I really want to know and I don't see much info on that. So, I mean, Full frame, same focal length, same aperture, show me the diff? Anyone got some examples? Would love to see it.
I thought the main benefit was better and cheaper lenses due to a closer distance from lens to sensor. There is nothing like looking through the lens in the finder. Its a big tradeoff to lose that TTL finder for the gain of some size. None of IL mirrorless cams are really pocketable unless you use a crippled lens, so its a tough sell. You are big enough to not fit in your pocket, yet expensive enough to expect very high quality. If there is a significant improvement in quality and reduction of cost and the finder is at least good, then it may make some sense. It seems like you can get a DSLR for cheaper that is better with many more lens options tho.
thx1138: You wonder why Canon even both offering video these days, they cripple it so much. What a pathetic joke not to even offer 1080p/60 let alone 4K. Hopefully this is a Sony sensor and not Canon's trailing edge circa 2005 tech.
It is crazy these days to release anything that cannot do 1080p 60fps. Scores of pocket cameras can do that. Pretty much everyone except Canon is pushing the video capabilities AND getting better sales and more interest with 4k and high speed FPS.
I have been waiting for a high pixel FF, and here it is, but seriously, by now, that should also have better video FPS or res than my old 5d2. I assume a better 1080p/30fps, but come on.
Grevture: To me this poll is basically impossible to answer - because to me many if not most enthusiasts would happily use more then one camera in parallel, with different sensor sizes, depending on the situation.
So essentially, all the top six options are appropriate, depending on the situation and one's shooting habits in various situations.
And the bottom option does not work either - because sensor size does matter to people. Just not a single one.
I agree as well, until someone puts a bigger sensor in a super zoom, I have to own a 1/2.3 sensor camera. I don't see how pros travel with these 24-100mm zoom ranges. You just cannot use them for travel photography. Whats weird is, they are tiny. If they just made them a tad bigger, I could at least get a 24-200mm in a slightly larger camera that shoots raw and finally be happy.
Since the sensor is so big, does this mean it can do some form of digital zoom and use less of the sensor. I am trying to replace a 24-300mm zoom range and I am sick of these 1/2.33" sensors and no raw. It seems like they could do something to at least match the IQ when zoomed using digital zoom if they can reduce the use of the sensor. I just don't know if that is how it works. That would be an interesting comparison between a travel zoom at 300mm and this thing using digital zoom.
Catalin Stavaru: If Sony can afford to drop the price by $300 in an instant, can you imagine what profit margins they operate on ? Talk about customer rip-off.
I think they just don't know what will sell. I think they just found out that there is not much of a market for a camera as big and expensive as an SLR with less quality.
PhilTate: I know very little about optics, but it seems that eventually the image will wind up on a flat surface, either as a print or on a computer screen. Won’t it take some doing to get the curved image flattened?
The curved sensor allows you to capture the image better. The lens itself is already curving the light in a way that prevents it from working when using a flat sensor. Bending the sensor corrects for the curve induced by the lens. Its easier to make a lens that can project an image onto a curved or hemispherical surface. You don't need any correction in post at all for printing or for a display. Its simply going to be a better image.
Paul Kersey Photography: I suppose Canon has a target customer in mind, I just don't think of that person being an advanced shooter.
Its puzzling to me because an amateur needs more zoom range and a pro probably does too. What travel camera can a pro have, well, none. You have to go way down to a tiny sensor if you want zoom over 120mm???? I mean in a non slr. There is a massive gap in the market just waiting.
Dylthedog: Interesting selection - the perception of photos is definitely changing. I'm struggling with #7 as the winner for landscapes though.
Seriously. #7 is not interesting on any level I know of, least of all landscape.
As soon as it doesn't fit in your pocket, just go FF.
If this shot 60fps at 1080p, I would be more interested as a solid backup to an SLR for still and video. Sony does it on many models.
It would be nice to see a 1inch sensor that has a better zoom range. I would love a camera that can cover 24-300mm AND shoot raw with a big sensor and pocketable. That should easily be doable given a 1 inch sensor is much smaller than this camera. Its like it forces you into a narrow zoom range AND no movie mode. So if you need tele or video, you need 1 or 2 other cameras. That just makes no sense to me. It seems hard to own this as your only camera due to those missing features. My father just got back from a trip around the world with the rx100 and his big complaint was predictable, not enough zoom range on either end. I think 24mm is enough on the wide side, but 120mm just isn't much for long zoom.
saralecaire: This is so strange, video on a medium format camera... and 60i in 2014, wonder who made that decision.
Seriously. Its amazing that anything is shooting interlaced these days. When a $300 camera can do 1080p 60, its hard to accept, but if you need it for stills I guess it wont matter. Just too bad it cant do both.
Sean Nelson: STILL no 1080p60 video from Canon. Get with the program, guys!
No, Francis, people actually do want 60fps AND a good still camera. I have two different cameras to pull this off. If they can just get cameras like this to shoot at 60fps then I don't have to have two different cameras. Wouldn't that be easier Francis?
Dangit, wanted 60fps video. Looks like a great stills camera though.
Gesture: It's not elegant like the retro cameras we remember fondly. Take a look at a Pentax K1000, Minolta X-11 or XE-7, Contax 139, Nikkormat FTN, etc. Far too many bells, whistles, knows, buttons, etc. Can't anyone simplify the DSLR experience. That would be welcome.
Nothing is simpler than the Canon SLR main wheel. You just program what you want into each notch of that main wheel and that's it. Having to change every control when you need to takes forever. If you switch between tripod and handheld stuff frequently, then you go through everything. Its too difficult. It depends on your shooting style, but I think canon pretty much got it right. Maybe adding more notches to that wheel would improve it. Having everything broken out into its own knob makes it harder it seems. Some people may like it though.
There is no excuse for leaving the Canon G1X out of this bunch. Its possibly the best fixed lens still image camera out there and its priced right at the sony rx. It can crush just about every other fixed lens camera due to the massive sensor it has. That camera and the Sony RX are the only ones I really think about leaving the SLR behind for and its not even on the list??? This list would make more sense without the sony rx in there due to its price.