Its not just looks, it's mostly form factor. If something gets used more because it's small light and fun it's more valuable than something big heavy and ugly that sits on your shelf at home all day. Even if the bigger one is technically superior.
I've taken many pictures with small capable cameras where my photographer buddies had to use their smartphone because "I didn't want to pull out the DSLR for this short stop." The smaller fun good looking cameras are almost always at your side because you want to use them, they seek out their own photos. You don't have to pre-plan if it's worth hauling out the great black brick for a short drive or stop along your roadtrip.
G1Houston: For how long are they going to continue milking the retro look cow? It would be nice if doing so actually makes the camera easier and more intuitive to use, which in my opinion is a major Impediment to marketing this to a wider audience, let alone that much too high asking price.
It is about time for these cameras to receive a modern re-design to take advantage of touch screen interface and modern OSs like what we see in the smartphones.
I've used the Samsung Galaxy Camera and I disagree wholeheartedly.
While I don't mind a touchscreen and some intuitive menus camera function and smartphone function should be kept as far away as possible from each other. You really shouldn't have to spend too much time in camera menus once the camera is setup. I actually prefer the swing out articulating screens because they can be flipped in and hide the screen while you shoot.
Kivivuori: PEN-F is better looking camera than other digital Pen-models. It´s quite beautiful....
But still there are far too many buttons...I like the ON/OFF switch, large shutter button with cable release connector, exposure compensation dial and large viewfinder ocular.
But I think that 42 different symbols are far too much in LCD display during still photography.
I know what you mean but whenever I've used cameras with less buttons you have to use the menu to do so many settings and that is so much worse.
I'd like to see some astrophotography with this lens. Wide lends and gathering lots of light is ideal to take pictures of the sky.
One I never see reviewed is the Pedco Ultra-pod 1.The first of these I got from REI backin the 1980's they're tiny when folded and have a velcro strap that you can wrap around fence railings, tree brances, or hiking poles.
Of all the mini-tripods I see reviwed including the ones here, it still is the one I keep with my hiking gear. Going on 30 years I've never seen the need to upgrade.
luxor2: Just great, shot noise is something else to obsess about besides bokeh. No wonder phone cameras are so popular, only the chief obsession is selfie sticks!
I know right?!
The whole reason I bought a camera with the P for Professional on the dial was so that I could take better pictures without thinking about all this.;)
Musicjohn: In my opinion the writer of this article is missing the real story here. The suggestion that apperture and shutter speeds have influence on the amount of noise is not correct. Making pictures at the suggested shutter speed / apperture combination will show the same amount of noise levels, even if you were to change one of the parameters (so the other changes accordingly). If I change my apperture from f/3.2 to f/8 and the shutter speed changes accordingly (at same ISO setting), I will not have two different images with two different noise levels. However, when using EV compensation and actually over-exposing, I might achieve a cleaner image. However, in a case whereby you would have to raise the ISO setting in order to make exposure to the right possible, your brighter picture may well show a lot more noise than the picture taken with the suggested shutter speed and lower ISO. So, to conclude, it is all about exposure, not about the shutter speed and apperture used.
I've taken shots where increasing the ISO a stop to get the image exposed a stop to the right resulted in less noise in the finished product.
I was really confused why my ISO 100 shots were being beat by an image at ISO 200. It's cool seeing an actual article explain why noise sometimes shows up at ISO 100.
mostlyboringphotog: @By rhurani (3 hours ago)
"@mostlyboringphotog understood your question. the answer is NO. no difference, the FF lens just shed light on and around the crop sensor (what goes around is wasted)"
When I think one way I agree with you; then I think the cropped printed image of a FF sensor should still have the SNR of uncropped printed image? If so, the printed image of a "crop lens" that lets in less light than the FF lens will have less SNR than the cropped print from a FF image.This is more of a thought experiment than if the difference if any would be visible.It may be that I need to understand "Poisson" distribution better :)BTW, I do not fret about the noise differences in my photos as I have other issues :(BTW2: a radio with a larger antenna will sound louder and less noisy than a radio with a small antenna. But if you reduce the volume of a radio with a large antenna to the level of radio with a small antenna, the radio with a larger antenna will still sound clearer, no?
I think I know where you're coming from, and you're right, but the issue on the cropped sensor is the focal length with be different even if the same photons are coming through the same lens.
So lets say I take a pic on a FF sensor with a 50mm at 1/100 f2.8 ISO100. Then I take that same 50mm lens, and put it on a crop sensor and take a picture with the same settings.The SNR of the photons through the lens are the same, but the crop sensor is only seeing a 75mm field of view (the rest of the light is spilling off the edges of the sensor and are ignored). If you crop the 50mm FF image down to the 75mm field of view you'll see basically the same noise level between the two sensors.
The example in the article didn't compare identical lenses, the focal lengths were different so the resulting image would be the same between the FF and MFT image, leading to a bit of confusion.
mostlyboringphotog: Maybe I'm just misreading it but much of noise discussion becomes if a larger sensor is less noisy. As the shot noise is an attribute of the photons and as the SNR is a function of sqrt of number of photons (regardless of whether the photons are captured or not), the shot noise SNR is then a property of the lens and its size of image circle and not the size of a sensor.For example, of one uses same DX lens on FF and APS-C, the photon shot noise SNR should be same; however, it's counter intuitive to think that conversely, FX lens on FF and APS-C should also have the same SNR.So I'm very curios if the example in the article used same lens for larger sensor and for smaller sensor?
I've seen the effect of exposing to the right and it's not a theory. If I was less lazy i could provide plenty of examples from my own experience where images exposed to the right and "dimmed back down" have more detail in the shadows.
But this is also why we do HDR exposure blending; you probably have your own examples at home. You can take the mid range exposure of bracket and try jacking up the shadows but you'll find lots of noise when you do. By blending in a longer exposure you get more detail in your shadows.
WACONimages: At last Canon offers something out of the box. And see all those comments here on dpreview. Bashing a product no one seen for real, no one touched or had the chance to use.
Give it break. I'm sure there is a market for and soon many website will show reviews from video customers and will tell if it up to do the job.
Just don't understand bashing products you never used or saw in real life.
I would want this camera. It's great and I think it's show of innovation in a direction Canon should be going as a company...But at 1/3 the price. I find their price here pompous. If they cut it to a third, I'd be singing the praises of a Canon that is once again putting customer interests first.
MayaTlab0: The orientating grip is interesting. I have no idea if that is a thing that will prove beneficial in practice (well at least it's better than the immobile camera body-like grip and doesn't force users to change their hand's position when going from head-level shooting to waist-level shooting like most barrel-shaped video cameras), but I wonder : If you want to shoot from above or below, I suppose you'll most often want to change the orientation of both the grip and the rear LCD (or "EVF" attached to the LCD). Right now, on the XC10, it seems like it's going to be a two steps process (change the grip's orientation, + change the LCD's orientation). Would it be possible, and more importantly useful, to create a mechanism to synchronise both movements (Basically, rotating the grip would rotate the LCD at the same time) ? Or totally useless ?
I had and old Coolpix 4500 back in the day (thanks to a glowing DP Review) and the split body functionality was awesome. I still think they should be making cameras like that.
The Squire: I do wonder what this is for.
It's not an enthusiast product at that price.
Maybe production companies need a decent 4k b-camera. But if drone mount is a big part of the story then perhaps they'd have been better off creating something more like a scaled-up GoPro but with a decent 4K codec and IS? IMHO there's a market for such a device, even at this sort of price.
But this... It's hard to justify it over a GH4 or FZ1000 and I suspect if Sony update their excellent RX10 to 4K, this will be dead in the water.
Don't think that it's that people here are the wrong audience, it's that Canon positioning this device wrong. It's perfect for videographers who came up using GoPro's and need to graduate to something better. But the price for that would be around $800-$1000. Canon is pricing themselves way too high; this isn't going to be the "Super 16mm" of film, the GH4 and it's contemporaries already have that segment.
Somebody needs to get between the GoPros and GH4's for 4k. This would be the ideal device.
mpgxsvcd: Canon is so out of touch with what their consumers will actually buy.
I think this would be an interesting product, but not at that price. With it's size and very obvious compact camcorder form factor it should be priced just above the top of the line GoPro cameras. Go after the advanced casual videographers, because you can't compete with people already doing video with a Canon 1D.
I agree that this looks like an interesting product. I really like the form factor and function. I could see this being a contender in the $500-$1000 price range. But $2500 is more than a joke, Canon needs to pull it's head out, their name is less and less known for "Top of the line" and more "Dinosaur who doesn't realize it's time is past".
Steve oliphant: Now i here oh it's not full frame so it's crap really ,..i am a real photographer not some internet reader and i can tell you this, full frame cameras are great for some jobs ,but in the world of nature birding sports i will do a better job than what you could do with a full frame ,why you might ask ...because in natuture photography we are struggling to get depth of field i can take a shot at f5.6 where you will have to go to f 11 and at that point theres a two stop gain in iso so about even. but my lens is a quarter the weight and $1400.00 not $14000.00.Oh and if i was to go back into weddings i would not use a 35mm digital it would be medium format and no ,not for res but for the lack of fall off i like white walls not grey walls behind the wedding party .....
It's also good with Landscapes where you want hyperfocal pictures. To get the larger DoF a full frame lens has to be stopped down to f11 or higher where diffraction could soften the image. Mirrorless can do the same at f5.6 which is usually the lens's sweet spot. Not to mention that like you said it allow lower ISO numbers or faster shutter speeds for dimmer evening shots.
jay el: In my small product photography I need to be able to see the image on a remote Ikan 7" monitor live in order to see the changes in lighting and parts position, etc. before the image is recorded. Probably answered here before but I cannot find it. Since I am now all Micro 4/3 can anyone tell me what Olympus or Panasonic bodies furnish this feature
I don't know about your Ikan but both my Panasonic GX7 and LF1 can connect wirelessly to my Nexus 7 for remote image viewing and remote control.I hear the OMD has a similar app but can't speak for how it works.
If you're so worried about the capabilities of a camera that you debate APS-C vs. Full-Frame and how to upgrade then you've lost the point of photography and need to re-discover yourself.
Hyères, 1932 by Henri Cartier-Bresson is a work of art... that is grainy, slow, and has no bokeh. By most all technical standards it's crummy picture but as a photograph it's brilliant.
If all you see in photographs is which has the most sharpness and bokeh, you don't have the artistic eye you think you do.
cosmonaut: It seems to me that imprvoement in APS-C and m4/3rd sensors have slowed to a crawl in the last few years. Maybe Nikon has faired a little better. Full frame sensors have really made better gains. Almost to the point ISO means nothing. Plus the price of full frame has came down so much I don't see the attraction to APS-C.
I disagree, the sensor on the Sony a6000 is amazing for it's resolution and super low price. I think Sony is making huge gains gains right now and they're not restricted to their Full Frame sensors.
There are alot of compact camera friendly bags out there. The fact that they're marketing them as such is a testament to how much the market is growing.
For hiking I have the Mindshift rotation180. In the city Tenba DNA 11.
It's a small gripe but why can't lens manufacturers make lenses with the same filter sizes (or 2-3 main sizes)?I love that the two 2.8 Panasonic Zooms have the same filter size. When they make a lens that is 1mm smaller than a previous lens I start to think they're just f-ing with us.