larrytusaz: A number of observations:
(1) If I read the specifications correctly, this camera, which looks more like a stills camera than a video, nonetheless is video-only. I have no problem with that. Trouble is, good luck finding a stills-only d-SLR. That seems like a double standard to me.
(2) That aside, even if photography & video are "converging" (and I sure hope they aren't, and if they are, I will practically make it my very mission in life to make it not be so if I at all can), what is with dpreview's fixation on video gear of all a sudden? A little here & there is okay, but my goodness--it's like I woke up & Chick-Fil-A suddenly not only sold hamburgers, but forgot about chicken completely.
(3) Lastly--why a sealed-up battery? Something in me worried sooner or later cameras would jump on the "don't let users replace their own batteries" bandwagon. Why are all the electronics manufacturers so insistent on doing this?
Larry - you're purely speculating on the fact video is what kept out updated af in the 5dII. It's not like anything needed to be done for updated af, they already had better AF they just didn't use it to keep it at a price point and probably mo importantly to not cannibalize higher end models.
Everything is about compromise. You have a d5100 a $600 camera and you think there are no compromises?! isn't the articulating screen a compromise? It's something that could break, it could be bigger if it wasn't articulating, it could be lighter.
SLRs arevideo machines, your SLR, and pretty much every other one today is. I don't care if you don't like it, it is what it is. It's not like we are talking about two completely different functions, we're not adding a cell phone to it, we're adding the ability to take 30 plus frames a second at a lower resolution. In a couple years you will be able to take 30 fps at a resolution higher then your d5100 shoots now. Youll have video to thank for that
What is it that you are sacrificing by having the ability to capture 30 frames a second on your DSLR? You don't think there were increases in buffers due to the ability to shoot motion pictures? Having HDMI ouptut is taking away from stills? Live view is taking away from stills? Selling more cameras to those who also want to shoot video effectively lowering per unit cost is hindering still image capture? You don't think there is faster hardware because of this ability? Name one thing that has been left out of any DSLR because video is there.
I guarantee you don't use every feature on a DSLR now, why do you only complain about video? You don't use every feature on your computer either, why aren't you complaining about items you dont use there? You use the smae tired argument that something was sacrificed in order to add video yet you can't name one thing that has been.
For someone who isn't about convergence and someone who claims they will "practically make it their mission in life to make it not be so" you spend a lot of time commenting and driving traffic to a camera your life mission is contrary to. ANd if that is your lifes mission, why is a "little here & there" okay?!? Every statement out of your life is more hypocritical then the last.
And by the way, what a waste of a life's mission.
nrojc: Don´t get me wrong.. I have nothing against cinematography.. but.. is this not Digital PHOTOGRAPHY Review? I understand that they mention the 1D-C, since it is a hybrid.. but this? Hmm.. you are geting off-topic with the whole concept of this page.. :)
Neither I or anyone else that i know of said they were the same, but they are both photography. It is no different then landscape vs. portraiture, two totally different skill sets but both photography.
As for the outrage this only takes video, it does take stills, as I pointed out before, it takes no less then 24 stills a second.
This site IS for those who shoot motion pictures and still pictures, the owners have CLEARLY demonstrated that with the forums and articles about motion pictures.. If YOU don't like it, YOU can go somewhere else. You can start your Digital STILL Photography Review site. No one is stopping you. And again, perhaps you should call it Film Still Photography Review since you are so keen on tradition. That's right, you aren't about tradition, unless it suits your cause.
The owners realize they can get more traffic because of convergence, the luddites lost in the shift are of no consequence to them.
Larry - hate to break it to you but YOU are wrong. ALl video is is a SERIES OF STILL PHOTOGRAPHS. No matter what you say, you can't get around that FACT.
Regardless, neither of us have ANY saying in this. The fact that the owners of this PHOTOGRAPHY site post articles and have forums specifically for CAMERAS that shoot MOVING PICTURES is all the proof you need. If you want a forum that only talks about STILL IMAGES, start y our own. Not to mention the fact that EVERY mass market CAMERA manufacturer also has the ability to shoot MOVING PICTURES on their products is also proof.
Those who stick with tradition will be left behind. You're obviously fine with that. One more note, it is also tradition that things change. Tradition said pictures were shot on FILM. Why is it you got over that but not this? Seems a bit hypocritical no?
If you want to continue, try looking up photograph which states "a lens is used to focus the light reflected or emitted from objects into a real image on the light-sensitive surface inside a CAMERA during a timed exposure" then look up camera which states "A camera is a device that records and stores images. These images may be still photographs OR MOVING IMAGES such as videos or movies."
And this camera DOES do stills, 24, 25, 29.97 or 30 of them per second. How fast is your camera?!? :)
Perhaps you should continue to research Wikipedia larry. Try looking up cinematogrpahy which states"A cinematographer is one PHOTOGRAPHUBG with a motion picture camera (the art and science of which is known as cinematography). The title is generally equivalent to director of PHOTOGRAPHY (DP), "
So again, what part of this is NOT photography?
You're right, it IS a photography site, but it is NOT Digital STILL Photography Review. Just because you choose to think motion PICTURES arent photography doesnt mean you are right.
Nrojc - perhaps you should educate yourself on what PHOTOGRAPHY actually is. You obviously don't realize the only diffence between a still image and moving images is the number of frames. The fact that you don't know or realize that should preclude you from even being on this site. And since you mention cinematographer, I assume you know they are also called director of photography and cinematography is simply taking photographs with a motion picture camera. Please enlighten us in how this is in any way NOT photography??
drwho9437: I hope this completely kills the DSLR video market, then maybe we can see feature sets that focus on improving stills rather than video.
You're right, 30fps at 8MP isn't something useful to still photography when all of you complain that 6 or 8 isnt enough.
All of you complaining about this camera probably complained about the 5Dii having video as well and we all know how that worked out, they created a market. I really am shocked at any of you who say 4k or 8k is not needed yet you probbaly think 24MP isn't enough. People seem to be luddites when it comes to next gen stuff but once the next gen is here, they wouldn't go back for anything.
bgillies: "My advice is to find this book in your local bookshop, and spend an hour or so leafing through it."
An odd suggestion from the employee of an Amazon subsidiary. Courtesy of your parent company, I no longer have local bookshops.
Wow bgillies, courtesy of you and most other people on this site, Kodak is bankrupt. Perhaps you should look in the mirror once in a while before bashing others.
munro harrap: http://www.leica-oskar-barnack-preis.de/en/submissions/leica-oskar-barnack-award/17-peter-harrap-1/1
A fan of mine, a woman, told me about this lady ages ago, because she thought I might be interested, considering I do very much the same sort of thing now, but better, and in colour.
I just hope the book succeeds and that one fine day I get like appreciation:but so far, no takers.
I'm sorry but your photo you linked is not at all good, certainly not better, I will give you it is in colour however. I'm a little ashamed at Leica for posting it.
ryan2007: What is strange is you have photographs of people in need. I hope the photographer gave some money or offered help. It's like smile your homeless and I'll make money and a living on your plight. I am not questioning the photography part of it at all. It strikes me as taking advantage of a bad situation. If the editors or those who are going to the bank with proceeds from the book something should be done or simply don't buy the book.
It would be nice if people knew any amount of background on the photographer before making such silly comments.