jkokich: I shoot a web series on my iPad, and this will make life sooooo much easier! I'm always running out of space, and this is much cheaper than buying a new iPad.
I produce a Doctor Who parody web series you can see on my website whatdoctortheseries.weebly.com and I shoot it using the camera in my iPad. The video is HD and looks great, but having only 16gb of memory is limiting, so this WD drive will give me a lot more storage.
I shoot a web series on my iPad, and this will make life sooooo much easier! I'm always running out of space, and this is much cheaper than buying a new iPad.
RecklessAbandonArteests: It will be interesting to see how JK Imaging does with this.
In 2014 the Kodak name only has relevance with non-digital baby boomers (non-digital baby boomers includes camera users who grew up with Kodak film cameras in the 1950s forward).
Users born in the 1980s forward are using smartphones to take pics. Just as cell phones killed the wristwatch market, cell cameras are killing off interest in dedicated digital cameras. Moreover, for most users cell cameras take acceptable pics and video for viewing on the medium of choice, TFT monitors.
Kodak cameras are going to be designed, manufactured, and marketed to the baby boomer market. The cameras will always be simple to operate. I suspect JK Imaging is paying a paltry sum to use the Kodak name on its products, and the Company will take baby steps selling Kodak-branded cameras.
That's not to say this is a foolish endeavor. The baby boomer market is HUGE. And the point & shoot crowd has lots of cash to spend on cameras like this.
Let me check my wristwatch... Yup, there it is, right on my wrist.
It looks cool and takes good pictures.
Nice retro styling! Very cool!
jkokich: I love film. I love Kodak. Anyone who says film can be the same cost as digital is simply wrong. You have to buy film, which cannot be reused. You have to process film. You cannot watch film that you have just shot; it has to be processed. Sure, you can watch a video backup, but then why use film in the first place?
Please quote my entire sentence.
You guys are missing my point. I didn't say anything about archiving footage. My post was about cost, the cost of using film to shoot something. Film is more expensive to use. I can use memory cards over and over. I can view the actual stuff I shot, immediately. I don't have to buy film. Film is more expensive than digital. Anyone who thinks differently has never had to budget a shoot.
I love film. I love Kodak. Anyone who says film can be the same cost as digital is simply wrong. You have to buy film, which cannot be reused. You have to process film. You cannot watch film that you have just shot; it has to be processed. Sure, you can watch a video backup, but then why use film in the first place?
If using a $900 lens "helps" this camera isn't worth the purchase price. Yes, I know all the stuff about the best camera is the one with you, but it's a camera, image quality is pretty important.
I don't get it. A tripod is, essentially, one piece. This device is three. How does that make this easier?
For the money, there are better cameras.
Priced right, this would be awesome! Brilliant to make it compatible with all the great M43 lenses out there! Yay, Kodak is back!
jkokich: Serious question time! I have a Sony A57 which I love. I've shot short films that have been accepted to festivals. Given the FZ's sensor and processor, do you think/how much do you think the video would be improved over the A57, or does the Sony's larger sensor win out?
120 to 35: To DPR: Please include the actual sensor dimensions. 1" or a fraction of an inch is not an actual measurement.
It's been years since math class, but if 1 inch equals 25.4 mm (I think), where does that inch come from? What is being measured? I have obviously missed something. Please explain, or point me to the post/thread I've overlooked. Thanks!
wootpile: I have never shot anything at over 200mm. Still, the fz1000 seems like a pretty good grab-and-go camera. I would prefer a shorter lens and smaller size though. Good to see the 1-inch sector growing! Nikon - are you zzz?
BarnET that made me laugh! Thanks!
Serious question time! I have a Sony A57 which I love. I've shot short films that have been accepted to festivals. Given the FZ's sensor and processor, do you think/how much do you think the video would be improved over the A57, or does the Sony's larger sensor win out?
Do the pictures justify the price? No.
ukuleleguy: I use Leicas and I was quite excited when I saw the announcement for this camera. Yes there are a lot of cameras out there with more features and lower cost. Some of those cameras are quite nice but they are just a step away from the parts drawer. I used to use Canon film cameras and I loved them . When I switched to digital I bought a Canon and it died, SO I bought another and it too died, SO I bought another and it died. Each time the repairs exceeded the price of the latest model. After a while I decided to swicth and I bought a Leica. I have been happy ever since. If you like buying a new camera every couple of years than buying a cheaper camera will fit the bill, likewise if you do not have the $ to spend and still want decent performance. A Leica is not for everyone. BUT if you like quality, want to keep your camera for a long time, want to take a lot of photos and get amazing customer service then a Leica may be for you. Leica provides the tools I prefer. I want a T!
I've owned many cameras over forty years. None of them have died. What in Heaven's name do you do to them?
jkokich: 4K from what has to be a tiny sensor? I have a serious question: If a full frame sensor is supposed to be superior for image quality and video (feel free to correct any of these assumptions), why do many professional video cameras have smaller sensors?
Thanks! I've always wondered.