MayaTlab0: The orientating grip is interesting. I have no idea if that is a thing that will prove beneficial in practice (well at least it's better than the immobile camera body-like grip and doesn't force users to change their hand's position when going from head-level shooting to waist-level shooting like most barrel-shaped video cameras), but I wonder : If you want to shoot from above or below, I suppose you'll most often want to change the orientation of both the grip and the rear LCD (or "EVF" attached to the LCD). Right now, on the XC10, it seems like it's going to be a two steps process (change the grip's orientation, + change the LCD's orientation). Would it be possible, and more importantly useful, to create a mechanism to synchronise both movements (Basically, rotating the grip would rotate the LCD at the same time) ? Or totally useless ?
A number of us were mucking around with this concept in the micro four thirds forum five years ago (e.g. http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/33019349). Hopefully Panasonic or Olympus can bring something to the market that will outshine Canons' effort.
It's about time the manufacturers recognised the ergonomic issues of stills/video convergence.
It was a design issue we discussed in the micro four thirds forum five years ago ...e.g. http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/33019349
However, having interchangeable lenses is far more sensible than this fixed-lens design.
ThorKre: "Such a system would also have a distinct size (and potentially price) advantage over the larger sensor mirrorless systems."
Would, could, should.
BUT IT DOESN'T. Look at the bodies, look at the lenses, look at the price.
No word about that in that "article"?
You are forgetting the price Nikon pays to build it.If Nikon can sell it for this much, but it is cheaper to make than its µft and APS-C rivals, guess what ... profitability is better! Pretty damn important for return on investment.Even if they have to cut prices, cutting a fat margin can still leave Nikon with a healthy margin.
WT21: This is bad thinking. You don't build a product to "protect" your older lines. You can't "protect" your older lines through what you build, because competition will build the new and better option. You have to eat your own children, and build that new and better thing. You have to cannibilize your own lines. Also, Nikon could easily make an APS-C mirrorless system and DSLRs and keep commitment for both. If they're doing this 2.7 system, it wouldn't cost anything different to do an APS-C system. They should build an APS-C compact, and see which wins, and be on the winning side, not the losing side of a 2.7 system (not saying the new Nikon system can't win, but just the rational of "don't cannibilize your own business" -- especially in a highly competitive market -- is very flawed. This is why the editors of DPR don't run consumer electronics companies).
You are right, but actually wrong.Industry is littered with companies that faded away because they were afraid to cannibilize their existing product lines.Companies that have the gust to cannibilize are rare. Although I'm not enamoured of Apple, the fact that they are prepared (for e.g.) to risk their laptop sales by pushing the iPad is a clear example of a company that doesn't fear internal reinvention.Nikon clearly does fear it and I think this DPR opinion piece is pretty-much on the mark.
sean000: They remind me of the binoculars Luke Skywalker uses on Tatooine. Perfect if you need to scan the horizon for wandering droids. Now if I can just find a real hovering Landspeeder....
Unlikely I'd take a pair of optical binoculars instead -- I don't own any :-)
> They remind me of the binoculars Luke Skywalker uses on TatooineThat was my inital thought too.Comments here aren't very positive, but I must say that the instantly appealing thing is that unlike all|most other 3D camcorders, this will give you 3D playback without an external screen.I wouldn't buy one (esp. at that price), but I'd keep it if someone gave me one.