Well, if you can think of any iPhone photo apps that do a significantly better or faster job than a traditional camera, or work better or more conveniently in getting photos transferred or uploaded, then that's your use case.
DStudio: Up to 8 cameras, but not 9? I'm having trouble visualizing what layout that would be.
Yes, I guess that makes sense too - with a longer lens, 8 could go side by side, and more shots could be taken as the plane moves along.
I'm glad for you it was only today - I feel like that too often!
Thanks. From their site it sounds like 8 total cameras.
But I think you meant ~107x160mm, right (not including overlap for stitching)? Sounds fair - roughly 2:3 aspect ratio. I guess I kept thinking closer to 3:4, 4:5, or 1:1 would be desirable for this application.
That's no help - they must have some layouts in mind.
Marty4650: I wonder if this is just a fancy box with a Sony NEX5 inside?
I suppose you need to buy one to find out.
I didn't think anyone would respond to this seriously, Marty.
The infamous Lunar experiment was hard to miss.
Up to 8 cameras, but not 9? I'm having trouble visualizing what layout that would be.
I would've expected them to add either USB 3 or Thunderbolt. Perhaps they don't expect to sell enough of them to bother? Or is it commonly used with equipment which hasn't gone past FW 800 yet?
Dennis: I was hoping the new model would come in at 16MP. 80MP is going to be a noise monster and no good trying to take pictures of my daughter playing in the back yard in the evening. And my 5-year old computer would choke on those 80MP files. No sale here, sorry.
But I was also being serious in that the camera would take great photos of his daughter in the back yard if he set up some strobes. If he did that it could suddenly become the best camera he could buy for that application, with the beautiful, rich 16-bit color from that 80MP CCD sensor and a 1/1600s flash sync speed.
And I wouldn't pre-judge the new AF system either. The body has been Phase One's weakness (not the lenses, and certainly not the backs). So it makes sense they've put a lot of effort into improving that part of their system.
Even on the internet - with reduced-size photos - you can see there's "a little extra" in the Phase One photos, including some on their site. Take a look for yourself.
Ross, I was just giving Dennis a hard time for pretending to be anything like the target customer. I probably would have let him off if he hadn't ended with "No sale here, sorry."
Anyway, I'm relieved he was just joking about shooting his daughter in the back.
Why don't you upgrade your computer and buy some strobes - then get back to us.
There's a lot of talk here about Phase One being overpriced, but it's important to understand first and foremost that the Phase One backs produce better results than the DSLRs - including the Pentax 645D or Z. This is easily observable in the studio scene here on DPR.
There are many pluses and minuses beyond that, depending on what/how you're shooting. Some of them have already been discussed in the comments.
Just keep in mind that the cost - including the cost of depreciation - is worth it if the ROI during the time of ownership is greater than price tag. This ROI can be in dollars, emotional satisfaction, promotion, or otherwise - it just has to be worth it to the purchaser.
DStudio: My nephew just got the new entry Hero for his birthday. Its main problem is it's not removable from its case. This appears to be the cause of its poor mic pickup - we're still trying to figure this out. It also lacks an HDMI out, meaning it can't be used for any kind of live video output.
This new Hero+ looks like it suffers from many of the same limitations as the Hero. The $400 Hero 4 Silver (also with a touch screen back) is *much* more versatile, as well as delivering higher quality video.
Thanks Ethan, the Sonys look good. I'm looking into them more.
That's a good suggestion. But for my nephew, a Hero is probably still better. The Hero was only $130; a Hero 3 White at $200 could still be worth it. $270 for that particular Sony would probably be too much money.
But as to the actual product being released here (the Hero+), the Sony might be a better alternative for many applications. Keep in mind it doesn't have color touch panel, however. So in many ways its still apples and oranges.
My nephew just got the new entry Hero for his birthday. Its main problem is it's not removable from its case. This appears to be the cause of its poor mic pickup - we're still trying to figure this out. It also lacks an HDMI out, meaning it can't be used for any kind of live video output.
nananananana: I'm not convinced the sailboat example is an issue related to not having micro adjustment.
Why, because it's a non-STM L lens on a crop body. The 760D focuses much better with STM lenses.
(On the "recommended lenses" on the canon site for the 760D, they have STM lenses as the choices, 18-55 STM, 15-135 STM, 24 STM, 40mm STM , 50-250, STM new 50mm STM, and so forth. None of them are older USM lenses. Canon does recommend STM for the 760D)
The lens you used is an older $2000 USM lens, not a recommended STM. Also not a standard lens at all for a crop body, I don't know that many people putting $2000 glass on low range cameras.
As several youtube peeps have shown, non-STM lenses, are focusing slower and less accurate. I have not heard of anyone having STM focus issues.
If you can reproduce this issue on an STM lens, but I have my doubts.
I use pro-level lenses on entry-level bodies without hesitation. It's the most economical path to high image quality. I'm not sure what your complaint is here.
Perhaps these Canons have a problem with L glass. If so it should be pointed out in a review. But they *should* be able to take great photos with a 70-200L.
Saying one should stick to STM lenses just because it's a Rebel makes little sense.
DStudio: The non-removable battery sounds like the biggest problem. Why do this?
I hope so.
That's a pretty good argument for this design, Doc - I agree.That's an important demographic, and a worthy goal.
It's just that I'm afraid by pursing this design they're cutting off over half of their potential customers.
ThatCamFan: Or just use a polorizer, mit is wasting time.
I guess some people just assume that most research is being done specifically for THEM.
Hugo808: I always thought that my trusty polariser is the one filter they'd never be able to emulate but here we are.
You can't stop progress.....
In a ideal scenario this technology would be combined with a polarizing filter, but that's often not practical.