Zoron: Time to come up with a new body and new organs.
So now the Fuji sales will say, since everybody who wants one of these cameras already has one, we need more megapixels! The engineers will say, why? Aren't the files big enough? And consumers will say, I spent a lot on this camera and less than 2 years later, they expect me to buy a new one.
wootpile: While I applaud the quality of Fuji's lenses, I can't see the benefit of 1.4 in a wideangle. Perhaps someone can explain how a ultra fast wideangle that is heavier, larger and more expensive makes any sense as a photographic tool.
A 2.2 lens would have cost half, been substantially smaller and been easier for Fuji to achieve optical results from...
It seems obvious that ideally, a lens would be both fast and have image stabilization. I have yet to see a photo that was ruined by image stabilization--in fact, I have some lenses where you're supposed to turn it off when on a tripod and I never remember.
Neil-H: As soon as I saw the name "Fuji" I knew it was gonna be at least a grand.....
It's worth a grand, and if it covered a full frame sensor (in which case a comparison with Nikon or Canon would be appropriate) it would cost even more.
What a great effort. No doubt lessons will be learned about photo restoration and archiving that will be put to use in the future. Whether Ricoh sponsors this or somebody else doesn't seem relevant.
sentro: If some of the posters over here would know how to use the Internet and do some research, they will find out that other brands of cameras out there DO come in other colors as well, not only Black. Even Nikon has a horrible kinda red DSLR.....doh!
Most electronic toys in Japan come in colors. So what.
Calvin Chann: Sounds more like an interrogation than an interview.
Like one of those interrogations where the person refuses to give up any information.
Sean65: This is ridiculous! Why were the board of directors not communicating to the product designers and the accountants regarding how to please ALL the unappeasable folk who frequent DPR. Man, they could so easily have increased resolution by 4% and added a 305mm telephoto zoom. Not to mention EVERYTHING else.
God; I'd hate to be a camera manufacturer.
I agree. The only reason to come here and read these silly comments would be if the camera you currently own is less than perfect. Who wants to listen to a bunch of whiners who think a product could be better or a better value.
And the way the camera companies take a beating! Some people are just heartless.
FiveForm: I'm wondering if these pricey bits of tripod icing will yield better images. I've been shooting for almost 50 years under all sorts of conditions and have only found need for the precision that these ball heads provide in the scientific, time-lapse, or possibly panoramic areas. For most other work, any tripod head that can easily re-adjust and lock securely works for me. With image stabilization, both in-body and in-lens, I'm also lately using tripods less and less. This isn't to disparage those who are regular customers for precision ball heads (I'm sure you know what you need, or have been told that you need... ;-)) but I fail to see a wide customer base for these bits of photo bling...
If you think about it, quality heads and tripods are the only photo products that are a one-time purchase and never replaced by anything significantly better, at least since the introduction of carbon fiber.
Today's state of the art digital camera will be replaced with an upgraded model within 18 months.
Nice stuff, obviously heavy on North Korea but that's something we see that much of. Just my opinion but the one thing I would quibble with is when people who seem to be on a permanent vacation complaint about financial uncertainty.
Well, no one's going to lose their job due to spilling the beans, that's for sure. Going out on a limb, I think they haven't ruled anything in or out. Also, nothing is on or off the table. Going forward, they're considering a lot of things they may or may not do.
martinj68: I don't understand why Sony chose not to add a grip to the housing in production, after all this is a premium priced camera, yet Sony's cheaper models nearly all have a grip/anti slip area. I own a HX9V, which is beautifully built complete with rubberized grip.
Why did Sony leave such an important yet cheap (for them) to add grip feature on the RX100's ???
This is like asking why the camera doesn't come with a memory card. The RX100 is supposed to fit in a pocket. It doesn't, but making the grip separate lets people choose size vs. ergonomics.
Way to go, Lynda! She was one of the first to realize most software isn't easy or user-friendly. Euphemisms like steep learning curve, when translated, mean "difficult".
straylightrun: I remember when that shill Steve Huff was promoting the Hasselblad Stellar and calling it good value! Now this is much more affordable and practical... If you want to stick a big grip on your pocket camera that is.
I don't think he was promoting it; he raves about most things. It's a good strategy because people will send you stuff, knowing in advance you will really, really like it.
Love it. It's funny that the Chinese don't even know what to copy. I want one for the bottom of my Alpa.
Samsung has come such a long way in a short time. And like Canon, they are too big to fail so they can stay in, no matter what. They can also afford to give stuff away, if they think it will help. Not that long ago, most people with a name brand TV had a Sony.
Photomonkey: It is a notable camera because Canon is doing it. THIS is why Canon was working on when everyone was hoping for a new sensor.This is a far more meaningful step as it has far greater implication for photographers everywhere.
The sensors will come, the lenses will come and the price will come down (and go up). But in the end this will be seen as a landmark.
I don't know if any of what you say is true (and Canon is big enough to work on more than one thing at a time.) But it does seem they are focusing on tools for working professionals, not just armchair pros who still think more pixels will make a big difference.
I can see journalists, researchers, investigators and maybe military with a need to record both stills and video gravitating towards this type of camera. And these folks can justify the cost because they're not hobbyists.
Gozgah: I'm sorry, but what?
This article has failed in every conceivable way to explain why this camera is a big deal. What makes this camera a bigger deal than the GH4? The GH4 seems better in every conceivable way. Larger sensor, interchangeable, stabilized lenses, and likely better stills capability than this monstrosity.
The GH4 is also cheaper.
What about the NX1? What about the A7S? What makes this camera better than those? Is it because of the higher bitrate in video?
With this camera, you're talking about a small 1" sensor COMBINED with a slow lens. This almost seems like a joke. And Canon wants $2500 for this. Honestly, what really makes this camera better than the Sony AX100. It also has a 1" sensor, 4K video, stills capability, and a MUCH FASTER 10X zoom. And it's cheaper.
I'm rarely the type to make comments like this, but I have to question the motives of this article. This camera IS NOT a big deal, and I wonder why the necessity to create three separate articles on this.
I don't know (or care) anything about video but my guess is, this camera is probably not for you.
Obviously just a first step, but assuming digital photography is first and foremost about convenience, this makes some sense to me. Instead of arguing whether a camera with a mirror takes better photos than one without, here's a product that attempts to give equal weight to two different tasks.
jadot: I'm into the psychology of this.
I think that for news reporting and sports there would definitely be a want to see absolutely every frame to get the perfect shot. Why not? I'm not saying that there's not art in Sports photography, only that it's perhaps easy to see the need for that, functionally.
As for what I do, wedding photography, I think there is a great need to NOT capture every Nanosecond. Doing so takes away from moments of serendipity that are due to the photographer's connection to the subject's character. The photographer has control over which story he/she wants to tell - stripping away this opportunity could make the process too mechanical.
The point of capture is what in some ways makes the photographer the artist. Without that, at a wedding he/she is merely an operator. Editing might yield some results, but no vision.
But Gary Winnogrand died leaving thousands of rolls that weren't even processed, let alone edited.
wailsound: I can't see why people have a problem with this?I love this sort of lens. My favourite lenses are older considered less sharp glass.Something about how they were designed and made back then, they had extra magic.I think people have this idea that the latest tech and megapixel loaded sharp glass gear is the be all and end all.I'd love to get my hands on one maybe after getting a Hasselblad MF Film camera...I can hear the gasps.
Rich is talking about lenses like the Imagon and Thambar. Beautifully made and versatile, with diffusion diffusion discs for different effects and degrees of softness.
At the other extreme are lenses like the Sima or the Spiratone Portragon. These are fun to play with, velvety, and priced around $20.