CameraCarl: Once again, lots of new cameras but only two with viewfinders. My wife (who is not as serious a photographer as me) won't even consider using a camera that does not have a viewfinder. And after struggling with the Panasonic LX3 and Canon S100 in daylight and bright sun, I will never buy another camera that doesn't have one. I can't figure why the manufacturers do not realize this. Why do they think photos ought to be taken at arm's length?
The Panasonic G3 has a beautiful, bright EVF. I read the technology of it, (don't remember the details, but figured it must have been left here from the future along with the Terminator chip :),It is ideal for me - I wouldn't change a thing. So if they put the same thing in a compact superzoom, I'd be first in line.
Check what happens if you shoot for a day with a camera with both viewfinder and LCD screen.
What happens with me is, I almost always use the viewfinder - without really thinking about it. I only notice in retrospect. So for me it's not a complicated intellectual exercise to figure out what's best - it's my body telling me what works best. And this is after shooting for several years with only the LCD.
StopMoKid: This is indeed an odd looking concept but what strikes me far more odd is the choice of APS-c. With Hasselblad being a defining name in medium format and the recent unveiling of VG-900, proving that sony is willing to pair a full frame sensor with the e-mount, I would never have guessed they would have dropped down to below full-frame with this model.
I can only assume it involves the market and price targets they plan for this system, but if it cost near as much as the 6D and D600, I fail to see many people choosing this instead of buying a normal nex camera. (Then again, the Leica X2 exists at $2000, with a fixed lens to boot) Ah, and let's not forget sony wants to sell a fixed lens, full frame camera for the price of their A99.
This is an interesting year for sony, I'll give them that.
But, I agree that it is an outrageous price. Still, Asians are all abuot prestige and name recognition, and conspicuous consumption.
Maybe the quality of sensor vs the size of the camera has overtaken Hasselblad's need for the bigger sensor? A smaller camera has real advantages.
Jim144: That's horrible.
But, you have to admire them if they have customers who will actually buy it. Any business is about extracting money from its customers, so if they're successful, hats off to them! (And pity for their buyers.)
'Any business is about extracting money from its customers' - That's if your restrict your time frame to the past 20 years. It hasn't always been the case for 'any business' - only now.
Business has almost successfully defined the human condition as being exclusively self-interested - a term that only really defines the corporation. But I can report, thankfully, that it is really only semi-effective propaganda. People are still people; corporations are not.
I see why there are so many comments about marketing ploys - all manufacturers probably track these sites to know which feature they should save for the next model: how difficult is a mic input? And everyone wants it.
Having said that, on the plus side, 1080p with high bit rate is a real improvement, the high def screen will be good. There seems to be added video focus capability by touch screen, but I would much prefer it by focus ring.
Also the programmable rocker arm, movie button on top and the eye sensor that activates AF.
And possibly the bigger 4-way button on the back. If it is easier to work than the G3 4-way, that would be nice.
I just bought my G3 a few months ago, and I'm very pleased with it. I would definitely like to have most of those new features, but they don't justify an upgrade for me. Nice, but I doubt I'd be taking better pictures, or even noticeably better video.
Well, ok. If you want to give me your G5 body for my G3 plus $200, I'll do it.
We see what he sees... great being a kid.
Nice photo - I give it good marks. The one thing is that white band in the water. A little distracting, but I guess it's just the way the light was.
How do I delete it? I didn't see 'car' ... Don't know how I missed it :(
Bernard909: This limitation apply in Europe (maybe not only) where some local companies (now dead ?) thought it was clever to protect their product lines from the asiatic ones (that was long time ago) It's good news for those who want to capture long events (sports, theater, dance etc.) and use multicam in editing (now affordable).
Messelsyys, what year is it now that's more than 3 years later than 2009? :)
K_Photo_Teach: Could existin camera record more with a firmware patch ?
Speaking of hacks, are there any useful hacks for my G3? There's already no video time limit on mine, but other issues?
Klipsen: Just add the duty and tell customers it's the price they must pay to have video in their SLRs - whether they want it or not.
In any case, how often do you really record more than 30 minutes in one take?
And if you do, wouldn't a dedicated camcorder be a better choice?
And if it were to be used for pirating commercial video, this 30 minute limit would certainly baffle anyone who wanted to press the pause button while they restarted the next 30 minute segment, right?
mick232: The solution would be easy, even without WTO doing anything.
Sell the camera with a 30-minute limit and make available an updated firmware that removes the limit.
"Making available" can be anything from an official download to accidentally "leaking" the firmware.
'The devil made me do it'. That would be the answer from the corporation that leaked the ability to enable functionality that should be there by design, leaked by them only to bring proof that it is 'illegal', thus 'tying their hands' so they can never release iit again.
itsastickup: In the long run I would expect the duty to be applied to cameras also. This is a naive view of taxman behaviour. This is a bad move that is likely to cost us.
Don't worry Joseph, you'll never be able to come up with anything as bizarre as those dedicated corporate controlled tax bean-counters. More likely cameras will eventually be counted as 'terrorist weapons' or something, 'for official use only'.
LaFonte: Ok rhetoric aside, one thing I don't understand, why there is actually a higher duty tax for video cameras? What is the purpose of this?
josh, ... "An industry"? In this corporatocracy, most of our tax dollars go toward supporting the wishes of industry. And they don't need to buy laws any more - they already own all the lawmakers. Just saying...
dholl: I personally need more than 30 minutes continuous filming because i record myself demoing synthesizers....previously i've had to use cheapo camcorders...
but then again, like the article reminded us, we still have the issue of FAT32 and hot sensors.
Whew! And thanks for the assurance. (Not that I care all that much - it's a lot of fun, but it's just a few hundred grams of plastic, after all).
Oops. Did that 1.5 hour video I took of a hummingbird feeder the other day with my Panasonic DMC-G3 burn up my sensor? Never thought of it. Still seems to work ok, but I did notice the camera was quite warm when I came back and turned it off. What I got wasn't worth it if it damaged the camera.
I guess it doesn't apply to Canada.
Anyhow, I have taken lots of videos longer than 30 minutes. How about filming a talk or presentation that lasts longer than 30 min? Or how about filming an event that 'might' happen, like a bird coming to nest, etc.?
You can find the few minutes or seconds that you want, and discard the rest. But it would be a nuisance if you couldn't even film it from a tripod, without being there to restart the camera.