Favorable Exponynt: I just can't decide which one I can't afford, this one or the D5. Maybe I'll just not get both of them and wait for Pentax.
A sound proposition ;-)
Only true panda is the Pentax K-01! ;-)
Satyaa: I just watched the video on HD TV (1080P TV, not 4K). The video is not any better than 4K videos I've seen from M43 or even 1" cameras (such as RX10 II).
I like Nikon for photography. My camera does a very good job of that. I don't use video. I don't care for what this camera can do with video.
The feats of those atheletes and the videographer's skills are definitely beyond the ordinary.
You looked at a 4K video on a 1080p TV and compared it to other 4K videos on a 1080p TV? :-|
Andreas Stuebs: I would love to see a Pentax K adapter to Micro4/3
I would not :-PIt would only erode market share for Ricoh/Pentax and give you no real advantage.
What I mean is that I, as a Pentax User, would consider a m4/3 system for portability and - possibly - AF, and with an adapter you lose both.
Only thing I would consider is a glass-less adapter to use something like the SMC-M 100mm f/2.8 or a similar lens from Nikon, in order to have a relatively compact and hi-IQ 200mm FoV equivalent.
We don't need another "standard" from Sony...It's like the plague... they always come up with something different and not compatible with everybody else's tech.
As a Pentax user, I find this bit-after-bit confirmation of what was feared not so long ago depressing...
I mean, you create such a technologically advanced camera which receives unanimous praise and then... drop it like it was nothing?I really don't get this, you're expected to lose money in the first year of the system-building process, did they not anticipate that? or were so smug as to believe they would have made money right off the bat? :-/
LensBeginner: I'm looking for a bridge camera - no pressure here - and this is definitely the polar opposite of what I'm looking for: stupid zoom and no RAW but most importantly no EVF... how am I going to hold the damn thing at 1200mm FoV equivalent!?!?The bad part is that every major player is following this trend... last good one was FZ200 or am I mistaken?
"Panasonic Fz1000 was a great one."That one!
P900 really is too much in fact...
I'm looking for a bridge camera - no pressure here - and this is definitely the polar opposite of what I'm looking for: stupid zoom and no RAW but most importantly no EVF... how am I going to hold the damn thing at 1200mm FoV equivalent!?!?The bad part is that every major player is following this trend... last good one was FZ200 or am I mistaken?
Very peculiar looks, especially in portraits.
amatoer: From Apple's own homepage:
'And you can view Live Photos on your other Apple devices, too.'
Isn't there a law against the trade of live photos, or something?
Richard Murdey: Sensor size?
GoPro seems to be rather cagey with that info, and the aperture, but Googling suggests it is 1/2.5", standard P&S size.
Legit question: why do people pay so much money for a battery powered web cam?
If you had a webcam that could be easily powered by a battery, let's say via a USB powerbank, what would you record on, and how big would that contraption be?
I'm not ok with paying 300-400E for a "battery powered webcam", but I'm fine with spending 80-90E to get an SJ4000 with a good quantity of mounts/accessories.
IQ is on par with a phone, but it's definitely easier to mount where you need it, and it's quite expendable, while my phone is not.
As a Pentax user, I'm sorry to hear that.Samsung was pushing some groundbreaking stuff with its latest models.
However - if the rumor and its implications are true - I can't understand why a big company would invest so much money in a long-time venture (building a camera system), and then leaving at the first hint of trouble.
I tought that in a field like this you were /supposed/ to lose money in the first years while your products slowly become established on the market, and it was something to take for granted.
Armchair industrial planning, I know, but I'm baffled nonetheless.
LensBeginner: Much "mercial", little "info"...
And, just to clarify, I'm ok with the commercial part (be it subtle or not), it's the way things are and how websites earn their living nowadays.Was just underwhelmed by the content, that's all.
Such as?Don't want to sound blasé or anything, but I believe that all the information in that article is common knowledge.It's presented in a clear way, with helpful images and charts, granted, but it didn't say anything me or the most part of dpreview readers (at least those even remotely interested in video) didn't know already.
Much "mercial", little "info"...
Tungsten Nordstein: The masses! They have to get in on everything! Where's the fun in that? Show me something totally elitist that the mass CAN'T join in on!
Shooting proper pictures instead of self(ish)es and snapshots...
Well I don't like overcooked HDR images in general, but there are some things HDR is good with, even when taken to an extreme.This one is a good example (even though I would have done it differently).
All in all, very nice picture and congratulations on your win! :-)
LensBeginner: Garbage in, garbage out...
I'm not "people", and those look bad even at web size...Plus, those have likely been taken under controlled conditions and ideal illumination in order to promote the product.Just make the proportionsmartphone advertising shot : facebook average shot = this press release : what you'll get
Boy are your standards low...
Garbage in, garbage out...