joelakeland: Great images out of the 1" sensor. If I could only restrain myself from doing a deep dive into enlarged files the image quality is definitely good enough for some casual shooting forays.
I'd order one of these in a heartbeat if only it reached 400 while maintaining 2.8. Okay, I'd take 600mm at F4 even quicker. That said, the G3X seems so slow by comparison given its short commitment to 2.8 on the short end of the lens. Still, that 600mm plus in the vicinity image quality of RX10 II makes it even more attractive than this in some ways.
Canon G3X -- an embarrassment even for Canon.
Photato: Not impressed.Tiny 20 megapixels crammed in a 1" sensor is definitely consumerish and it shows. Too bad because that spoils what is otherwise a really nice camera.Sony, let me know when you put 8MP in 1". Like the one you make for Industrial Applications.....You know like the serious stuff for grown ups.
Lumix DMC-FZ1000 creams the RX10 Mark II, and is probably on par or slightly better than RX10 Mark I. Also, let us not forget: both the Pana and the Sony cameras employ the same size and form factor sensor, yet the Panasonic lens has an 16x zoom range and the Sony lens only has an 8,3x zoom range.
I just cannot justify the $1300 price of the RX10 Mark II. I hope Sony will not start pricing out their cameras now like how Canon is notorious for.
Francis Carver: Finally, at long last, something real and innovative and all-around cutting edge and affordable. Unlike, for instance, the overpriced retro junk Canon seems to be bringing out and/or threatening us with.
Kudos to Fujifilm for the X-T1 INFRARED. Hopefully the UV/IR portions of the spectrum will be recorded in the videos also, not only in stills.
@ rroccad: Thanks, dude! Your comment above was the most enlightened and informative one of all the comments posted here, dude!
Francis Carver: We already have something quite good now like this, called mSATA. Way better than 2.5-inch SSD laptop drives.
If Intel has got anything to do with this, it'll likely be another "Thunderbolt for Windows PC" fiasco.
Another big difference between these 3D thingies is this: one exists right now, the other one does not.
Thanks for the heads-up. I knew they had multiple models with the IR filter removed previously, but hey, the press release sounded so tantalizing, I almost bit on it.
Sadly, I do need a camera with good video capabilities, and these days with UHD resolution video to boot, so once again and sadly, I have to pass on the X-T1-IR from Fujifilm.
Gesture: Professional-grade infrared technology
Just what does that mean?
It probably just means that it is not a consumer-grade infrared technology, no? ;-)
Hugo808: I used to like the little red dot on my lenses (no, not that sort) that showed where to refocus if I was using infra-red film. Because IR has a different and non-visible wavelength, normal visible light focusing would put the pictures ever so slightly out, so we had to focus normally and then move the lens barrel to allow for the IR shift. Imagine how tricky that's going to be with today's super fast lenses!
That's going to be a neat trick to pull off in an autofocus camera, and fun to watch on the screen. How many will think their pictures are out of focus?
Do you think any Fuji AF lenses would be able to work with the X-T1 IR in providing sharp still pix and videos taking this optical phenomenon into account?
I just checked and I indeed do have such a red dot to the right of the short red line on the fixed, non-movable barrel portion of my Pentacon Prakticar MC 50mm/f1.8 lens, but I had always thought that was just to line-up the lens when mounting it to the Practica BMS Electronic camera. Are you saying that is where one would need to set the focus ring to when using 35mm IR film in the camera?
Thanks, Ribbit. So X-T1 IR would record UV+visible+IR spectrum images in both still and video mode, correct?
That brings me to another question: would you then not be able to switch in the menu into a recording mode whereby the sensor would only record visible light waves only and not UV and IR as well? If this is not visible, then if I understand you correctly some types of on-the-lens filters could use to manipulate the wavelengths hitting the sensor still?
Finally, at long last, something real and innovative and all-around cutting edge and affordable. Unlike, for instance, the overpriced retro junk Canon seems to be bringing out and/or threatening us with.
dash2k8: For everyone laughing at its price tag... remember that there are already plenty of 30K+ cameras on the market. Arri, Red, Panasonic, Sony, etc, and they're not exactly bankrupt.
@ BobbySan: good points!
For starters, I did not "take" my name from anyone. Who is that other Carver your are referring to, anyhow, your uncle?
1. Please, let us not confuse a RED camera with a CANON ME20F-SH or a Canon EOS Cinema C100, C300 cameras, etc, shall we? With the REDs, the make theatrical motion pictures. With the Canons, they do not.
That's one large difference right then and there, right?
2. They have more video-capable smart phones out there than Canon EOS Cinema camera s-- does that fact make them better? Re. the Canon video codecs used in these (AVCHD, JPEG) -- well, they are the most inefficient 10-15-years old codecs anyone could still find in use today. But maybe we are talking about different cameras.
3. Yes, there is difference between 4:2:2 and 4:2:0 chroma subsampling, indeed. For instance, the Canon EOS C100 "Cinema" can only do the latter in AVCHD, and only at 8-bit color depth.
Not exactly the fodder for Canon's original Hollywood Technicolor dreams.
Ed Villanueva: for those who thinks the blue "Zeal" is worthless, don't buy it; similarly, don't buy the "Leica red dot" if you don't value the product itself. Stick to your Tamrons, Vivitars and Sigmas and save the money..... enjoy your lenses while you can.
Zeiss glass was great quality and highly affordable whilst it was made in Jena, in the German Democratic Republic. These days, they are still rather good, but way too pricey.
Donnie G: It'll be fun to see what the creative minds in the motion picture industry produce with this camera. It'll be even more fun watching the Canon bashers beat their keyboards to a bloody pulp as the ME20F-SH goes about the business of generating new revenue for Canon and does its part to help propel EF lens production toward a 120 million milestone. Now that's mirrorless done right, lol. :))
"I'm sure the big studios will have a use for 4 million ISO."
No movie studio or small indie producer will pick this Canon over something eminently professional, like a digital film camera from the likes of Arri, Panavision, Red, or Sony. Even Vision Research' Phantom ultra high speed, high sensitivity sensor cameras would beat circles around the ME20F-SH.
Should it actually come out in its present form, nothing will stop folks from purchasing multiples copies of it for USD $30,000 big ones. Meanwhile, probably at least some of DPR's readers will easily see through this CC (typical Canon Charade).
"Canon developed a positive locking EF mount for their new low light camera ME20F-SH."
That is great news, indeed. Better late than never, as the old saying goes.
Of course, a company called Arri had already developed Positive Locking (PL-series) lenses and mounts way back in the very early 1970s.
But, as the old saying goes: "better late than never."
(3) SURVEILLANCE APPLICATION POSSIBILITY for the Canon ME20F-SH
Slim to none. First, surveillance cameras and their sensor have already moved over to 3840 x 2160 resolution sensors. But this thing here can only do legacy Full-HD -- not three same thing, most folks in the know would agree.
Next, this here thing is not PTZ pan-tilt-zoom enabled, and that is a pretty standard requirement for surveillance cameras these days.
Lastly, there is absolutely not even a servo power zoom lens for it from anyone, not even from Canon.
Yeah, there are some surveillance cameras that are stationary and are mounted to cover fixed areas like entrances and whatnot. Many of them are capable of only HD resolution. But these costs a few hundred dollars a pop, not $30.000. And light conditions are usually so that they wiill show an image even if the sensor is not clocked in at ISO 4.000.000.
Thus, this cameras is truly in need of a market -- but I cannot figure out what that might be.
I begin to think that probably nobody defending this thingie from the brain of Canon-San here would actually spend USD $30.,000 for it. Am I right?
First off, this is not a "camera." I cannot record a picture. As such, it is a sensor in an enclosure with some standard OUT interfaces.
Next, how can you use something like this for serious television or cinema work -- nobody had answered this little question so far.
(1) VIDEO PRODUCTION FOR TELEVISION BROADCAST & ONLINE STREAMING (NetFlix, etc).
This brain / head here has an HD-only resolution and a 1.5:1 aspect ration sensor, right? So, it cannot be used to record current requirement video in 3840 x 2160 pixel resolution and in the 16:9 aspect ratio, correct?
(2) DIGITAL CINEMA APPLICATIONS
This brain / head here has an HD-only resolution and a 1.5:1 aspect ration sensor, right? Okay, so how can something like THAT record Cinematic 2K and Cinematic 4K resolution footage in the 1.85:1 or 2.4:1 aspect ratio? It cannot, can it now?
jonikon: Yes, there are some excellent Zeiss lenses still being made, but unfortunately Zeiss dirtied it's brand years ago when they signed a contract with Sony allowing them to brand any lens Sony chose as a Zeiss Tessar lens. The Zeiss quality assurance of Sony/Zeiss lenses is a joke and is all just marketing. Some Sony /Zeiss branded lenses such as the Carl-Zeiss Vario-Tessar T* E 16-70mm f/4 ZA OSS are junk on the inside. Photozone only gives it one an one half stars out of a possible five, optically. Unfortunately many Sony users are being duped into paying premium prices for the the blue label Zeiss on the outside, but only getting questionable Sony optical and mechanical quality on the inside.
Yessirie, Dear Doctor Lens, Ph.D.
justmeMN: In addition, I suppose local television stations could mount it on their "breaking news helicopters". To many businesses, $30,000 is pocket change.
I have a lingering feeling that the commenters here who tooth and nail defend this USD $30,000 dollar whatever-gizmo from Canon would never, ever purchase even one copy of it -- even if the price gets dropped to a more reasonable under $5,000 for one.
1. This here is definitely not a "camera." Maybe a 1/2 of a real camera.
2. Canon EOS Cinema series of digital cameras are the jokes of the industry. Canon calls them "cinema cameras" -- yet all they can do is record HD video in the 16:9 aspect ratio using a totally prehistoric video codec. Even a respectable smart phone can do better, namely, record video in UHD.
3. The price difference between a camera with a 100,000 ISO sensor and one with an alleged 4,000,000 ISO sensor is probably going to be around $200-300. $500, tops. Since with have got the former for around $2,000, you can do the rest of the math as yo once they make it into an actual recording-enabled camera, what the price of a Canon ME20F-SH should really be.
And even then -- why shoot anything these days in HD only, when you have got over a 100 choices for digital cameras that can shoot and record video in glorious 2160p UHD / 4K? Canon, it seems, is going backwards. Not forwards. Same as with their Cinema EOS jobs.
JF -- just you go back sixtynining, as you had said absolutely NOTHING. U R, I mean.
Nobody is buying those door-stoppers any more, sorry to break anyone's cherry about them, though.
Consumer cameras or at best under $5K "consumer" camcorders -- for local news stations, networks and independents, too. These babies now can have 1-inch sensors, as opposed to the shoulder-crunching "broadcast" behemoths only having those small 3/4-inch legacy form factor sensors, see?
Or DSLRs or advanced digital cameras, hybrids. Just about anything goes, as the budgets of the news depts. of local & reginal TV stations is so tight / nonresistant these days, see?Check 'em out!
Why spend $50.000+ for a huge, bone-breaking old style shoulder beast with a 3/4-inch sensor, when you can get a 1-inch sensor forma factor model for less than 1/10th the price, hmmm?