Russian Optics ... 58mm ... (roughly) f2 ... what does that remind me of? Oh yes, my first ever SLR Lens, the Helios that screwed into the front of my Zenit! Come to think of it, that probably had a brass case under the paint and chrome! And there were plenty of swirly effects you could create with that combination, thanks to the glossy interior of the camera's mirror box!
C'mon DpReview - BUY THIS! We want to see what you can do with it!
And while Canon tries to add a celestial touch to its latest sensor, covering it with a veritable constellation of physical artifacts which, brilliantly, make noise at high ISO settings irrelevant to its owners (and, apparently, renters), and while Nikon continues to lubricate its sensors with shutter oil, so as to save the user buying their own can of WD40 to create the desired effects ...
... like a silent goddess from the eponymous mount, Olympus slides in to place to give those of us with faith and love for such things, the finest of all cameras.
CANIKON? No, it can't. Olympus can.
I'm pleased Adobe is still providing camera updates for CS6 users ... especially as I've just noticed the addition of a DJI QUADCOPTER profile! As someone who is on the verge of getting his first photographic drone, this is good news indeed!
Canon's DSLRs are all 3:2 aspect ratio; its Selphys are all 4:3. What i WOULD buy is a dye sub that produced slightly larger prints in 3:2 format or 4:3, depending on media loaded - say 6" x 9" or 6" x 8".
This latest Selphy does nothing I cannot do with my original Canon baby dye-sub printer I bought over 10 years ago.
Biowizard: Very little info here behind the pics ... What resolution sensor? Lens fish-eye or rectilinear? Focal length? Sensor physical size? And so on ...
Pretty pic, though.
Thanks John - that includes some of the info (eg, sensor), but nothing about the lens type or focal length/field of view.
Very little info here behind the pics ... What resolution sensor? Lens fish-eye or rectilinear? Focal length? Sensor physical size? And so on ...
Biowizard: "... located to the *left* of the lens mount. Also on the *left* is a full-sized HDMI ..."
That's a very "selfie" oriented decription! With the camera pointing at a subject other than oneself, I'd say those buttons and the data ports are on the RIGHT hand side of the camera! Just as I think of the shutter release on my DSLR as being on the right hand end of the top-plate!
EDIT: Indeed, as in your OM-D E-M10 review: "The camera's ports (a micro-HDMI socket and combined USB/AV output) move to the *right* flank" ... same (relative) location as those sockets on the Blackmagic!
Fairy Nuff - but it's a bit like asking someone, "Is America to the RIGHT or LEFT of Europe"? Obviously this depends on which way you are facing at the time, but many people simply assume the "North Up" view and say "Left".
I work a lot in theatre, and "Right" / "Left" are always relative to the STAGE view (ie, the performers). Stand on the stage, face the audience, and "Right" is to YOUR right (THEIR left), and vice versa.
The SAME is true for about 99% of DpReview's reviews. Right/Left is described from the PHOTOGRAPHER'S viewpoint, not the SUBJECT'S.
This consistency is helpful - and the CURRENT article gets it back-to-front compared with the DpReview norm.
DaGurney: Two major problems with this story.
1. It doesn't tell us what the recording format is! None of these specs mean much unless we know what the codec and bitrate are. COME ON, DPReview! That's amateur hour.
2. It compares the weight of the camera to that of the GoPro. But what about the BMPCC? People are already mounting it on drones, and it offers lossless recording.
christiangrunercom, that's true of EVERYTHING we read on DpReview. But surely the whole point of a news digest website, like this, is for trained writers to do that research, and then correctly write it up, for the benefit of us readers?
For all the efforts put in to describe the latest cellphone, I can't help feeling I nearly MISSED this significant camera because of lack of detail in the review.
Just been reading the Blackmagic website about this camera - and think I am falling in love with it! It even has a GLOBAL shutter, meaning good-bye to distorted, curved wheel spokes and drone props, and no more "Jello Effect".
With a suitable underwater housing and compact, rectilinear, manual focus wideangle lens, this would be my perfect PRO "GoPro". It's what I would buy for my drone ... if I had a drone!
Further to my earlier complaint that a cinema camera costing $20K should have a GLOBAL shutter, not a Rolling shutter - I see the brand new, Blackmagic Micro Cinema Camera (just announced in DpReview) DOES ... at a mere $995. Hurray!
"... located to the *left* of the lens mount. Also on the *left* is a full-sized HDMI ..."
Biowizard: Nothing from Manfrotto or Gitzo, two of the best known tripod makers? This is like doing a comparison of 6 midrange DSLRs and omitting Canon & Nikon!
I won't stoop to say it's all a load of balls, but ... oops, I just did!
Maybe I'm being thick here, but I don't quite get your irony. OK, you were reviewing ballheads, NOT tripods. But my Manfrotto tripods are accompanied by two VERY nice, solid, ballheads made by ... Manfrotto!
Nothing from Manfrotto or Gitzo, two of the best known tripod makers? This is like doing a comparison of 6 midrange DSLRs and omitting Canon & Nikon!
Biowizard: I've paid my money for lenses that were bright, crystal-clear and sharp to the point of agony - why would I want a piece of lens-design failure at THIS kind of price?
C'mon world, this is Emperor's Clothes time: BAD lenses sold at BIG prices for "Artistic" purposes?!
I've always found a big of old nylon stocking does a brilliant job of softening down a Zeiss Planar or Olympus Zuiko 50mm. And it costs a whole bundle less.
drh681, you miss my point of the word "agony" - it was an ironic description of pin sharpness, that in the real world (ie, pins) can hurt.
The key point is, I buy SHARP lenses; there are many ways I can soften their images when I want to. If I start with a SOFT lens, then I have no way to sharpen. That's a lot of money wasted on inferior imagery.
Biowizard: $2.5K - and still a ROLLING shutter? ...
... meaning distorted movement, like curved propellers and wheel spokes.
C'mon guys - what video needs is a decent GLOBAL shutter, even at the expense of "only" being "HD".
Rolling shutters are for GOPROs, not REAL PRO cameras.
Dr_Jon, correction: ROLLING shutters read sequentially; but GLOBAL ones read a whole frame at once. They cost more money, but are available in scientific cameras. I am just disappointed they are not yet appearing in high-end movie cameras.
What I am talking about are GLOBAL shutters. Electronic Shutters that read the ENTIRE frame at one instant in time. If you don't know the term, do some research. It is what you need for ACCURATE motion capture.
I've paid my money for lenses that were bright, crystal-clear and sharp to the point of agony - why would I want a piece of lens-design failure at THIS kind of price?
Gimme gimme gimme a GLOBAL shutter. Curved distortion of moving or rotating objects (like helicopter blades) is for $250 GoPros, not $20K cameras.
$2.5K - and still a ROLLING shutter? ...