Valentinian: I don't have a 14mm prime lens... Will I buy this Schneider Kreuznach 14mm f2.0 ? Unfortunately no, because it will cost four times more than the Panasonic 14 mm f2.5 .Will I buy the Panasonic 14mm ? No, because I read on Lenstip.com that it has "monstrous distortion, huge vignetting.... (and) ...the image quality on the edge of the frame could have been better"Too bad nobody is making a 14mm/ f2.8 of decent quality at an affordable price.
I was out in the rain last night taking photos. I go out at least 3 times a week taking photos. I'd guestimate that most DP regulars have never taken their camera out of their bedroom. why take photos when you can sit in front of the computer and talk about doing it!
adobespain: Does anyone know if the HD 1920x1080p is real this time?I want crisp and clear video image.
Its 4k apparently. upgradable to 8k via magic lantern.
Juraj Lacko: ok lets wait for chinese version for tenner
this is chinese. cheapskate
the 30 minute limit affects not one of the complainers here at DP. Most dont even use their cameras -for spending time talking about them is a lot easier than actually using them. rubbish topic of debate.
what a dog ugly mo-fo right there! a pointless update on a perfectly adequate previous model. imagine they put the same dedication into lens design. when is our standard wide aperture going to be made? 50mm = too long zeiss 24mm = too expensive 30mm macro= too pointless 18-200=too big 55-200=too big
I just wish you could get those right angled mini to full size hdmi adaptors at reasonable prices. Forget the silly over engineered metal part. I just want the right angle adaptor so i can gaffer it to the camera permenantly and use the full size hdmi instead of the little delicate mini hdmi on the camera. I often wonder how many duty cycles the mini hdmi socket has. probably only 1000 at optimum conditions. Hell, Id probably epoxy one of their right angle adaptors in situ - the full size hdmi is so much more durable for repeted connection/disconnection
RRJackson: 8-bit video. Man, it's almost an insult. It's almost certainly a restriction imposed by the internal data bottlenecks, but there's nothing "professional" about 8-bit video. It's like higher-resolution HDV. I mean, it's better than nothing, but this isn't going to pose much of a threat to Red. The Scarlet is a crippled monstrosity, but even it can shoot 4K at 24p in 12-bit Recode RAW...for several thousand dollars less than the Canon EOS-1D C.
people spend too long sitting in front of a screen, reading specs. Its the new age of internet experts. When you meet them face to face they lack the strng persona they exhibit online. Their avatar shows them with their biggest lens mounted to their 550d, and they look almost professional until you realise its all a big myth. why don't they watch a few movies, or even better, create some of their own instead of hiding behind a load of technicalities gained from hours and hours of time wasted looking at specs under a magnifying glass. Shooting a good film with a super8 camera and a minidisk recorder is better than shooting nothing with uncompressed 'red raw'.
I love the way all these moaners complain about the price. even if it were 3000usd none of you would buy it. dreamers and talkers.
You pays your money... you get your camera.
DarkShift: Interesting, but I can't understand why this thing uses EF-mount?
MFT mount would be more suited for small sensor and still allow other lenses through adapters.
I have no interest in this as a potantial purchase based on the fact that i don't want a camera that looks like a consumer product, or worse and alarm clock with a lens. however, i'll comment on your above post..
added to the fact that ef lenses are about as bad as it gets for focus pulling - in particular the lower priced canon lenses users of this new blackmagic alarm clock/camera thing can afford. Not once have I found a canon ef lens with a good focus pull for use in movie making. They are optimised for todays still photographer who never turn off AF. i'd rather see contax, m42 or om mount.
Cy Cheze: If one can afford both the camera and the separate recorder, or has a tantigible commercial reason, this might be a fine product.
Meanwhile, the "heavy video compression" so derided by some is actually th e only way you can shoot HD video with a truly portable camera. What one streams to viewers is, in the end, heavily compressed. Intermediate use of RAW video might be relevent for complex edits for ad work or high-budget productions, but is not cost-effective or advantageous to most others. A few weeks ago, Luminous Landscape featured a comparison of RAW versus AVCHD, and there was no discernable difference in the final result.
please can you share the link to this comparison. I often wonder why so many indi film makers and so called 'film makers' get so worried about the quality they forget to actually make anything with their equipment.
i thought it was obvious about potential user list before they had to release this for the confused old men. This has just backed up what I thought anyway.
tkbslc: If this is supposed to be a cinema and broadcast camera, why does it still have a prism and OVF? Why does it have a grip and controls designed around holding the OVF to your eye, when that viewfinder doesn't work for video capture?
I get they are into video DSLRs and that has been successful, but at a certain level people don't want jack-of-all-trades cameras. Someone buying a camera for shooting a film production isn't generally concerned about fast phase AF and 12fps stills with a big optical finder. And I know they don't care about the portrait orientation grip and controls.
the profession changed. its not 2010 any more
cinemascope: Let's get our priorities right:
First of all, please give us a GLOBAL SHUTTER.Then please stop LINE SKIPPING.Then please give us 1080@240/250p.Then perhaps forget this 16:9 trash and give us 1.85 and 2.40 please!Then and only then, would I freaking pay attention to 4K whatever...
Anyway, who are they fooling?A frame grab from the 5D3 is not even better than a poor web jpeg...
what have you been smoking?
renders the c300 pretty pointless...
ulfie: The body itself looks like some kind of industrial pump. And about as ergonomic.
The dryness of your comment made me laugh out loud. I have to say, the fs100 is very ergonomic in my opinion. you do need the side handle and other bits and bobs attached though. nice for shooting from the hip as with medium format photography.
that looks very nice indeed