If I want a camera for sports, I buy an appropriate one - a 1Dx or D4, 7DII, etc.
If I want a small video camera to bolt to my helmet I buy a GoPro.
If I want a 'compact' camera to carry on holiday I look to micro four thirds or Fuji x.
If I want something high resolution for portraiture or landscape, I look to something like a 7rII or 5Ds.
You have to pick the right tool for the job, and in this case the 7rII isn't really one designed for this purpose. For the jobs it was really aimed at on the other hand, it is one of the best out there...
The issue I see is that quadcopters and similar can so easily be bought by the general public who will treat them as toys, and then start doing inappropriate things with them - some form of registration (a serial number on the item, linked to a person?) would add some form of accountability when someone does something idiotic and prevents them from just vanishing off.
Add to that potential methods of stopping drones in flight and you have a system that will hopefully prevent some of the idiots taking to the air, or at least make them think a little more if they have the chance of having a £700 item confiscated.
We can never stop the intentional (illegal) misuse of RC aircraft, but we can hopefully prevent some of the low level idiocy that is starting to plague us.
racin06: Also, what about other RC aircraft? Why aren't RC airplanes required to be registered? I can easily fly RC airplanes near an airport, yet only multi-rotor aircraft (the proper name...not "drones.") are being targeted. Below is a video of me flying my 7.5 ft. wingspan Sbach 300. I could certainly fly this airplane near an airport and it presents a much greater danger to an airliner due to its sheer large size. You see where this is all headed?
Mainly because 'traditional' RC aircraft took time, dedication and money to purchase and fly, so generally were flown mainly by enthusiasts who knew the rules and areas to avoid - a larger hazard, but largely ignored officially because the pilots were smart enough to keep away.
Multi-rotor aircraft nowadays on the other hand are cheap and readily available, can be easily (but badly) flown by pretty much anyone, and come with cameras attached, which leads to people wanting to fly them to 'interesting' places they think may get an exciting photo or video. Hence them appearing over places like airports, historical monuments and the California wildfires - causing hassle and danger for others and leading to future legislation.
Felix E Klee: Does it allow changing FOV?
The camera records at 1080p, but the sensor is of far higher resolution - the crop modes just choose which array of pixels are recorded, whether the full fov (with pixels binned together to reduce the resolution) or as a crop using the central 1920x1080 pixels.
Recording the full fov at 1080p and cropping will give you a much lower quality than recording the narrow fov at 1080p.
I quite like the idea of providing a basic peephole viewfinder and phone mount to 'fix' an external screen to it - while the camera isn't great, it would be handy for quick framing and setup of videos, and for those that do use them for photos alongside video work.
On the other hand, for $185 you could buy a compact camera that will give better quality and far more control than a GoPro will in this case.
Would anyone else be interested in a replacement/equivalent for the standard clear GoPro case (and if we are being fancy, possibly also the skeleton mount) with these two features?
I understand the need for an updated standard lens to work with the 240fps focussing system, but it does confuse me why Panasonic have cluttered the lineup with yet another standard prime, rather than updating one of the existing lenses - a 25mm f1.4 II would make for a great high quality pairing with the GX8, while an upgrade of the focus system in the 20mm f1.7 is one of the most common requests we see and would be very well received.
I can see some interest from people who want a cheaper option than the 25mm, with a better focus than the 20mm and don't own either of those already, but it does seem to be more of a niche lens than the next must have.
SeeRoy: " 100-300mm F4-5.6 will not be compatible with the system"How very considerate of Panasonic toward their existing customers. I own this lens so I'll be sticking with Olympus, thanks.
The 100-300mm lens will not be compatible with the new combined IS system, but that will not stop the lens functioning exactly as it does on current bodies (presumably like the GX7 giving the option of using either in-body or in-lens IS).
I figure it fair enough that not all lenses designed years back will be perfectly suitable for new higher spec technology, but as part of the mft standard will all work perfectly as standard lenses...
mosc: I really don't get this type of product at all. It's nothing against Think Tank Photo's particular offerings here and I'm sure they make other products that I would prefer but I really just don't get this offering.
These are not sturdy enough to protect a 70-200 in the overhead bin of an airplane let alone checked baggage. These are not sturdy enough to put in the luggage area of a greyhound bus (with somebody famous's name on the side). These are bizzare to think about as camera-only backpacks on a hiking trip compared to a more general purpose bag. They certainly don't offer any type of holster-like ease of access middle ground either.
Anybody want to explain why I'm crazy?
I see it as the middle ground to your extremes.
If you think about going to an event like an air show, it gives you a good way to carry a reasonable amount of equipment (plus some extras like a jacket or food) comfortably for a whole day - not as easy access as a belt pack would be, but much more comfortable, and there is no need for a luggage-handler-proof build quality when it will be in your car travelling. Similarly it is really aimed at a day trip in civilisation rather than true hiking so you won't be expected to be carrying large amounts of other equipment.
I will admit that I have no interest in this type of bag either, but can see where some people would make use of them.
The previous lens was well known for having some pretty solid optics, if somewhat let down by one of the cheapest build qualities out there.
If this lens manages to retain the same optics with a better build quality, STM focus and a 7 bladed aperture and keep to a similar price range then I think they have a sure fire winner.
I am not sure what else there is to add. It isn't the most exciting lens for Canon to be announcing compared to recent releases like the 11-24mm f4, but it is a well needed upgrade of one of the most popular lenses in the system, so n my eyes a very welcome release.
The fact is that the National Park Service have to draw the line somewhere between banning humans outright, and letting people do as they wish and likely ruining the atmosphere of nature with constant noise and annoyance for other people.
Having flown quadcopters I will readily agree with the NPS banning them as they are a huge annoyance to other people - the sound of them flying, the risk of them crashing, for the photographers having them buzzing around ruining perfectly set up landscapes... and really they just don't fit with the natural atmosphere I would go to a national park to experience.
The fact that they also cause harm to the local wildlife puts the nail in their coffin.
Whatever your opinion of the 'reality' of the nature in such a well travelled place, the fact is they are set aside to be quiet natural places, not play areas for those with helicopters, quadbikes and so on...
I am sure there are many other natural places you are happily allowed to fly...
My question is was it ever said that the original run of 20 were the only prints that would be made of this image?
Photography is a medium where images are readily reproducible, and unless it was specifically stated there would be no more made of this image, I would work on the assumption that there may be more made in the future - in a different form if the earlier images were a limited edition (different sizes, finish, process) but still the same picture.
PeterZOOM: Nice to see some new Canon stuff, interesting, a camera for astrophotography with hotshoe and build-in flash ... okay then.
Sure a built in flash may be useless for astrophotography,but from Canon's end, given the relatively small amount of these that they will produce, it probably costs them less overall to just leave the parts in place than it would to retool the production lines more extensively that would be needed to replace the flash and related mechanics with nothing.
I am surprised the new 24-70 doesn't have IS built in, which is the main upgrade users have been shouting for over the last few years. At the same time, higher IQ and a smaller size do make for a pretty awesome lens with a modern high ISO body, so perhaps the IS is not as necessary as many think, especially if it comes with other tradeoffs in size, weight and potential IQ effects.
The two primes I am not overly excited about - an upgraded 28mm f1.8 USM IS would have been more what I would be looking for, with f2.8 being just a bit too slow for me to use as a standard fast prime on 1.6 (especially considering that the 18-55mm isn't much larger if size is an issue), but then again they could be ideal lenses for the video crowd - a medium I don't work with and couldn't really comment on.
So a bit of an odd release as far as I (the 1.6 crop shooting generic photographer) see it, but at the same time not really aimed at me in the first place...