The two upper quarters of the comparison are more cropped than the two lower ones. Doesn't this impede comparison of the upper and lower examples? Plus, to me all four quarters are so small that everything looks blurry. Maybe young eagle eyes see differently.
Peter Del: On the face of it, this sounds like a winner - 18000 frames for a £1000. He is headed for success - good luck to another British innovation which, like DPreview, will probably be snapped up by an American conglomerate. Just personal thoughts.
Isn't R-r-r-r-rowan a Scottish name? Eh?
joyclick: God save him from corporations.
He may make more money by selling the device rights to a corporation than by making them alone. Casio made an honest effort in the field without getting whole lot of reception.
Andrew Butterfield: i used to have a Casio camera that did 1000fps at a very low res. That was years ago. It was fun but the low res at high frame rates in the end was pointless.
You "used to" have one. What happened to it?
Jogger: I'm more interested in the potential for scientific or educational applications. It would be a great, low cost option for undergrad labs or high school science class, etc.
The frame rate is probably too slow to capture the students as they flee when the bell rings. Video of fingers swipping phone screens would be blurs. ;)
Canon Exec: So, how was the "see impossible" ad campaing launch?
Ad Agent: A stunning success. The microsite has garnered record "hits." A DPReview thread has record entries. All of cyberspace is abuzz. All the complaints from the same-old miserly "sunset crowd" proved we are charging a new course.
Canon Exec: Splendid. Maybe we should double your commission.
BTW, a 2013 Fuglsig-directed Canon "Inspired" ad won an Emmy, but how many stodgy pixel peepers even knew it existed? Some may remember the don't-try-this-at-home burning tire viewed from a skate Perhaps a new customer-centric approach will feature tire-burning tutorials.
Well, here's a compliment to Canon: glad you figured out that you've more or less maxed-out sales to your loyal, graying fans. But just like any VFW or Moose Lodge, the ole boys eventually thin-out, retire, or cease to bring in new recruits. The dodderers get gruff and scare away any newbies who may be fond of touchpads or, like, talk funny. No, they just want to fondle their lenses, peep pixels, and remember the good old "over the top" days.
A time comes when you have to try a new reach-out to clients. Set up an entirely new microsite. Appeal to new blood. Approach new fields and venues.
Creative? Yes. Impossible? That too.
Potemkin_Photo: Canon buys ALL the remaining camera companies so that they can dribble out warm-overs at Photokina for the next 100 years and raise prices 25% with each upgrade.
That sort of maneuver may come. But it will be cheaper to let the competitors fall and pay nothing.
FBoneOne: They sold the company to Sony :-)
Sale of Canon to Proctor & Gamble, so that the cameras can dispense tooth paste.
A 3D printer that allows affluent folks to replicate neat stuff they photograph.
To revitalize the camera industry may be as difficult. King Canute could offer some advice. Anything related to image capture, per se, may not get much traction. Party tricks like 3D or plenoptics don't seem to get far. A smart phone with a Canon-branded camera probably won't get far.
Boss of Sony: Is this camera made of wood? I'm looking for a camera that's made of wood.
The LX7 has time lapse, built-in ND filter, 120fps 720p video, and currently sells for $260 at Amazon. The sensor is only 1/1.7, but the lens is a fast f/1.4 at wide and f/2.8 at long. It fits in a large pants pocket or any coat pocket.
Is it really worth another $600 to get a m4/3 sensor and 4k? Hard to think up a good lie that will persuade SWMBO.
That mechanical lens cover looks a bit vulnerable in the open mode, as if it could be circumcised accidentally.
Princess News: Why so many Sony haters? A pro is telling the world of photography how awesome this camera is and many are mad for saying so! I don't get it.
There is good reason to grumble over a "prosumer" camera that can't be used properly without investing >10x the cost of the camera body for added gear. A bummer that neither the a7s nor the PXW-X70 can capture 4k internally.
pkosewski: They took the A7S and they built this complicated rig, but they used one of Nikon's lenses.This really tells the whole story about Sony E system...
Unfair. Sony will certainly introduce at least one new E sytem lens over the next 5 years. Consider the plethora of lens options offered to NEX owners. Ho ho ho.
dash2k8: All these haters coming out of the woods! I see this situation as Company A decided to use Device B to shoot Commercial C. Who cares what they use, as long as they get the desired results? The Mona Lisa was painted with a 0 megapixel camel hair brush but the result wasn't so bad, was it?
If you don't like the A7s, say "I don't like the A7s" or "I would use something more powerful/expensive/professional." To dump on this camera just because it's not an Arri is nothing but self-service.
Historical painters bickered interminably over everything. Jealousy ruled. Leonardo kept Mona Lisa (a trans-gender self-portrait) hidden during his life. His contemporaries would have sneered or laughed. Very odd that such a homely work end up in the pantheon of obligatory praise. Rafael was a much better painter. [Leonardo rolls in his grave]
The gear set-up in the photo says it all: the camera body itself is a tiny, tiny component of what is involved in industrial-grade video productions. There is a geometric increase in direct cost and post-production investment to obtain smaller and smaller quotients of quality. Those tiny quotients may make a difference in public response to a 10-second TV spot for Chevy.
It's a surprise, though, that a firm would bother with a cumbersome jerry-rig with an a7s, given that there are quite a number of excellent professional video cameras pre-built with good controls, filters, and so on. Is Sony cannibalizing its own sales of such gear?
Another question: why prefer an a7s for an automobile ad? The rolling shutter problem, exacerbated by the feed from the large sensor, might make the Chevys look rubbery as they drive by. Or maybe most of the ad will use those (now ubiquitous) slider and jib shots.
Fazal Majid: It's 2014. A camera's video features are not "impressive" if it's not 4K.
4k video can be cropped and still look good when rendered to 1080p. Cropping is a standard tool in still photography, so why not video? In addition, 4k allows for more digital stabilization of shaky shots without IQ loss.
Innovative, yes. But ... does anyone plan to buy (and keep!) the Illum?
My landscapes turn out bad. Always there are power lines, billboards, frumpy cattle (or human) hindsides, blown out skies, waste heaps, busy roads, haze or dust. McMansions and shanties. The sun is always in the wrong direction. The darned lightning strikes too soon or too late. Then the guard dog or angry assailant charges towards me and it's time to run.
Curious how sensor array technology will appear in phone cameras, without any traditional camera company making any serious effort to employ it in conventional cameras. One symptom of a "sunset industry" may be when innovation migrates to another species of gadgetry.