Photoshop is fantastic software but Adobe is obsessed with controlling the market. They can afford to, as there are really no direct competitors at the top level of it's capabilities.
I am one of those who will not pay the cloud fees. I don't need any features that were introduced since I upgraded to CS6. I really could do my work with CS5 in fact. The developments in Lightroom's image processing have been more important to me. My needs are basic compared to some other users but I will not pay the cost Adobe charges for a subscription, for updates I don't need.
Adobe hate people like me. They have already ceased support for my software. I source third party information when I need it. I would love to see alternative software give them some serious competition. I would jump ship in a heartbeat.
Wye Photography: Hey Damien, I think you should do something about the colour of your nail varnish, but at least it matches the camera!
I t seems strange to do your fingernails with a sharpie.
Jonathan F/2: Olympus is one of the most innovated photography companies in the business. Olympus cameras aren't top of the class in any one area, but they're just very good and fun all-around! Their engineers are some of the best out-of-box thinkers!
Olympus' stabilisation is a fantastic feature. I shoot a lot of video now and use Panasonic GH4 cameras for that. They are also a forward thinking company. The large video data rate from the GH4 sensor, and its need for cooling restrict it from using sensor based stabilisation. The GH4 is great for video but can't match the OM cameras for still photography, and vice versa. Not a problem. I will also be getting an OM-D E-M5 II body. That's the beauty of the M43 collaboration. The kit will be great for both still and video photography and be much smaller and lighter than an equivalent DSLR kit.
Sony is the other option but unfortunately the native lens range just isn't there at this point.
tuomov: If you desire a ultra wide(say below 15mm) rectilinear lens, or rather desire the image it produces, then it's better to buy a sharp Fisheye, say the new FF Samyang 12mm f2.8. With a fisheye you have a possibility to have the absolute widest FF shot(if needed), and additionally you can rectilinearize the fisheye afterwards to your liking, producing either a fully rectilinear 10-15mm equivalent, or even wider semi rectilinear shot. You also get more light with the fisheye and in my experience a sharper image, it's much more difficult to optically remove the barrel distortion thus keeping the distortion in the lens and removing it with software produces a sharper image, the Samyang fisheyes for crop and FF sensors are amazingly sharp and cheap, you don't basically have to focus them in normal shots...
I would be interested to see the image quality of this lens at its widest setting. Correcting a fisheye image with software to create an 11mm equivalent rectilinear image requires a huge amount of interpolation (generating pixel that weren't there in the sensor scan). Unless Canon made a real mess of this lens design, it is going to leave a software corrected fisheye for dead. I think it is fine to get the lens rectilinearly corrected as close as possible optically and tweak it with lens profiles, as many camera systems now do, but, in the end, if image quality is important to you, a fisheye is a fisheye and a rectilinear is a rectilinear.
This lens has to be big to be an 11mm ƒ/4. It would have to be much bigger to be an 11mm ƒ/2.8. ƒ/4 goes with the territory. It's fine with todays high sensitivity cameras.
I hope it's a success. Kudos to Canon for putting out another ambitious lens design. Now, if only they could try a bit harder with their bodies . . . . . .
vesa1tahti: This film shows the absolute oldfascionality of the mechanical shutter. No need to design new DSLRs using this technology from the past. DSLRs are from the past, already now. Let's start to learn to forget their existence and stop to give some support to them in buying these museum monuments.
What about when the light gets low? +1 for EVF over an optical viewfinder, even when the camera has a fast lens. There are very good EVFs now, they are only going to get better as resolution and refresh rates improve. There is no blackout and they can clearly show me a view that is hard to see with the naked eye in dark situations. Flapping mirror technology and its amazing damping systems is very impressive but, sadly, rapidly losing its relevance.
A solid mirrorless system is probably vital for a manufacturer to stay at the top now. I'm afraid Canon and Nikon have been shuffled from the top to the bottom of the pack. It is difficult for them, as they are both heavily committed to their ageing DSLR systems. The lens systems they have will work on mirrorless bodies but they are not optimally designed for it. The allowance for the mirror depth makes the lenses creates optical challenges that just aren't there for dedicated mirrors lenses. The whole setup is much bigger than it needs to be. The'll work for now though. I work with a large Canon system, built up over many years but I am using my Panasonics on all video and more and more still shoots because of the performance to size ratio.
Canon hasn't released a significant pro camera for ages. If the next isn't a mirrors one, I think they can expect a much bigger sales drop. Nikon too.
Wow, I can't imagine a more vulnerable place to have your camera in a backpack, in what looks to be a soft compartment with the LCD screen right at the bottom, on the outside corner. Brilliant thinking there Manfrotto!
Fox Fisher: Wow, suprised to see canon behind by miles. Also suprised to see a7 at top spot.
Surprised they're behind? I supported Canon, as a professional for 20 years. They've been great, and still have the best lens range available, but they really dropped the ball in the sensor race. Nikon caught it and ran (out of the gutter), using Sony sensors, but both companies saw their empires side-swiped by the mirrorless revolution. Innovate or die!
I would love to see Canon come up with a great mirrorless, full frame camera but hey, the large number of awesome "L" series lenses I bought over the years work really well on my Panasonic GH4 bodies with a Metabones speed booster adapter. For pure, technical still photography though, I still go to my Eos 5d Mk III.
I hope Canon survive and eventually come up with truly new cameras. They were a great company from the mid 80s, when autofocus came in, up until a few years ago when the writing was on the wall for cameras with mirrors (SLRs). I would love them to bounce back, they were once the best innovators in the business.
Great timing? Seriously? It would have taken at least ten minutes to comp those shots together, even more if the lighting and shadows were matched. Fun for a quick glance though.
I'm struggling to find this "white paper" people are talking about but I think it might be this: http://www.metabones.com/sony/ef-e-speed-booster
Please feel free to correct me if there's more info somewhere. Hey, at least I tried to put up a link.
Sorry if this has already been covered. I have been off the grid for a few days and haven't had time to read all about this.
I have seen no mention to whether or not this is a "clean" video output. That was the huge issue before, and the reason I use the Panasonic GH2 to record to a field recorder. Please tell me the signal will have no viewfinder info on it.
My theory on the 6 month delay is that Canon will be trying to sell us something different by then but wants to keep us loyal with a promise in the mean time.
Actions, not words please Canon. We are not suckers. We have legs. We just might walk.
I have a lot of money invested in my Canon system and a smaller but growing amount in my Panasonic system. They both have their strengths and weaknesses but I am pretty sure the next camera I invest in will be a Panasonic GH3, not anything from Canon.
forpetessake: If that is true, and this adapter supports EF functionality well, it just made Canon EF-M system irrelevant. Who needs an overpriced P&S Canon body when much better choices like m4/3 and NEX are available.
I am not overly excited about the EF-M but remember, this adapter only controls the aperture. There is still the issue of autofocus. The EF-M would still be the smallest body to completely control EF lenses. If it were better spec'd it would be a very useful camera. The lens range is the best there is.
I am a professional, long term dedicated Canon user. I have been using Panasonic GH2 cameras where video is important and compact/light cameras are a must. I was waiting eagerly for a Canon mirror-less camera but I have to say, using the EOS 650 sensor is starting behind where Panasonic (and others) were almost 2 years ago.
I have the new EF 40mm pancake lens and, although it is really impressive optically, it sounds like an industrial robot and would be useless for video with an on camera mic. All of my Panasonic stepping motor lenses put this to shame in video applications. Considering Canon led the professional SLR/DSLR market for so many years you would think they would have the resources to launch a benchmark mirror-less system, especially after waiting so long. This is not it!
I know the EOS-M is not a professional camera but some of their competition at similar prices can be used professionally. I love my EOS 5D Mk III but, for mirror-less, bring on the Panasonic Lumix GH3!
It will put yet more pressure on the compact cameras, a bit like Android and iOS are putting extreme pressure on Nokia in the phone department. If we are to carry one pocket device for everything, what will it be? Maybe a Leica phone?
I am still interested to see where the 41MP sensor makes sense. I suspect Nokia, Sony and Nikon have bought big shares in the digital storage market. I can't imagine any optics that would fit in a device this size keeping up with this kind of resolution when you start to crop. Maybe Carl Zeiss have some very special glass there that the big optics companies don't know about yet.
Does it come with a camera strap?
phillydave: People always think that a thing has an inherent objective absolute value that is set and that if you get too far from their perceived value that it is just crazy.
Price is never stagnant. It is a dynamic interaction between a curve representing the points at which providers are willing to sell interacting with the points at which buyers would be willing to buy. Big simplification but the two main points are that it is never static and that each of 7 billion hominins on this rock have a very different take on value.
YOURS IS NOT SUPERIOR IN ANY WAY NO MATTER HOW MUCH OR HOW LITTLE EXPERIENCE YOU HAVE; Because there is no accepted universal objective measure on almost anything, let alone this issue.
Many of these angry ninnies spend thousands on vices in a single year. Any of you ranters about Leica smoke? Killing yourself to the cost of thousands of dollars while ranting against someone who finds German glass superior to your little toy L glass? Boozers? How much Geld?
Hey man. Did you actually attempt to read that back before you clicked "post"? Too many words and a bit too angry, if you ask me.
Anyway, I've made a decent living for a couple of decades with my "little toy L glass". I have quite a few friends who would say the same. We are in the photography business because we can afford to buy the excellent Canon, Nikon, Sony, Panasonic, Olympus, etc. equipment we need to do our job. In the last ten years I have only come across one professional photographer who uses Leica equipment. Even he complains about the cost. I greatly respect leica equipment (as well as the vintage Zeiss Contax rangefinder equipment, some of which I am lucky enough own). The sad truth is that, for practical purposes Leica is priced beyond the reach of working professionals and, in most cases, does not match the versatility of modern DSLR or mirrorless systems. The price of this lens takes the definition of overpriced to a new level.
fberns: If this camera size, sensor andlens is possible, why the heck didn't anyone build a camera like that before???And why are all the peers much larger?
I'm at the same time happy about the seemingly great package in a small size and wonder what the camera engineers have been working at if not a camera like that?Dpreview got it exactly right: Size versus image quality and the capability for a shallow depth of field is the main problem that is to solve for a compact enthusiast camera!
"If this camera size, sensor andlens is possible, why the heck didn't anyone build a camera like that before???And why are all the peers much larger?"
Good point. I'm not sure why they didn't have iPhones during the first world war either. They would have been really useful in the trenches.
D200_4me: A few pieces of black electrical tape will stop the light :-)
"An extremely serious issue . . ."
I think some perspective is needed here. I just did the test with my camera. I had the lens cap in in a darkened room and the LCD panel light caused a shift fluctuating between half and one stop. Maybe I got a lucky camera but, even if you could get a usable shot in that kind of light, no DSLR meter is going to be anywhere near accurate. If you have a 5D Mk III, do some tests and assess whether this would affect your workflow in any way.
The very first shoot I did with my 5D Mk III was in poor light. I was running around 5000-8000 iso. The metering was perfect (and the images were very clean). We should always be prepared to make our own judgements on the readings depending on the subject anyway. Cameras are not mind readers.
If you are doing the kind of photography that is affected by this "issue", either accept a 1 stop meter drift or take the lens cap off.
I hope Canon doesn't panic and mess with the firmware to "fix" this.
In case some people are not aware, this was probably shot in mixed light. The main correction is for what is likely to be daylight or tungsten but the shaded areas of the eyes are predominantly lit by fluorescent light, which is generally green, relative to daylight. Correcting it involves adding magenta. This shows in areas that were not dominated by the fluro. The only way to get around this is to either light with one colour temperature on all light sources (use gels), or do localised adjustments in post. This is not a problem with the camera, it has no way of knowing that the light is from mixed sources and no way of doing localised adjustments if it did. Now, that would be a clever camera. I want one.