Michael Piziak: The only thing I know about 4/3 is that it was designed from the ground up to be digital. Unlike most of our dslr's that evolved from the 35mm film standard. Beyond that I thought 4/3 was struggling in the market place. I suppose this is good news for the 4/3 crowd.
to elaborate, digital technology evolves fast and "designed for digital" becomes obsoleted instantly which is true for Oly's SLR 4/3". (in general it will have a narrow window to win, how narrow depends on how much it's "designed for digital." but on the other hand we don't need too wide windows. some SLR mounts happened to survive long and they will still be the best for a while.)
I think the smaller f-number is made possible by improved AF sensor and we will see sub-f/5.6 lenses from Canon, too, especially when more modules with dual-pixel AF hit the market.
good for those who want smaller, lighter, and cheaper gears.
kansasphotog: The problem with the idea of photojournalists becoming "dinosaurs" is that although everyone and their dog carries a camera/smartphone nowadays that does not make them a good photographer. PJ's are trained and successful ones, will not only be exceptional photographers...well above "citizen journalists" they also understand the concept of access. Put a good PJ next to someone that is not trained and you'll be able to tell who gives the more compelling photo. Just compare the Chicago Sun-Times reporters that carry iPhones with the PJ staff at The Chicago Tribune....not even close.
It's great that folks love photography but still, the professionals will always get the best shot. As photographers we all should care what makes a good photo technically AND emotionally.
real photojournalists are those who have the privilege to block your sight, can go where you cannot.
Dan Tong: BlackMagic is certainly innovative. They're potentially doing what RED has done.
A modular camera which allows replacing/upgrading the sensor, and the lens mount. This is really good and only RED has done it before at prices lower than the then available competition.
Of course, this BlackMagic video camera is far cheaper than any of RED's offerings.
Having a 10" display is Wonderful. Now you can really see what you're looking at. Totally different than a 3" or 3.5" monitor.
BlackMagic is paying attention to independent filmmakers working on a small budget, so pricing below $6k is very impressive, yet this is a tool for serious video production. I expect this camera to be very, very popular.
Congratulations Black Magic !
it looks like a high quality DIY desktop PC.
> designed from the ground up to be digital
this is actually a risk and could backfire. which killed the first "designed for digital" Oly SLR 4/3".better not mention "designed for digital" unless as a joke.
dark goob: This is just wrong. Super35 is 24.9x16.6.
21x12 is the same thing BlackMagic's Production Camera uses.
For Reference the GH2's multi-aspect sensor is 18.9x10.6mm at 16:9.
24.9mm is the width of the film that we don't use anymore. image circle from 26 to 31.5mm, width from 21 to 27mm for 16:9 sensors. spanning over a range of near 0.8 stops.
pdelux: m43 growing in industry acceptance. Its versatility cannot be ignored anymore.
a pond of small fishes
BJL: Why is the sensor called "APS-C" size, when its output is in the wide-screen 1.89:1 shape of cinema 4K (4096x2160), not the 3:2 of "APS-C", and is likely instead to be something closer to Super 35mm format?
It is strange to describe a digital motion camera's format in terms of a failed still camera film format of different shape (3:2) when there is are well-established motion camera formats like Super 35mm that describe the situation better.
currently the with of a 16:9 "super 35" sensor may range from about 21.1mm to 27.5mm (taking advantage of the 31.5mm image circle for 4:3 silent film).
21.1mm is sub-APS-C while 27.5mm is about APS-H (width).
MrTaikitso: This is one of those machines that I would like to own purely because it is so cool and would be so much fun to use. A bit like a Harley, a Hummer or a Lambo, you can get by with less, but the URSA mixes superb industrial design with great performance. I just want to grab it, touch the screens and fiddle with the physical controls. Make a movie? Get from A to B? Phuh! Who cares! The journey is the reward!
Is the Blackmagic Design URSA true gadget porn?
I do hope this URSA can sell and succeed, though I doubt it.
Paul1974: What about the weight? I don't like carrying 1kg of equipment on my holidays travel.
there is nothing wrong people carry 30 lbs of gears on holidays for most us don't go safari on business trip for example.
jtan163: 4 hour battery life on a camera that is intended to be tethered?0.5 hour battery life on the BMPCC that is intended to go into the field?
Hey wait feed the mayonnaise to live tuna fish!!!!https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=5cTdJcKG1N0#t=128
but whether it's a studio camera is in question.
ryansholl: I have no intentions of every buying a 4k TV, if I'm given the choice, anyway. I feel like we've definitely reached the point of overkill.
I am excited to see what this puts out at 1080p. A compact low light machine that can finally lay down some incredible 1080p video would be more than welcome.
> (4K) it'll be just as common as 1080 HD TVs are now.
probably never for 4K is only a transient standard before we can have 8K (I think 4K may be good for cheap mobile devices).
Apostolos vakirtzis: I currently own a panasonic g6. i am generally satisfied except for the low light performance. There is too much noise from iso 1600 and up. To me the most iinteresting aspects of the new sony, are the iso performance and the dynamic range,two things that panasonic gh4 lacks behind. I think that sony will have great fhd quality!What about 4k? I think it is really premature to talk about it, since only a few own 4k monitors and TVs...
prices of 4K TVs dropped a lot and they are quite reasonable now. I think even 35mm full-frame cameras are too noisy (especially Canon) but it's a different story for video, for our vision does multiframe noise reduction/HDR automatically and the perceived video quality is much higher than looking at a single frame.
mike kobal: sample footage?
4:4:4 is like raw (RGB sensor) and 4:2:2 can be called compressed for it throws away some color information for less bandwidth.
shaocaholica: EF mount is alright but Sony FE would have been cooler.
I don't know if super 35 means cool.
justmeMN: It's a nice camera, but it costs more than an SL1/100D or a T3i/600D.
the lens works as a 24-120mm f/3.8-7.3. while for the (in)famous EF-S15-85mm f/3.5-5.6IS, it can do the work as a 24-137mm f/5.6-9.
note: I think 15-85 is over priced. I don't know G1X2's lens much than the spec.
Alphoid: I'm increasingly feeling the love for MFT...
no money, no honey.
Joseph S Wisniewski: Wonder how many uFT lenses will cover the 25.3mm Super35 image circle.
Weird. If Panasonic hadn't recently dumped all their JVC Kenwood stock (they were JVC's largest single investor for half a century) I'd say "oh look, a Panasonic subsidiary has joined four thirds".
But right now, it makes no sense.
it looks to me that a 16:9 sensor within 28.6mm image circle (about 10mm smaller than the m4/3" mount) should be possible.
if you are talking about the film standard, the aspect ratio for APS-C is 1.4 (= 23.4 / 16.7).
for digital sensors APS-C means similar size that can be made efficiently in fabs over a decade ago.
Super 35mm doesn't work either. there are too many funny sizes and aspect ratios for films, though 28.6mm image circle sounds a good guide (31.1mm for Super 35 Silent 4:3).
yabokkie: 26mm f/14.2 equiv.
using same ISO you effective set a precondition that image from the 1/2.5" sensor be more than 5 stops lower quality than 35mm.
since same ISO doesn't bring us the same image quality, ISO should not be used as a reference when talking about photography. but equivalency can solve the problem for ISO 100 on 1/2.5" = 100 * area-ratio = ISO 3500 equiv.
at same shutter speed, you get every photographic result the same (all the effects that's related to aperture): f/2.4 at ISO 100 on 1/2.5" and f/14.2 at ISO 3500 on 35mm format sensor (equiv.).
you won't be able to tell the differences (they are practically and theoretically the same) of images taken at the same equivalent settings, regardless of sensor format unless you resort to some other traces like aspect ratio.