marc petzold: OMG..that's sooo.....exciting....zZzZzZzzzZzzzz....
Sorry... but who enters photo competitions like this anymore? It's become a game where they offer one major prize, a few smaller trinkets and then take ALL the rights to every photo submitted so they can turn around and sell them.
There are still worthwhile competitions out there. This just isn't one of them.
Michael Piziak: I tried to see it twice and it didn't work. Oh well.
???.........It hasn't started yet.
EDIT: The first link in the article is broken. Use the link near the end of the article.
RichRMA: This is where you thank the optical gods for the polarizer.
Lens hood is shown on camera right off the top of the video.
But agree, not in plane.
saralecaire: Still more expensive than the brand new and 4K capable Panasonic FZ1000.
Sheesh, is it so hard to understand that you can only capture a live event ONCE. So why not capture it in the highest quality possible? You can always create a 1080p file from the footage and work with that until computers catch up (aren't we basically there yet though). Just upload a 720p file to You Tube if you want.
People, please understand that 4K capability is not just about use today, it is for future use too. You cannot go back and re-shoot today's memories. So why not record them in the highest quality possible.
Look at re-runs of Star Trek - The Next Generation. It was a great series for it's time. But the 4:3 format looks all wrong on today's tv screens. I'm sure they now wish they shot it in a different format at the time.
mark moe: I'm not a fanboy owned MANY products from both companies....
Sony has three camera features I use all the time:
1. Twilight mode: many shots a merged to reduce noise-- great2. sweep panorama -- easy and good results3. Hand held HDR-- awesome.
panasonic May equal or best these features now but-- I'd like to see proof. If they do, they cut Sony's lead or bested them.
These useful little things I use over and over are why my Sony cameras displaced my Panasonic and Canon cameras in the past.
@ Eleson. Here is the tool that can do it.http://www.photographers-toolbox.com/products/lrenfuse.php
SantaFeBill: I admit I'm not much into video, but still ... U.S.$900 for the camera, then another $5000 for a TV to view my badly done amateur 4K videos (since there is yet no 4K broadcast content in the U.S. - heck, HD TV here is still 1080i or even 720, not 1080p.) Plus of course 4K-enabled video editing sw and a monitor that would give some idea of what the 4K video looks like. Plus a computer or at least a graphics card/CPU upgrade.
For that amount of $$$, I could get a great FF DSLR plus a very good lens, probably two.
I'm sure I'm missing something ... . Just not sure what it is. :-;
What you're missing is the fact you can record 4K video NOW and then wait for the prices to come down on the other bits you mentioned. No reason you can't display regular HD quality from this on your current TV set
Is this the thing that was developed and beta tested under the name Project 1709? It was absolutely brutal when I signed up for it over a year or so ago. Nothing worked, and you couldn't even delete photos. No response to user feedback. I think it was just a ploy to get a hold of free images. Maybe it still is.
This will look great in the hands of a female Russian spy at a ski resort in the next James Bond film.
cseiler: Reading this is like hearing that a very nice meal I just had was full of glutamate!- I guess sometimes its better not to know the recipe.
He started with a RAW file. RAW, like uncooked food. Other than maybe oysters, herring and sushi, do you eat much raw meat? Do you think this image was over-processed? If you do, then you're mistaken.
Thanks for sharing Erez. Always appreciated.
mosc: I'd so much rather have 16-150 than 16-300 if the image quality were even slightly improved. Where is all this demand for the long end coming from? APS-C DSLR's can't focus at f6 in anything but direct sunlight and anything you have to be that far away from is most likely moving. I never understood the market for slow tele.
It's APS-C, it should be cheaper than FF to get some decent aperture telephoto lenses. Why are all real telephoto lenses FF? Show me something past 150 that's faster than f5.6 for APS-C and not FF? Pentax, champion of APS-C makes 60-250 f4 which is incredibly expensive ($1400) and 250 f4 isn't that impressive. Minolta had a FF 210 f4 more than 20 years ago and it never cost that much nor does it weigh 2.2 lbs!
I have Canon 600D and 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS. Great lightweight, budget combo. You can buy the lens used for $350, but even $650 new is not too bad. I have many good shots, both action and static with this combo.
JapanAntoine: Thanks but would like to see more shots in dark situations, with ISO pumped up, or portrait shots with wide aperture, to evaluate the bokeh.Thank you!
Agreed. I'd like to see the night city skyline shot at f8-f11 too. Looks a bit soft at f4-f5.6 to me, although the bridge shot isn't too bad. Decrease Av, increase ISO, increase Tv.
Mssimo: I still only see 4 pages. Need to add the other 6.
Shouldn't have to go and clear the browser cache to see it though Barney.
Not that I'm looking to buy a K3, but this camera has to be the biggest soap opera ever on this site.
Tim Streater: Not having a rotatable rear screen is a big PLUS as far as I am concerned.
Why? Canon's implementation of the swivel screen is sublime. Sturdy enough and when tucked away is barely noticeable. I have used mine on many occasions.
Joe Ogiba: Wow, I purchased $20,000 in studio and darkroom gear from them back in the late 80's .
Sounds like they could have used another 20K from you last year.
Honestly, the world baffles me these days. More specific, it baffles me what people spend their money on.
Bill Bentley: DPReview should contract user EOSHD to provide the video summary for all their still camera reviews.
Very good Richard. Carry on then, and nevermind little old me. :-)
DPReview should contract user EOSHD to provide the video summary for all their still camera reviews.
So for non-commercial images is it best for us "enthusiasts" to watermark our photos then? I know that if someone wants a photo "bad" enough they will still steal it and try and remove the watermark. But maybe it's a small deterrent, just like having security company stickers on the doors and windows of your home or business. You hope you thief will just move on to a simpler target.
Edit: I'm talking about uploading of images to other sites, not Getty.