This is unfortunate.
Zerg2905: New Emir Kusturica movie: "White Canon, Black Gold Nikon".
Those who have a cinematographic culture. There is a small large world out there, you know. And, btw, some might know Iggy Pop. And eventually Arizona Dream.
New Emir Kusturica movie: "White Canon, Black Gold Nikon".
I think Silver is enough for this camera. But the Mk II should be Gold.
ms18: I wonder how it will comparable to EF 400mm f/5.6 L prime... at 400mm ignoring the IS.
If Neuroanatomist says so.
Neuroanatomist: canon seems to get nothing right in 2014... except lenses.
If you say so.
DxO measurements will be simply blinded by this shining Nikon star. Ad-hoc DxO statement: "this Au 79 Nikon is too good to be measured. By us."
Reinhard136: is it just my imagination or do canons always seem to do faces well ? even a photo of a photo of a face ........ do they have some face recognition software in there that tweeks anything it thinks is a face ...... maybe just dreaming ....... rest of images always seem a bit ordinary .
Good catch. I had to look quite closely, and it seems you're right. Interesting...
Zerg2905: OK, thank you.And now for something completely different*: where is the "crushing" superiority of the Sony sensors (Nikon and Sony cameras), in RAW, ISO 6400, bulb???
* = courtesy of Monty Python.
Aha, thank you, I was not aware of that, just assumed that all Nikons have (now) Sony sensors. My mistake.
OK, thank you.And now for something completely different*: where is the "crushing" superiority of the Sony sensors (Nikon and Sony cameras), in RAW, ISO 6400, bulb???
Zeisschen: Canon is seriously going to sell this huge Super 35 (wide APS-C crop) camera for 5.500 bucks?
The video specs look like those of any medium range mirrorless cameras like Sony a6000. Is there anything I missed?
Is all that extra price tag for video features no available in most DSLR like Zebra and Focus peaking, a standard on any mirrorless 500$ camera?
No 4k, not even via external recorder? In times where you can get Blackmagic 4k or Full Frame Sony A7s cameras for half the money with better IQ? A GH4 with 4k and probably similar IQ for just 1500 bucks? Seriously??
This company is insane!! I mean they must live inside a cave in their own stone age!
Well, my 1987 (no kidding, the black / white box thing with a red LED) Walkman also works fine, together with a pile of Philips (or BASF) CCs. But if you want to compare apples with pears, I'm also fine with that.Edit: sorry, it is 1984, not 1987.
Donnie G: Pixel peep all you want gang, this camera will make money for the professionals who use it and the rental houses who stock it. Its a small, lightweight, infinitely customizable, industrial strength body with AF that's supported by the largest selection of modern lenses the world has ever known, and that makes it a very cost effective tool for professional productions. Of course if you're not a pro, then none of that would matter to you. Different strokes!
@Donnie, even if he works for Canon (or not): your answer is good, but not for people worshiping brands, or pixels, or DxO, or whatever. I want to see movies at home on a 21:9 format, with a native effective resolution of 5120 X 2160, but that's not quite the standard of today. Therefore, 4K is also nonsense, as it is still an ugly 16:9, and you will have your top / bottom black bars. So, no matter of how good or bad this camera is, let's discuss movie formats first. And what kind of sensors will be needed. And then start to judge the rest of the features and say Sony>Canon, Arri>Sony etc...
P. S.: the majority of my so called hi-fi Sony equipment died. Some old Philips amps however work just fine. Pick a conclusion. If you think Sony is the greatest kid on the block fine with me.
Yes, it will. For a couple of reasons. It seems it is a good pro camera for those who know how to extract 100% from it. I, for instance, don't know (and don't know much about video in general), but I have asked people who earn their living from this.
marcio_napoli: Typical DP review crowd. They all look for specs, actually knowing very little how to use it in the real world.
It's just about numbers, on gear heads minds: DR numbers, MP numbers, ISO numbers, and now, 2k vs 4k.
In just a few years, 4k vs 8k... numbers, bla bla bla, numbers.
If my statement above doesn't cut it, the mighty ARRI Alexa is a 2k camera only.
Do you know what the "obsolete" 2k Arri Alexa means to the movie industry? It's basically the most acclaimed digital movie camera ever.
And guess what, few, very few Hollywood level movies are actually produced in 4k.
Very, very few.
If Hollywood is not ready yet for 4k, do we really think a bunch of gear heads on DP review are really in THAT need for 4k ?
@Marcio: 100% accurate, in my opinion.
Wow, this is not 16K! In 2014! And the features / price ratio: outrageous...
I'm sure this can handle the Sigma 200-500... Now that's...tough!
This is NASA. I still use airplanes...
cpkuntz: Typical Canon dull colors, plastic skin, mushy details, and blown highlights. In 2012 these sensors were badly beaten. Now they are embarrassing.
Not sure who's the "fanboy" here... I have started with a lot of scepticism when the 7D II was launched. Well, most of it washed off...objectively. This is a far better camera when compared with my (very good, I would dare to say) 7D. But, if your hobby is to decimate Canon's DR and other sensor-related elements, so be it, be happy! I only wonder if this will improve your overall photographic skills so that in a 1:1 printed comparison everyone can say: "Z, this was clearly shot with your Sony camera! All others are pure garbage Canon images."
mick232: Once people start getting laughed at because they are shooting with Canon gear, the alarm bells should be rining.
Can I have a laughable 1D-X plus a 200-400 f/4 zoom with 1.4x TC? Please, send these to me when you are ready to get rid of this laughable gear. Thank you. Highly appreciated.P. S. (Edit): pro gear + (real) mastery of the light = a pile of money