steve ohlhaber: Mirrorless vs DSLR is about the shooting experience, not the final image. Since you can get a full frame in both designs, and its possible they could have the same exact sensor in both, and you could use an adapter to use the same lens on both bodies, you WILL get an identical image from both. Its really about how you got to the point where you made the capture.
I am not excited about looking through an electronic finder, but I am excited about a shorter lens to sensor distance that allows lenses to be better, smaller, and cheaper. So, in that regard, mirrorless has the ability to produce a better image if you spend the same money on a camera and a lens built for each system. It has that ability, I am not saying they have done it yet, but technically, it should be easier to make a better lens just because of that shorter distance. That should make the vast majority of pros excited.
All the optical engineers pretty much agree that a shorter distance is easier to optically control. This is a vital thing to understand in any mirrorless discussion. The result is a better image. Some focal lengths are probably irrelevant, but its easier overall to optically produce the image. Easier = better IQ and that also can be cheaper. This is ONLY in regards to the lens.
Mirrorless vs DSLR is about the shooting experience, not the final image. Since you can get a full frame in both designs, and its possible they could have the same exact sensor in both, and you could use an adapter to use the same lens on both bodies, you WILL get an identical image from both. Its really about how you got to the point where you made the capture.
1 inch sensor! that's a bit incredible. Phone cams need help for sure. I am surprised they went to a sensor that big and not a smaller one that would still blow away any phone cam and make it more pocketable. Its nice to see everyone getting on the giant sensor wagon.
Its safe to assume everyone already has a phone on them at all times, so I guess you can capitalize on that.
G1Houston: So why not just shoot burst mode in still mode? At what point higher frame rate is no longer relevant? While the 4k Photo Mode is good for still, it is no longer ideal for real 4k video. On the other hand, grabbing a still frame from a typical 4k video shoot can be a real bonus since you end up with both the video and still. Of course the shutter speed may be a problem ...
Because 4k photo can go on for a long long time, burst cant. All its doing is changing the aspect and shutter speed, but its still a 4k video.
With the advent of h265, video can be double the quality making grabbing a still from video much better. Its still not a raw image, but the video codecs play a huge role.
winkalman: This should probably be renamed to "Spray and Pray" mode.
I have missed so many moments that sometimes I know video is the only way to get it. Some action scenes are unpredictable no matter how good you are. Its a great option to have. Not sure why so many people are mad and afraid of the option.
steve ohlhaber: Would love to ditch canon, but the lenses aren't there yet. Everything I see about the adapters involves some big sacrifice to the AF or aperture.
Is there an adapter for canon EF that allows it to work "normally", or do I have to wait for sony to make those lenses?
Looks really interesting now.
I need a 70-300mm . I think they only make a 70-200mm presently. I don't care about the reviews if the focal lengths aren't what I want.
Would love to ditch canon, but the lenses aren't there yet. Everything I see about the adapters involves some big sacrifice to the AF or aperture.
A bigger version would be neat. If I am lugging an SLR I am also lugging more than 1 lens.
I cant wait to get to a system that is smaller and lighter, but more importantly, better quality. The real gain for photographers is the IQ of the picture. I think with mirrorless, you lose a bit in the experience without a mirror, but because of the shorter lens to sensor distance, you gain an ability to make a higher quality lens for the same picture. Some people wont want to make the jump yet due to the EVFs out there and the experience during a shoot can be worse. There is nothing like looking through that glass with a mirror, but I would give that up for better IQ and if its smaller and lighter, that's just another bonus. The real value of mirrorless to a pro is better IQ. Even if the size and weight were identical for the body and the lens, the gain in IQ for mirrorless should be possible given that its easier to make a better lens with that shorter distance from lens to sensor.
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.