I have no problem with the sensor size. I think the codec sounds rock solid (although I would like to have seen 10 bit instead of 8 bit, but that makes the footage usable right out of camera). I'm even ok with the fixed lens (but agree that it should have been faster).
What I have an issue with is CFast 2.0. As will everyone else who goes out to buy one of these cameras... Canon said you don't need an external recorder with this camera, but let's be honest - an external 4k recorder with a SSD is about the same cost as a couple of CFast cards. Yeah, the price will come down, but not before this camera's end of life...
obsolescence: Klunky heavy design, all manual, good for Antarctic expeditions, but not likely to sell very well.
I suspect they will sell very well in the video market ;)
SDPharm: > Kowa announces pricing for three Micro Four Thirds lens
So, what is the pricing? Am I missing something, or DPR is trying not to be helpful?
Yeah, took me a few minutes to figure it out as well. Not sure why I have to scroll through 12 pages to get pricing on 3 lenses...
I couldn't help but notice that their stock is down slightly - apparently their investors weren't amused either...
ManuelVilardeMacedo: You nay-sayers are tiresome. Want 4K? Buy a dedicated video camera, or the Panasonic GH4. Olympus makes photographic cameras with video as an afterthought to satisfy people who want to make a clip every now and then. And rightly so. Besides, what part of "photography" did you miss in "Digital PHOTOGRAPHY Review?"
True Cliffwms! However, as a second camera (or as a primary, with audio recorded on the second) it would still be a great option. I have used an E-M5 for video before, and while the video codec was not quite up to my primary camera, the stabilization and color was awesome :)
If there is demand for solid video out of Olympus' cameras - and the E-M1 is apparently capable of it - then Olympus should capitalize on that - especially if it's as simple as releasing a new firmware. I assure you that you will still be able to take photographs with a camera that is capable of shooting video.
Jogger: Weird, the only reason to use the m43 mount is to use native m43 lenses.
If the m43 lenses doesnt cover the s35 sensor, then there is no point.
If the idea is to have a free, ready-made mount (and expect users to use non-native m43 lenses), then there are others mounts that already serve this purpose.
Actually, MFT is a pretty good mount for video, as many other mounts can adapt to it quite easily - most notably, B4 and PL.
kimchiflower: They look the same except for an added converter lens on the end. Aside from the 8.5mm, I can't see what the other can offer that is not already available.
I suspect these will be manual focus only, and the 12 & 25mm are already suitab;e covered by other MFT glass.
It's nice to see choice and another manufacturer signing up, but these would have to mainly compete on price.
@grafi @kimichiflower - yep, probably just mock ups for now. However, these lenses already exist for 4/3" sensors, but in C mount (industrial / computer vision lenses). They aren't cheap though - I expect they will come down in price for the consumer market:
BobORama: I want to know HOW they cut them in half. I've done this on a small scale for metallurgical specimen preparation. Same thing just bigger?
Buhl213: How can the Tamron be ENTIRELY useless when cut in half?
It turns out that it's only half useless!
fastprime: Critics in the use of Photoshop (or other pp sw) must all be jpeg shooters, 'cause last time I checked RAW files have to be converted and adjusted through a post-processing workflow. JPEGs go through an automated conversion process in-camera.
If the photog is not going to adjust the RAW file after opening it in software(i.e., file open>file save as) they'd actually get better results shooting straight jpegs, cause unedited RAW files look flat.
Look at Brooke Shaden. I love what she does - her work is absolutely brilliant. But I know that what she does is not just photography - she is an amazing artist with vision and post-processing technique, and she is recognized for this. It would be dishonest to look at her work and say that she is a wonderful photographer though, because her images transcend photography to the point that we can't tell what kind of photographer she is.
There is no hating here - I just think it is deceptive to simply call her a photographer, when she is clearly a digital artist (and a brilliant one at that).
BTW - Nikon needs to sue Leica too:http://www.dpreview.com/products/leica/compacts/leica_c112
And someone who makes lipstick should sue Lytro - I'm positive my Grandma was trying to put Lytro on her lips the other day.
And Sigma - sue the pants off of Sigma until they make a camera that doesn't look like a brick with a lens glued onto the front.
And while we are at it, sue Sony too, for making cameras that look really good on paper but draw yawns in real life. I know they are capable - their video cameras are consistently top notch if you drop some proper coin.
And Canon - who do they think they are? Sue them! Don't care what for, they just have it coming.
Pentax, Panasonic and Olympus - sue them as well. I'm pretty sure their cameras look like something too.
I'll send my referrers fee to whichever lawyer picks these suggestions up.
Expat Nomad: But there ARE differences to the design (e.g., mode dial, AF assist, port locations). Edit: I presume the menus are different too.
If this was the music industry, we'd be talking about the remix/tribute/cover.
But it's not like the music industry, where the art itself is ripped off. This is a camera we are talking about, not a fashion statement. Nobody flaunts their Nikon 1 because it looks cool.
Edmond Leung: Good !Victory in anti-counterfeiting.It prevents the fake products spread out to the whole world.An excellent decision from the court.
Did you really think that camera was a Nikon 1 Series? Was it infringing on Nikon's business (rhetorical question, because it possibly was, but no more than any other camera)? At what point are manufacturers no longer allowed to make a camera that looks like a camera?
jkoch2: The "pocket" appellative merits clarification. The camera is small, but not pocketable, but is suitable mainly for pros with lots of money and batteries in their pockets. The camera body is only a fraction of what one must buy to make proper use. People without time or incentive to edit h.264 MOV or AVCHD video won't need ProRes or CinemaDNG any more than a kid on the lap of Kris Kringle (or Edmund Gwenn) will need a real locomotive or a B-29.
It is possible to admire this camera, as one might admire an RJ Corman GG10B, without having any impulse to buy one.
Folks anxious to capture or edit CinemaDNG, and who have the requisite equipment, time, and fine eye to take advantage, may be disappointed when the fruits of their labors fail to register in the 3mbps 480p version most people actually see, or the absence of any incremental pricing they'll be able to pass on to clients to cover the costs.
I think Francis may be bitter - but I am also guessing he has never used this camera, and has no idea what he is talking about...
matteusclement: I still don't understand if the Ninja with the BMPC gives you TRUE prores422.
Can anyone clarify?
10 bit HDMI, same framerate that would be recorded internally. No visual difference between Ninja ProRes 422 and internal ProRes 422
SteveNunez: It should be noted to capture RAW video the camera MUST use SD cards that are rated at 95/mbps and faster of only which the Sandisk Extreme Pro 64GB is recommended!
That's not entirely true - it seems that the newer Extreme cards rated at 80 MB/sec also work, at least in my limited testing (no more than about 4 minutes of continuous video so far, but no dropped frames). I'm still not 100% sure I would recommend purchasing these and expect to record raw, but if you already have them, it's worth a try...
stuntmonkey: If there was any justice, the Pentax K-3 should get the lions share of the traffic today, not the D610 announcement.
@anastigment - and yet, millions of wonderful and amazing photographs have been produced on APS-C, even from those old crufty 6 Mp cameras that couldn't shoot past ISO 640 without introducing horrible grain. I suspect that all the upgrading was not driven by incompetent gear, but rather by the status quo.
I love "backyward astrophotgraphy"!
Weegee: I wonder when The New York Times will finally decide to do the same? People are so visually illiterate and tasteless that we knew it would come to this. Just look at the content of TV. "professional" photography is dying.
They aren't getting rid of professionals - they are getting rid of in-house staff. This has been going on in IT for years. Welcome to the 21st century.