Bjorn_L: There are numerous HDMI streamers out there. This is the only one with a monthly fee or advertising. Go to amazon.com and search for HDMI transmitter. Or just look at Actiontec brand as an example.
The Actiontec probably works well for your application. But it requires viewing on TVs or other devices with an HDMI input, right? And it can't transmit across the public internet, can it?
Multiple Broadcasters are often used to feed into a computer running Livestream Studio, for a full multi-camera production which adds graphics, mixes audio, etc - for example, to stream a sporting event. That's why the example photo above shows it connected to some expensive cameras.
Bjorn_L, I think you may be a little confused about the Livestream Broadcaster. It's for a completely different kind of application than anything I can find from Actiontec. I don't think you could even use the Broadcaster to replace an Actiontec, or visa versa. If you think I'm wrong here, could you please be more specific about which models and which application they were used for?
As I said, they have different functions. Perhaps this is why you think it's over-priced, when it's actually under-priced.
For example, the Broadcaster requires NO receivers. One Broadcaster, one $49/mo subscription, and you can broadcast to thousands of computers or mobile devices anywhere in the world with a decent internet connection.
Sonyshine: Why don't more camera makers build this into their cameras?
Too expensive to build this into a consumer camera; this device is sold somewhere close to cost. Providing sufficient battery power can be a significant factor too.
With an expensive camera you don't want it built-in - in most cases you want a modular solution where you can choose from a variety of encoder boxes, according to your needs or the particular shooting location.
You can plug a $100 camcorder into one of these and get good results, if your network's adequate.
Lassoni: I don't understand the need for the device.. it compresses the uncompressed HDMI for streaming? Couldn't the tablet or PC on your backpack do the same?
You're right, Azurael - most video input or "capture" devices require a USB 3 or Thunderbolt port, and few tablets have these. In addition, the software hasn't been developed for them. And these tablets might not be able to handle the speeds of a ~raw 1080p HDMI video stream anyway - let alone a 4K one!
They all need a Content Delivery Network - or you have to set up your own, expensive infrastructure. And all worthwhile CDNs cost money or require advertising.
The Livestream Broadcaster has a lower price (minimal markup, I'm sure), which Livestream can afford to do because it only streams in conjunction with their CDN, or with their software (Studio) and another CDN.
But since Livestream has possibly the best overall solution for cost-effective streaming, it's still worth looking at.
Most PCs that have enough power are too bulky, plus they cost more. Few (if any) tablets are powerful enough.
It takes a digital HDMI video stream and converts it into a digital computer network stream - which is not natively designed for constant, steady streams, but rather bursts with various "random" delays. The advantage of this unit is it can monitor the bandwidth and dynamically adjust the quality of the stream, thus avoiding most drop-outs. Any encoder which can't dynamically monitor and adjust the output rate to the network's (often cellular) bandwidth will have trouble providing a watchable stream.
Looking at the samples, looks like a great 15mm lens!
Now, since it's going to be shot at 15mm most of the time, can anyone please remind me why we need the zoom?
"It also has an integrated lens motor allowing for focus, iris and zoom to all be controlled from an ARRI hand unit, wirelessly. This makes the ALEXA Mini 4K an excellent choice for use with a drone."
I find this statement dubious. Only those with very high budgets might do this. The risk of damage using a drone can be reasonably high, so you'd have to be able to afford to rent or buy a number of units and somehow get them insured.
Most independent filmmakers need not apply (at least for drone use).
birdseed007: The truth is that the Pentax 645Z blows this and every other Canon or Nikon camera into the weeds for image quality and weather sealing which is why DpReview haven't reviewed it and nor have DXO Mark because they don't want to upset Canon and Nikon who pay the bulk of their advertising dollars.
The 645Z isn't for everyone (sports shooters) but it has brought the cost of superior image quality into levels that serious enthusiasts and professionals can realistically afford. With a range of 16 lenses covering extreme wide angle to 400mm telephoto it can do pretty much everything.
Canon is facing an onslaught from powerful new upstarts like Samsung and Sony plus a revitalised Pentax who under Ricoh have a turnover twice the size of Nikon.
Canon sales of DSLRs/ILC down 17%Compact cameras down 32%and those numbers got worse in Q4, the Christmas selling quarter.
Canon have been resting on their laurels for too long, fortunately the competition is acting as a spur to innovation
I don't think anyone produces new lenses "quite fast." Canon and Nikon are certainly no exception.
Creating a whole new system is a big deal, no matter who you are. So far Canon, for example, hasn't made much of a big deal out of the M system - which is why they have so little to show for it.
AndyHWC: Good job Olympus! M43 should be dead a few years ago if not because the excellent 16Mp sensor and some great models like EPL2, OM5. I can't wait to see the 40Mp is a hype or another great practical feature. It may actually work with the excellent in-body IS, interesting idea indeed.
It's not a gimmick, although it's more impressive when Hasselblad gets 200MP out of a MF sensor!
Good for applications like reproducing artwork or some types of product photography.
Peiasdf: There is a lot of repetition in Pentax's line up. There are 11 primes covering the 30-55mm range, 6 standard zooms from 16mm-50/85/135, etc. I'd imagine Nikon and Canon might be the same but either company sold ten times more cameras than Pentax.
Most of these lenses were designed (or are based on designs from) before the WR lineup or marketing push. This is especially true of the three FA Limited lenses. Limited lenses are designed for small size, relatively light weight, premium metal build quality, and high to premium image quality (depending on model and price). To help achieve this they have slightly slower apertures and lack in-lens focus motors.
All DA* lenses are newer premium designs which include weather sealing that's actually better than 'WR' lenses, though it's not indicated explicitly in the naming. This makes the DA*55 is the only weather sealed lens within the 30-55mm range. In truth, some of these are actually based on older designs (e.g. DA*200 and DA*300 from previous F* and FA* models) which have now gained in-lens focusing motors, weather sealing, and a little weight along the way!
Neither Canon nor Nikon has a stable of MF lenses, so they'd have to barrow someone else's.
This is likely the biggest barrier to them entering the Digital MF market.
Easier for them to try to convince people that MF isn't necessary. But if we're completely honest, that's an awkward position, because one has to believe that the advantages of larger lenses with larger sensors isn't a general principle. Rather, we must believe that the 35mm size is the holy grail - an arbitrary but somehow magical "sweet spot."
It's not so strange (the 11 primes), since 2 are macros, 3 are "kit-priced" lenses that are sometimes bundled with cameras, and some only work on APS-C (or at least are advertised as such). Of the four FA (FF) lenses at the bottom, two are moderately priced and two are premium.
Also, Pentax is more of a prime-oriented system, once you get into it. Nikon tries to lure you in through their nice f/1.8 G primes, and Canon practically makes you you dive in kicking and screaming with their premium-priced L primes. Many Canon owners never get past the zooms, or don't understand why they should. And perhaps they're right - at least for their uses.
Same with the zooms - if you understand the history of them being APS-C only so far, combined with an understanding of the pricing tiers and kit models. I think Nikon has older (and many more older) lenses in their current catalog. Which could be a strength.
So these primes are simply:
3 premiums3 moderates2 moderate macrosand 3 kit lenses.
Robbie Corrigan: DA wide = DA12-28 f/4 not 10-30, bars don't reach 10 or 30. Probably a successor to 12-24 f/4
D-FA* 24-70 f/2.8 (High end normal zoom, sister / brother to D-FA* 70-200)D-FA 28-105 f/variable (FF Kit lens perhaps, good range for normal photography)D-FA(*?) 15-30 f/2.8 or f/4 (Will it be a STAR line? or Mid-Range)
This could easily be a Tokina 12-28 (DA), Tokina 16-28/2.8 (D FA), FA28-105/3.2-4.5 re-make, and a 24-70/2.8 from who knows where (various sources or new in-house design).
BeaverTerror: Incorrect headline, very poor journalism by DPreview staff, maliciously done on purpose to generate page views?
Not the world's shortest zoom lens by a long shot. As the footnote indicates, it's only the shortest DSLR zoom lens.
Actually the kit zoom was badly in need of updating. They used to dominate the competition in kit lens image quality, but not so much any more - now Pentax needed to do their refresh as well.
"... And it's not really a 645 format camera..."
Tell that to Phase One and Hasselblad.
Which BTW are the ones approaching "the extreme end of speciality equipment." The 645Z is actually a DSLR, making the comparison quite appropriate.
The Hasselblad and Phase One implementations of this sensor have their distinct advantages, but the 645Z is the more approachable MF camera. And if you consider that the lenses available (both new and legacy) are already designed for ~50MP+ resolutions, don't be surprised if the system cost is cheaper in the end than buying more, updated lenses for the Canon. Many lenses that fit the 645Z are available for less than most Canon L glass.
It really depends on what your needs and shooting scenarios are.
DStudio: "Even more oddly, a Canon representative openly described this limitation as ‘arbitrary'. This is strange because the EOS 7D Mark II (remember the pixel pitch of its sensor is almost the same) can confidently shoot at ISO sensitivity settings up to 51,200."
The reason it's arbitrary is this isn't the flagship model - it's a 5D.
Its price tag may catch us off guard at first, but there's likely going to be a higher model with better high-ISO performance down the road. After all, creating a new sensor isn't cheap. How many new sensors do you think they can create at once? Especially when the sales volume is lower (than a typical APS-C model).
They're probably going to re-purpose this sensor in another model(s) over the next couple of years, at least.
I really don't have any of those thoughts that were apparently just attributed to me.
I just came up with a logical explanation as to why the sensor is arbitrarily capped at 6400/12800.
I still think it makes the most sense. Sensor development is costly. Just ask Phase One. They have to get a lot of mileage out of each new sensor they develop/commission. And they can only develop one at a time. Canon has deeper pockets, but it's still costly.
My remark about the price tag was simply to say that, as it nears $4000, we might forget it's still just a 5D - that is, a mid-range FF camera. "Off guard" because older-gen high-end pro models come down toward that price level, blurring the lines.
So yes - I believe a tremendous amount of effort's been put into this sensor, and they're not letting us see its full capabilities yet. High-ISO performance is extremely useful in some situations, especially for Pros. I believe they're segmenting the lineup by imposing this limitation.
DStudio: Why create a 50MP sensor and then "pre-blur" the image with an AA filter? The applications for the non-R model seem rather limited.
Perhaps Canon shooters are different, but I doubt it. They'll probably go the same way as buyers of the other three brands.
Not sure they need to test the market a fourth time.
jimrpdx: DPR streak is safe, you simply cannot wrote a Pentax note without a barb. It's insulting to the brand and to readers. No Canon articles about the M-series features not implemented in later announcements, no Olympus reports that note how you cannot tell them apart from six feet away. Pentax put LEDs on one camera that could flash in specific instances, and could be turned off.. yet the stigma will outlive the current writers and no doubt will come up again in 2045. Absurdity reigns.
The reality is that for years DPR has had to go out of their way to get review samples of some Pentax products, when Pentax should've been knocking their door down to give it to them. This was probably due mostly to Hoya. In any case, I've seen them give very fair reviews of Pentax products. If anything, they may have been slightly generous at times.
Anyone who's passionate about photography equipment is going to want to see innovation and competition. So anytime a company like Pentax, Sony, Olympus or Panasonic comes up with something good they're going to want to highlight it.
Some of its owners really like the K-S1, but most of us just scratched our heads when it came out.
I guess I haven't been following this debate closely enough. "Fake Detail" sound like something a Canon loyalist would come up with, to defend their position. "Nikon, Pentax, and Sony, they're all idiots - they don't know what they're doing!" Perhaps I'm an idiot too - I've just been too busy getting good results from one of these filter-less cameras for over two years.
The more I think about it, the more I think Canon's being just silly here. Nikon proved you don't need an AA filter; Pentax proved you can remove it completely. With the K-3, Pentax provided an AA-simulation option that rarely gets used. And with the D810, Nikon realized you don't even need the option. Now Canon wants to revert back to Nikon's original design of "cancelling out" of a filter that's not even needed?
Here is Canon, in a post-Columbus, post-Magellan world, and they're still afraid to set sail for the horizon for fear they might fall off the edge of our flat earth!