Jimmy G: The specs of the 7D Mark II confirm what many of us have suspected, Canon has no intention of providing competitive video solutions in their portion of the DSLR marketplace. Which, to shooters like me, looking for single-camera solutions for our nature and wildlife field work and who also originally invested heavily in the EOS lens line-up based on the promise of what the 5D Mark II had promised in its day, well, we are now looking to off-load our gear and move into systems that accommodate our needs. Truly an opportunity lost on Canon's part, and a marketing blunder for its users and stock holders.
Where a camera like the Sony a7S is an video powerhouse which can also more than hold its weight in the imaging arena, the 7D Mark II is a very capable niche camera for sports shooters which offers tepid, less than true HD video capture abilities. A camera built for 2009, not 2015.
...continued from above...
I'm budgeted for two new camera heads come this spring. From the looks of things Canon will have nothing to sell me. Depending on what a 5D Mark IV or 1DX II offer me, (hint: cinema class 4k capabilities like their competitors) I may be having one hell of a garage sale of Canon gear.
The specs of the 7D Mark II confirm what many of us have suspected, Canon has no intention of providing competitive video solutions in their portion of the DSLR marketplace. Which, to shooters like me, looking for single-camera solutions for our nature and wildlife field work and who also originally invested heavily in the EOS lens line-up based on the promise of what the 5D Mark II had promised in its day, well, we are now looking to off-load our gear and move into systems that accommodate our needs. Truly an opportunity lost on Canon's part, and a marketing blunder for its users and stock holders.
If "snapshots = printed images" to Mr. Jackson, then, yes, I'll agree that most folks are no longer printing their "home" pictures. However, that "snapshots = moments from one's life" it's quite clear that snapshots haven't gone anywhere. The problem with Mr. Jackson's perception is that he is not seeing all the printed images made today being kept in personal albums and shoeboxes, those will be discovered by future collectors long after their owners have passed on and are forgotten. And, as for those that do, digitally, find their way onto FB, and such, Mr. Jackson needs to offer himself a better way to filter out all the selfies and learn to, um, see the trees for the forest. ;) Instant gratification and self-promotion are merely different contexts for images, but they're snapshots, nonetheless.
My musings for the day, :)Jimmy G
4 weeks left to summer and now we get a review of waterproof cameras...oofah. But it's not just DPR that catches my discontent here, I've been keeping an eye out for these releases since before springtime and the manufacturers have been clearly asleep with getting their summer gear on the shelves early enough for their customers to compare, decide and shop. So, we should act surprised that their P&S market-share has been evaporating? I had purchased shorts, swim trunks and a new pair of sandals by the time the calendar said "Spring" and all that was to be found in waterproof cameraland was last years rehashes. Well, it looks like just another rehash for 2013 anyways, glad I didn't spend my cash. Time to shop for a waterproof housing for a camera that can, at least, take a decent picture.
Signed,Unhappy at the beach
ju_ju: Wow just looked at this previously posted video.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juM46ny1WhM&feature=youtu.be
This has been the clearest pointer yet to why the financial structures of the world are at the moment. Truly unbelievable that guys like this can be in charge of our futures in that respect. They make politicians look clever and if that is so something is seriously wrong. It is a great video demonstrating the lack of any community commitment to bettering peoples lives and shows pure true unadulterated greed and any kind of trust, truth and honesty.
It's called "side-stepping the question".
What the public needs to understand is that product press conferences are staged events where a company presents its product/marketing model. Great effort goes into not allowing for product criticism in that forum. The corporate attitude is "this is our conference space and we will only allow for our position to be validated." It's SOP. The side-step, too, is SOP and is both taught and practiced in preparation for these type of, cough, "events".
What the viewer needs to take from this clip is this..."This is our marketing model. We're sticking with it. It is not open for discussion." That I were to add sub-titles to this clip Narayan would be saying something along the lines of, "We're no longer software merchants, we're now software landlords." All the rest is just product hype.
As customers we need to understand that we are the driving force in this situation, without our dollars their business goes nowhere.
Marketing departments, ha! :)
Jimmy G: What should be plainly clear at this point is that Adobe has funneled the profits it has made over the years not into software development but, rather, into investing in server farms and trying to manufacture an environment where their customers would have to lock into their ecosystem to continue to use their products. Photoshop, etal, are no longer software products they are baited marketing hooks to lure customers into their internet cloud services.
Frankly, as I see it, they got their marketing strategy backwards, the old "cart before the horse". How it should read is "software ownership first, then free online (ahem, cloud, cough) storage of 20GB for Each Title Ownership, then extra prices for additional storage"
In the meantime, their competitors have a wide-open field to poach their customer base. Methinks they should have at it. What the environment needs is more creativity and more diversity and some kick-a** tools.
And, from this long-time customer, from v. 3.0.5 to CS 5.5, "I've done my own cost-analysis, and you've been EOL'ed as a consideration for my next platform!".
That Hendrickson and company wish to believe that they are dealing with a disgruntled amateur "hobbyist photographic community", well, ahahahahah, that is truly their call. I've sat with corporate heads who have exhibited the same level of, what I'm seeing as, hubristic mischaracterizations of their customer base. The thousands of photographers affected are nearly all small businesses that make cost analysis decisions daily, and the "buzz" is for affordable alternatives offering substantial cost savings and sharing and marketing their work in a variety of markets and venues. Not in a fish bowl.
None of this should truly come as a surprise to folks. As a publicly traded entity in today's environment of the supply-side economic model of the past 30+ years years here in the U.S., Adobe is obliged (I prefer, enslaved) to its stock holders into producing a profit no matter what the consequences. As someone who has done "corporate" for the past 32 years I can tell you this, if their gambit for "cloud" doesn't pay off the first casualties will be the customer's needs and the employees pay and benefits. It's exactly what is going on today with my employer corporation. IMHO. Adobe should have taken those years of profit and bought back its stock, taken itself private, and gone about what it knew how to do best...provide creative tools for creatives.
What should be plainly clear at this point is that Adobe has funneled the profits it has made over the years not into software development but, rather, into investing in server farms and trying to manufacture an environment where their customers would have to lock into their ecosystem to continue to use their products. Photoshop, etal, are no longer software products they are baited marketing hooks to lure customers into their internet cloud services.
Well, I started using Photoshop way-back-when with version 3.0.5. Several purchases later, I am currently at CS 5.5. I was never one to buy the incremental upgrades to "keep up-to-date". I've always been old-school when it comes to running stable computer platforms...purchase a system, populate it with the current versions for that platform, and go about my business never worrying for "bug-fixes" or feeling personally inadequate because I did not have the latest, um, "gee-whiz" "features".
For me, the fact of the matter is that nearly all of the functionality I use Photoshop for has been quite nicely taken up by other software providers, I've only continued using the Adobe product because of familiarity! (Silly, I know.) I suppose it's time to dust-off my copy of Aperture with NIK and Topaz plugins! Ha!
That Adobe goes through with this strategy of "forced leasing" my association with them will simply cease at my next system upgrade. Life goes on. :)
Jefftan: what is the difference between this SX280HS and SX260HS?same sensor same lens, same to me
...looks like a rehashed 260 with Digic6 for better video compression (see my separate post above)...Video frame rates change from 1080P@24fps on the 260 to 1080P@30fps & 1080P@60fps on the 280...an increased ISO range (ISO 100-3200 on the Digic5/260 becomes 80-6400 on the Digic6/280) and a slightly faster burst rate (10fps for 10 frames on the 5/260 becomes 14fps but for only 7 frames on the 6/280)...
...too bad Canon couldn't deliver 720P HD slo-mo like on the Panny FZ200, still stuck at SD for that function... :P
Looks to me like Canon is doing a public test-bed for the new Digic6 processor. Comparing the video storage requirements between the newer 280/270 and the older 260/240 it becomes apparent that there is a new higher-compression scheme being employed by Digic6 vs. Digic5, the KiloByte's Per Second (KB/Sec.) requirements are much lower with Digic6. On a hunch I decided to compare both the SX260 and Canon's SX50 (Digic5) and found their video compression rates to be identical. The following are comparisons between those two cameras and the newer SX280/270 in KB/Sec and total amount stored on an 8GB card in ~hours...
Miniature Effect HD 1280x720 6 fps5: 573 3.56: 195 8.5
Super Slow Mo 640x480 120 fps5: 4914 0.56: 4288 1.5
HD 1280x720 30fps5: 3054 0.666: 922 2.0
Full HD 1920x10805: 4355 0.5 @ 24 fps6: 2945 0.75 @ 30 fps and 4288 0.5 @ 60 fps
Of note: increased JPG file storage requirements...will = a quality improvement?
Lg SF 4:35: 5208 KB 1497/8GB6: 5661 KB 1379/8GB
I posted a few questions for DPR about some test anomalies here at...
DPR X10 Side-By-Side Orb Test Anomaly: Fujifilm Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review:http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1012&thread=40723402
...I would be curious for some feedback from you at your convenience.
Best to you,:)