Have the fixed the happy-snappy, break-off kickstand yet? The one that "cannot be replaced"? All that money resting (literally) on a couple of flimsy pins puts me right off.
Felix E Klee: Does it allow changing FOV?
Actually I do believe you. I was forgetting that in VIDEO modes, the GoPro is downsampling its sensor!
The confusion occurred because I nearly always use my GoPro for time-lapse sequences, and take full screen, full sensor, top resolution shots for each frame, which I crop, as required, later. THESE, I cannot better by taking cropped shots in the camera.
Felix, I know my (Black, V3) GoPro offers different FoVs, but given it only has one sensor, and one fixed-focal-length, fixed-focus lens, there is TOTALLY no way the "cropped" views can somehow offer high quality than the whole-sensor view that I normally record. Photoshop is just as able to perform "digital zoom" as the firmware inside the GoPro, with the added benefit that you can make your mind up in the cool calm of your studio, rather than while perched on an electric monocycle, tyres off, about to run a tightrope across Niagara.
No small action camera has any form of mechanical (optical) zoom. Some can record only a portion of the sensor (effectively, what folks call "digital zoom"), or you can record everything and crop later in post-production.
Samuel Dilworth: Does anyone know if this has ZERO rolling-shutter artefacts?
At some point I’d like to record bicycle rides from the handlebar. Something like this might work, but I can’t stand the wavy weirdness of electronically stabilised video of moving objects, from a moving platform, with rolling-shutter artefacts – as seems to be the case of about 90% of on-bicycle footage on YouTube.
All GoPro cameras use rolling shutters (as indeed do most CMOS video cameras from all manufacturers). You'll get jello artifacts unless you mount your camera on a very good 3D active gimbal.
Wow that looks like twin cooling fans on the top ... so guess no on-camera mic'ing with this one, and a hefty battery, which will not help its drone compatibility ...
As someone who is on the verge of buying a multi-rotor photgraphic platform, I am torn between the "does everything automatically with extra safety features" of items like this, and the raw "flying beheading machine" variety.
As I probably want to keep my fingers on my hands, this model has its attractions. But ultimately, I think I want to take (at least) a micro-4/3rds camera up to several thousand feet, grab some serious areal stills, and then get it back in once piece.
Yes, away from flight paths, airports, and #10 or Buck House.
Biowizard: I worry enough connecting a USB lead to a camera, for fear of stresses breaking the plug. Using a tiny, fragile lightning connector to join two individual, relatively bulky items together, strikes me as putting way too much faith into the strength of tiny PCBs.
My camera is easier to hold than that combo, has a bigger sensor, and a large built-in touch screen. And it can transfer images to my iPhone or iPad wirelessly - or even be controlled from them.
With NO fragile connector to break.
If so, that's good to know - especially as I am about to buy my first Lightning devices (iPad Pro and maybe iPhone 6S). Up till now, I've been on 30-pin devices.
I worry enough connecting a USB lead to a camera, for fear of stresses breaking the plug. Using a tiny, fragile lightning connector to join two individual, relatively bulky items together, strikes me as putting way too much faith into the strength of tiny PCBs.
If I want to strap a camera on to go snorkeling or splashing around in a pool, or send one up in a drone or on a kite I'll use my GoPro. If I want to hand-hold photos with a waterproof camera, I'll use my TG-1. And for any real photography, not in and around the pool, my OM-D E-M1.
Biowizard: Falacy somewhere, I fancy ...
Since when does pointing a (nearly) 180-degree fish-eye lens at the sky, convert it into a 360-degree lens?
In photography, is is conventional to measure a viewing angle cross the frame, corner to corner (if the frame is filled) or the diameter of a circular image: in other words, measuring the angle of a viewing "cone" who point is at the camera's focal plane.
It is NOT normal to measure the viewing angles as degrees around the (circular) base of the viewing "cone" - it it were, then by definition, every full-circle fish-eye could be called a "360-degree" lens.
So all Kodak has done, is put the lens on the top of the camera, rather than the front. #excitingNOT
Simple reply: #whatever
Serious reply: #yeh_right
Roland, go and learn about fish-eye lenses. It should then be obvious! :-)
Roland, I think you miss my point.
A TRUE 180 degree fisheye lens (say, with an image circle that is 100% in frame, is measured across the DIAMETER of the image. From 90 degrees down to 90 up, is 180 degrees. From 90 degrees left, to 90 right, is 180 degrees. It is NOT measured around the CIRCUMFERENCE.
And yet this is EXACTLY what "Kodak" is doing here. Pointing a 180-degree lens at the sky, then marking out the points of the compass around its periphery, with distortion software to make it look like an all-round image ... which EVERY shot on a classical 180-degree fisheye, already is/was.
Again: we measure lens field of view ACROSS the diagonal of the image circle, NOT around the DIAMETER.
Beautifully conceived and executed - lovely image! :-)
Falacy somewhere, I fancy ...
Sony has always loved compression - look at the investment it put into MiniDisc all those years ago, when the rest of us were trying to get our hands on uncompressed recording solutions.
Performing any kind of lossy compression at the point of original capture is bone-headed beyond belief: once lost, the data can never be recovered.
Poor move, Sony.
24 hours in, and the more I think about this, the more I like it. At last a quick way to attach/detach from my assortment of roller-skate dollies, microphone stand adapters, drum kit stands, table tripods and more.
KUDOS to the inventors and Bah Humbug to the predictable and ultimately dull and boring naysayers.
NOOO!!! Please NOT more lo-fi, blurry lens cameras - digital or otherwise.
You wanna take crappy shots? Buy an old 1st gen DSLR, wash its lens in the dishwasher and then sand-paper the front and rear elements.
Or just use a decent camera, and ruin your photos in Photoshop.
Toy Cameras are for Toy Photographers.
Trouble is the whole of Facebook, Twitter, Instragram and more is stuffed with N'th generation copies of images, with the result that most re-posts and shares have disgustingly corrupted photos or even text slogans.
Sorry All, and don't get me wrong - I love the fact we have a "Royal Family" and our amazing "Queen".
But hey, why get all prissy of a few dozen (or more) low-life hack paparazzi want to take pics of your grand kids? Some or your "subjects", who pay for your existence, want to see what they are paying for.
So let them.
Personally, I couldn't give a toss either way. Small kids are small kids, end of.
I was totally SICK of all Diana's bleatings, while she actively wooed the Press with her poses, pouts, and sidelong glances. She was ONLY who she was because of her carefully managed press coverage. Her death was sad and premature, but ultimately of her own making.
Back to now - if you want to live the privileged life of a British Royal, on money contributed by everyone living in your realm, then PUT UP with photos for those of your contributors who can be assed to want some value for their money.
And for the rest of us, I couldn't give a [Fluffy Bunny] either way.