Cameras do 1080p do we still need 1080p camcorders: as much as this is drool worthy.I want to see a few review now that there are a few 60+ mega zoom cameras that are comming out
forgot exact model name but - Panasonic has one with f2.8/f5.9 60x zoom 24-1440mm- Sony H600 with 63x zoom 1550mm
can someone tell me how is it that canon have 65x zoom and "only" up to 1365mm?
which should I go by as farthest optical zoom: the x zoom or the mm numbers?
would love a comparison on image quaity and zoom strength of all these new mega mega zooms before slopping down $550 for a new camera.
btw: i got the SX50 and love it the SX60 some imprvoement I'm hoping for- higher zoom (you can not get enough :)- 1080p 60fps - new processor- higher resolution viewfinder and EVF- wifi- seems to be same size so I might be be able to reuse all my existing accessories, batteries, lens hood, screen protector, hot shoe flash
Personally, I'd care about the zoom factor more than the farthest it can zoom to. For example, a 24-360mm lens has a 15x zoom, but a 28-400mm lens has a 14.2x zoom. I'd prefer the former for the longer total range and because when things get wide-angle, each extra millimeter is MUCH more apparent. When you are zoomed in very far, then each millimeter difference isn't as important.
vesa1tahti: No specs...
We shouldn't have to go to Canon USA, though. You'd think that they'd have at least the main specs here, without having to squint at photos or go to other websites. I'm not disparaging this site. My guess is that Canon just didn't have the specs in its announcement that it gave to this site. I'd like to see them in the future, though.
This looks to be a fantastic camera! It is something I would definitely consider. Panasonic is really destroying the competition with 4K, and is now one of the leaders in (semi-)compact cameras as well. As always, there are things that could be added, such as a built-in flash (although a small external flash comes free in the box) and a flippable screen (seeing as how even the RX-100 III has one). But still, I would say that this is the (semi-)compact camera that I would be most likely to buy. It's a step ahead of the competition. Awesome job, Panasonic!
I don't want to be "that guy", but I guess I will be. I'm not terribly impressed. The autofocus system is a huge step up (from its predecessor, though not the 70D). Its sensor has the same number of pixels as the 70D, but I hope that it's a very different one and not just a slightly upgraded version. However, my gut feeling is that the Sony A77 II's performance will be better on DXOMark (even with its "translucent mirror"). Canon sensors lag behind (often more than a generation) what other cameras have in terms of color depth, dynamic range, and even high ISO ability. As usual, the "higher-level" camera lacks a flipping screen (because "pros" don't want that...or so Canon tells themselves). For some odd reason, some of you would-be pros say you don't want touchscreens or pop-up flashes (even though both are just extras and you don't have to use them!), and Canon has listened on the touchscreen front. Also, 1080p is aging and 4K would be impressive. The 7DmkII is OK but nothing special.
capanikon: I like it. But I think Canon should ditch the pop-up flash and circular mode dial on the higher-end bodies like this one.
I wonder why some people say they don't want a pop-up flash or a touchscreen. Did you guys know that you never have to use them if you don't want to? Most semi-high-level cameras with a touchscreen have all of the buttons that you'd expect, as well as a way to turn off the touchscreen if you don't want to use it. They also generally have a button you have to press to make your flash pop up unless you only shoot in Auto mode. So please, for the rest of us, could you guys just shut up about what you DON'T want?!
Pentax is the king of new, radically different ideas...that suck.
As evidence for that, take the Pentax Q. Wow!...a DSLR style camera that is only as large as a point-and-shoot!...but oh, the sensor is only the same size as that in a point-and-shoot so that negates 90% of the benefits. (And with that image quality, it's better to simply get a compact camera with a very versatile zoom lens rather than have to buy and then change lenses.)
Next, let's look at the K-01. It really has a space-age design! Unfortunately, we must remember that the space age was 50 years ago, and the K-01's design is probably the worst that anybody has seen over the past 100 years. But hey, it's mirrorless...and only works with a very slow contrast detection that is in any other Pentax camera, but at least those cameras also have viewfinders and the ability to use phase detect autofocus, too.
Now this. Revolutionary design...and is hard to handle and use, with battery-draining useless lights.
audiobomber: The photographer should have explained perspective to the apes when he handed over the camera. The wide angle closeups make them look silly.
Wikipedia should not hide behind the law. They are not subject to any one country's laws, so they should be guided by ethics. The photographer owns the photos. It was his camera, he brought the photos to the world, he owns them.
That perspective is part of the charm of the photo in this case.
Also, the crested black macaque took the photos, so the crested black macaque is the photographer and the author of these photos. It doesn't matter who "brought the photos to the world". If you didn't take them, you do not own the copyright (unless you use a time-lapse function or something, setting beforehand a definite schedule by which the photos will be taken).
Lights: Ok. I was once a doubter of the Equivalence thinking (as I think were many). But it is more than thinking. As a simple proof. Take a Legacy (I don't like that term so I usually say manual) lens. Put it on an APS-C or M43 camera, but with a Metabpnes Speed Booster and presto you gain an F-Stop or so. Why is that? Go figure. There are other reasons to use certain cameras, ergonomics, live view functionality, blah, blah. Lots of reasons one person may like one, and another another. But why do you gain an F stop, putting a 35mm lens on a smaller format with a Speed booster?...it ain't magic. (and yes you are changing the FOV to more so, but not quite represent the 35mm lens field of view) At least that's how I think about it.Wow this is an active topic ;-)
Look at Page 2: Equivalence of Total Light. Look at that first graphic. It shows the light cones of full frame and APS-C. Move your cursor over the box below the graphic that says APS-C. Do you see how the light cone is smaller? What the Speed Booster does is shrink that light cone from the full frame one into the light cone of the APS-C one, thus giving the smaller sensor as much light as the full frame one would get.
khongja: Sony is going overboard with this model.Already the resale market has plummet so low to half the value in Asia.Sometimes men has this weakness for hypes and Sony marketing FEATURES get the better of us.....
You should not buy a camera, especially a compact camera, for the resale value. You should buy it because it's a good tool to take pictures. More models and low resale values are GOOD because that means more people can get nice stuff. Wealthy people can get a model with more features, and less wealthy people can afford a used camera. Don't try to stop innovation just because you want an extra hundred bucks for your used stuff!
harvestmedia1: Can anyone help me to find a suitable lens for my Nikon camera? I use the camera mainly for video and looking for a wide angle lens which is good in low light with VR option and also which can cover wide area in focus. I already have a 18-105 lens.Thanks in advance.
I don't own a Nikon DSLR, and I've only done a bit of research. But this might be one idea. It is the "AF-S DX NIKKOR16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR". That will get you wider than the 18mm you currently have, while still being able to zoom in quite a bit. Its aperture is nothing special, but I wasn't able to find anything better from Nikon. Tamron might have something, though.
A lens that I will probably get is the yet-to-be-released Tamron 16-300mm lens, which will get you wider and more telephoto. It should also have vibration reduction.
If you don't mind starting at 18mm (like your current lens) and have a short zoom range and no VR, but instead have a wide constant aperture, then the Sigma 18-35mm 1.8 ART lens might be good.
PK24X36NOW: False: "the camera has all the elements implied by the term 'DSLR.'"
Nope! It's missing the "Reflex" part. It's name is therefore moronic in more than one respect. It's mirror is not "translucent" (as you pointed out) AND it is not a "Reflex" camera.
I guess they should call it "DSLST" for Digital Single Lens Semi-Transparent...
Or maybe they should just make DSLRs again, and then they could call them what they are.
@PK24X36NOW "You can focus the camera manually, right? Where is the "reflex" function being employed then?"
You do know that when you take a picture with an SLR, that the mirror is completely out of the way and not reflecting the image, right? So if an SLR is a camera that always employs a "reflex" function, then an SLR is not an SLR, according to your own words.
theprehistorian: Are there any decent lenses for these things? I have recollections of most of the standard primes being a bit below par compared with similar from Canikon...
Try the Sigma 50mm 1.4 Art. It's second only to the Zeiss Otus in image quality (but cheaper and has autofocus, thus making it a better buy for most people), and better than anything Canon or Nikon have at that focal length (although this lens is also for those systems).
FujLiver: Sony is leading the pack, no doubtand I say that as a Nikon shooter (although the sensor heart is Sony somewhat ;)
@HowaboutRAW: FujLiver didn't say what camera he had, so if he says that its "sensor heart is Sony", I'd take him at his word, unless he says he has a camera that doesn't have a Sony sensor, in which case only then I would correct him. So far, there is nothing to correct. And saying that his comment "ignores the fact" of such and such also doesn't make sense, because that is readily apparent. It's like if someone says, "I have a tattoo on my right arm." and you say, "That ignores the fact that you have another arm and two legs that don't have tattoos." Basically, you are commenting for no reason and have no real point at all.
rfsIII: Could someone explain how the output from this camera will be this different from the output from the new Panasonic 4K camera? Isn't that 4:2:2 as well?
My main question is which camera's video will stand up better to grading (color correction/color timing)?
I'm no expert on video, but I think that the Panasonic's bitrate is higher, but it is also a micro 4/3 camera while the Sony has a lower bitrate but is full frame. That is what I believe to be the case, anyway. If that is so, I believe that grading might be ever so finer on the Panasonic, but you are giving up full frame features such as extra light sensitivity and selective focus (assuming they both have comparable lenses for their systems mounted on them).
OttoVonChriek: I've never liked the Dx format much; it has always seemed to me to be a compromise between not being particularly small and not achieving top quality.
I think it would be a wonderful idea if Nikon were to concentrate their mirrorless lineup on CX and a (yet to come) mirrorless FX format.
Maybe this is what they are doing. And maybe they don't want to make their road map clear.
Well, as far as I know, DX cameras are Nikon's best sellers, so I think that getting away from DX would be suicide for them. Of course, for mirrorless cameras, they should have started with DX, but it's hard to start over, so yeah, bringing out FX mirrorless cameras would be the best bet. But the DX format is really what most buyers are into.
This looks to be a very nice camera!
forpetessake: And now a trivia question: name at least one superzoom lens that isn't a cr@p.
@forpetessake: Is that enough, or should we go on?
Anirut J: For me, this lens would be a heaven-sent. I do a lot of photo-journalism type of work where it's all about military exercise actions, moving in from far away and suddenly running into confine space. Everything gets so dynamic. I don't have all that time to change the lens. (I've done a lot of lens changing while running with the troops.) I've lost a lot of photo opportunities because of lens change, let alone dust getting onto the sensor.
I know full well that the IQ will be so-so, if not out right bad. But, hey, there's no such thing as a free lunch. We'll have to sacrifice something for something.
But ... what about Pentax mount? Will there be any? Or, will Pentax get Tamron to do a re-badged? Keeping fingers crossed.
Yabokkie, just admit that sometimes, it can be easier to take one camera and a very versatile (yet not super-sharp) lens. Finding such a situation should not be so mind-boggling.
How this revolutionary camera can get an 80% to the D600's 87%, I have no idea. Somehow, I think that oil splashes show up on RAW files, too. Sure, maybe it was reviewed before that debacle, but then why not change the score? OK, let's instead compare the A7 to the D610. The D610 has more buttons and JPEG might be better. But the A7 is the smallest full-frame digital camera in the world, and is (along with the A7r) the only true full-frame digital "mirrorless" camera. Shouldn't that count for something? It's like if someone invents a hoverboard that only gets 1 kilometer or 1 mile per charge...so you give a much higher score to a regular skateboard. It doesn't make sense to me.
So far, everything sounds fantastic. Its abilities on paper beat all rivals. I will definitely get this if it's as good in real life as it sounds and if the price is reasonable. Judging from the 18-35mm 1.8 (which I believe should cost more than this), I have high hopes.