Cane: Why knock off a $250 lens?
well canon atypically has more exotic elements in more expensive lenses making it harder to copy.
I highly doubt they could for instance copy any lens that had a fluorite element. super UD even may be out of the question.
RStyga: I wonder if they use the same quality glass elements with equivalent coating. I also wonder about their QC.
canon discontinued that lens a while back....
joe6pack: If they make one for E-mount, they can charge 2x the price.
and everyone there would proclaim it amazing ;)
Mark K: They should replicate 50f1.2, 85 f1.2 or if bold enough, the 600F4 IS II
sure love to see them grow their own fluorite crystals for that one.
nunatak: "It’s easy enough to create a jpeg, but creating raw files would have required some different programming on the processor, which we decided was not a cost effective option. "
too bad. how long before the XC10 Mark II will address this deal breaker?
it's an interesting concept. just because canon makes something you don't like .. why do you care. I'm curious to see how it does in the field, and how successful it does with the target audience canon thinks will be interested in it.
frankly you or I aren't the target market, so why do you care so much?
Cane: XC10- the C stands for' compromised'.
"stream it three times faster..." .. right and you claim to be a director.. obviously one with little understanding of compression.
Photato: Excellent Questions made here.About the answer for the lack of Raw for Still is just utter complete BS and outright lie.The Raw function is one of the most technacally easier to implement since all cameras capture in Raw before saving to JPEG.Even my cellphone can do Raw and the cheapest of powershots with a firmware hack.He could have answered that honestly and say it was Canon's Business decision not to give this $2500 camera Raw.
I said that as an example. just because it can capture raw video doesn't mean it's enabled.
I'm also curious where you found the specs of this version of digic dv that assuredly can capture a raw image out of the video stream, while recording video out.
there's a lot of moving parts that you claim to know - you are empathic - so where is it?
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.
@papi .. the continual comments about the NX1 on this thread scream one thing - I'll let you guess what it is.
not if it's captured down level off of the video feed.
how would you know to make such a statement as fact.
I could be wrong, but how is this copied from the FZ1000, considering it's streaming out at a higher bit rate (3 times faster in 4K and twice as fast in HD), a deeper bit rate, has a log gamma capability, not to mention it's ergonomics are "switchable" between photography and a more video orientation.
it really depends on what digic they used.
digic dv versus digic that is normally found in stills cameras.
I'm amused that you know so much of the internals of a video camera you've never seen though.
it could be the ASIC(s) that canon is using do all the heavy lifting, dont' actually provide a raw level output that is firmeware controllable. that RAW level data is processed and compressed down as quickly as possible. the reason being should be self evident.
digic 6/+ asics do not have 4k capable output internally, as an example - so who knows what they are doing here.
MDRCHINA: Every major corporation in the world that produces high tech industrial or electronic products is a target of Chinese economic intelligence operations. If you invest and build a factory in China with the hopes of producing cheaper for your own domestic market--you will find a clone of your product on sale in Seattle for half the price--two weeks before your own goods hit the U.S. port of entry. The Japanese know this and Canon is withdrawing operations step by step...back to Japan.
What is the true cost of cheap?
to be fair, this is canon's really old 35/2.0 that is discontinued.
it's not a copy of canon's latest 35mm IS USM lens
pierpa: The whole point of patents is that they offer a protection to the inventor in exchange for the freedom to copy the invention after a certain number of years.
The patent of the Canon lens, if indeed this one is a copy, is certainly expired by now.
for sure. I would not be surprised if the original EF 32/2.0 was basically an optical copy of the FD lens anyways, as canon quickly revamped alot of their FD primes to EF mount at the beginning of EOS.
Photato: Isn't this lens design protected by patents and such?If the IQ is the same, it would be a great buy.
patent for that lens would have expired.
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.
you really do need a nap.
mpgxsvcd: I love how he is talking about how small the camera is and right under that is a picture of the camera with a giant eye piece and it is on a large tripod. This simply is not a small camera. An LX100 is a small 4K camera with a bright lens and IS during 4K video. This camera is not any of those things.
this camera has the same IS as the LX100. do you have to whine about everything canon wise?
might be an okay lens for EF-S users..
ttran88: Looks like Pentax's new FF camera will be having sensor shift tech. Thanks Ricoh for innovating when the two market leaders are just hanging loose.
the hassy method does do that though, so again, how is it innovation?
edit: and as it seems the olympus method as well).
rrccad: okay. so if I'm shooting static scenes. why do I need pixel shifting, since I can usually keep the ISO low, and increase the shutter speed anyways, since you're a) already using tripod (have to for pixel shifting) b) taking images of static scenes.
at least with Olympus - you can see the benefit for product photography, this though outside of reviews .. I'm at a loss to when I'd actually use it and need it.
should be interesting to see all the people in here SCREAMING in mortal agony over the lack of a flash, wifi, articulating screen,etc,etc... especially after all the ranting over the 7DII not having it ;)
only reviewers think it's so hot.. or the small vocal group in dpreview. if you look at sales across various areas such as BCN in japan, amazon's around the world, FF mirrorless is anything but hot.
btw, what you are mentioning as far as sensor shift is hassy's that does both at the same time.
maybe patent related issues prevented them?
for static stills, you can use averaging and alot of other techniques to do that.