Donnie G: What makes the Canon XC10 better or more brilliant than the GH4, A7s, NX1, etc.? Well, instead of building a "me too" version of those other cameras, Canon chose to create the 1st. affordable, purpose built, multi-media device for today's up and coming multi-media professionals. Traditional enthusiasts are not the target audience, although many of the ergonomic and other design elements, such as the clip on viewfinder, will surely find their way into products designed for enthusiasts in the near future. Meanwhile, Canon will sell millions of these new multi-media cameras to those who do see the brilliance and bang for the buck in its design. Great job Canon! Great article DPR! :))
How many shares in Canon do you own, Donnie G?
The Panasonic GH4 seems a better product for video as it's more mature, has good connectivity options, a big pool of lenses to choose from.
at last, a new micro four sixths camera, half the size of its predecessors.
Gesture: Neat Camera. Panasonic gets it. Except this should sell at $325.
Some models of Lumix cameras depreciate like crazy. I bought a virtually unused gf5 body, boxed with all accessories, a fraction of its new price, on eBay.The lenses, on the other hand, apart from the 14-42 kit lens, tend to hold their value quite well.
sneakyracer: Canon does not seem to agree. They have yet to make a decent IL Mirrorless Camera
The EOS-M was quite unimpressive considering Canon had so many excellent competitors' cameras to learn from.It was disappointing to many Canon fans who thought it'd be a good second body.
backayonder: Camera's evolve but the human eye doesn't.
Camera's what evolves?Or do you mean cameras evolve?
Peter K Burian: Here's a different perspective on this topic, IMHO:
For a new format to succeed, it would also need to be a capture option that cameras offer. ***Not just a format for use on Web sites.***
That would require all camera companies AND all software manufacturers get on this bandwagon. But they won't. The concept of a familiar JPEG format (especially for 90% of the population who are snap shooters, at best) is essential for the market. The fact that BPG is far superior is not relevant. It boils down to marketing and what the public will accept, as the camera manufacturers see it. Too many consumers would find a new image format to be an extra complication to deal with.
Serious shooters already have RAW capture as an alternative to JPEG. And snap shooters are happy with JPEG; they just don't know any better, and 90% do not even *want* to know.
@Eric ouillet, his code might be bsd licensed, but the algorithm it instantiates is not.You can write an mp3 encoder from scratch having read the specifications, and publish the code, but the user still needs to have a licence from Fraunhofer labs
kb2zuz: Why is someone making yet another standard, we already have JPEG2000 which can save 16-bit files and no one uses outside of server applications where you want tiling and JP2 is better than a pyramidal tiff. We already have WebP which seems very similar to this standard and already works with at least some web browsers has and no one uses it.
jpeg2000 Is encumbered with patents so it's largely been ignored
Jpeg too had patents but became widely adopted before awareness of how patent holders could screw over your business
Poweruser: A solution to a problem that doesnt exist. JPG in best quality is already "good enough" for almost anything. If you want something losless, use PNG, TIFF, whatever.
On the one hand, Marshall G is right, but it's only high end panels which offer more than 8 bits per colour, a fair number of cheap panels aren't even 8 bit.
This is great news, Apple have invented a camera that allows people to override the automatic settings.I wonder if they published the patents for manual camera controI yet?I see that Samsung, Canon and Nikon and many others have already copied this feature shamelessly, and Apple should sue them for sure.
Ok ok just kidding
justmeMN: Unlike mirrorless cameras, whey you buy a DSLR, you aren't joining a religious cult. :-)
@armandino, what's unpractical (impractical?) about a MILC? A camera not much bigger and heavier than a bridge, with 99% of the features of an SLR, just not an optical viewfinder and a slightly smaller sensor. What's not to love?
Roland Karlsson: Impressive image and nice of you to tell us how you did it.
A little bit too saturated colors for my taste. But ... it is a matter of taste and also balance. It is the saturated colors that adds the wow factor. And you really have to see it larger or in print to really see the full effect.
yes, on my monitor, admittedly uncalibrated, the colours are slightly overdone to my taste.
Charles Babbage: For all I understand people in the US pay through the nose for simply being alive. Alas it is comming to Europe, Great Britain being the pacemaker, and it is sad to say the least. We are the only species that has to pay to live on the planet through idiotic notions such as 'private property', 'tax payer's money' and 'free enterprise'. Free IT IS NOT! Everybody pays under this scheme ...
perfect, just what you need when you're taking a photo and there's some reflective surface in view, a camera with built-in christmas-tree lighting to add reflections.
people who have a white camera* will love this sort of thing.
* I find it amusing when you're in a museum trying to photograph through glass or take a picture of something very shiny, and there's someone with a white camera finding it impossible to not get a clear reflection of themselves. Bonus dunce points for having the flash on unnecessarily!
wansai: uhh i dont think you need to "hack" flikr. as long as the high res pic exists there, you can get it. it doesnt matter what protection is built in. it is quite elementary.
the best solution, if you really fear you high res being stolen, is not to put it online.
DRM doesn't work. Here's what happens: you encrypt your movie/music/photo and then you let someone watch/listen/view it, so you give them the key to decrypt it. If you don't give them the key, they can't access it, demand a refund and never buy off you again.
Can you see the flaw?
But a more eminent person has written at length about this. Google for "Cory Doctorow DRM". This was written 10 years ago, nothing's really changed... http://craphound.com/msftdrm.txt
p.s. getting an image out of 500px is not trivial but not hard.
Branko Collin: If I've learned anything from some of the arm-chair lawyers in this thread, it's that Lensrentals.com must be filthy rich by now because of all the copyrights that automatically devolve to them every time someone takes a photo with rented gear.
LOL. upvoted. and then I LOL'd again at the people who tried to take this comment seriously.
Anastigmat: I don't agree the photograph is a force of nature. Forces of nature do not take photographs.
the optical and electrical phenonemon that make your camera functional are also forces of nature.
Anastigmat: If I set a camera trap and the shutter is tripped when someone or some animal interrupts a beam of light, then who owns the copyright to the photo? I would say that I did because I did everything that is needed to create the photograph except tripping the shutter at the moment of exposure. Similarly, if I use trap focus to take the picture, and the shutter is tripped when a bird comes into focus, then the bird is not the copyright holder. I am.
Badger1952: Common sense, not the law, should prevail - as is pointed out below, the monkey clearly cannot own or have copyright to the images, copyright bellows to Mr Slate. We all know that the law is an ass!!!!
the law is the law. just because you disagree with it doesn't stop it being the law.
Try speeding very early one morning when the road is empty, the weather is clear and noone can possibly get hurt by you if you crash. You're still breaking the law even though at that specific instances it doesn't make sense.
hc44: "'a work owing its form to the forces of nature and lacking human authorship is not registrable.' "
A hypothetical contraption: A random number generator uses the current wind speed as a seed (random 'shuffle') and produces random numbers once per time interval (say 1 minute). The number is between 1 and 100; every time a 1 is generated a photo is taken.
Does the creator and initiator of this contraption have copyright ownership of the photos taken?
no, but he can patent the machine. he can also simply refuse to publish the images, or publish them in a form which makes them very difficult to copy, or charge people to come and look at them in his art gallery.