Apple finally got Aperture right with version 3, to then abandon it. I'm sticking with it just as I still use Final Cut Pro 7 for video. Just because software isn't supported doesn't mean it won't keep working. I have no interest in having my photos stored in a cloud. I'll continue to use Aperture 3 and avoid the downgrade to "Photos" until they finally get it right with version 3.
Message to Canon. Kodak thought it was impossible too - and sadly - look what happened to them. Even the giants can fall. Time to wake up.
Canon sees impossible while all the others make it possible!
Meanwhile adapter sales are going through the roof to enable Canon glass to be used on mirror-less bodies.
Film camera technology (read flapping mirror) needs to be updated in this digital age. Catch up Canon - cmon!
"That was ten years ago - what’s the next big moment?
You tell me!"
OMG, Canon really is impossible!
I've got it. IBIS to take care of mirror slap!
Finally!!! Ink that costs less than the printer!!!
They've invented a time machine that takes us all back to the day when the second-hand shelf wasn't littered with their flapping mirror digital cameras.
"Olympus wants Photokina visitors to know that the E-M10 happened to win a gold award a few months ago."
That may be true, but the photo accompanying this caption shows an E-M1 not the other Gold Award winner - the E-M10.
robogobo: Please, everybody calm down. Back away and look at the big picture. Much like FCPX, Pages 5, etc, the new Photos app will likely be anemic in the beginning and then have stuff added back in by request... level headed requests. For all intents and purposes, Photos is Aperture 4. Look at the screenshot. Look at the official statement. All your Aperture edits will carry over, and they'll be treated exactly like the move from Aperture 2 to Aperture 3. Old sliders will be treated as legacy and new sliders there to replace them.
All this panic and negative speculation doesn't do anybody good. Aperture will keep working just like it does now, even in Yosemite, and maybe Photos will even be better. Who knows? Let's wait and find out. And give Apple feedback through the official channels in a constructive, adult manner. https://www.apple.com/feedback/aperture.html
What if I don't want to store my photos in a cloud? What if I just bought a new camera and want raw support for it in Aperture? This sucks!
pgphoto_ca: Be carefull....it's not a f2.8-f4 with this sensor (2.7x crop)....it's f5.6-f8 or more.......the crop factor need also to be apply to the aperture :)
A real 400mm f4...is much bigger ! :)
"Most people will think they will get 25-400mm at f/2.8-4.0 when they buy this camera. I hope they understand that in reality they won't get it."
But they will get it. They will get the angle of view of a 25mm lens mounted on a full frame body all the way through to 400mm equivalent. This is a standard that most understand. Like saying twice as small as a full sized tennis ball. We all know how big that is?
They will be getting a f2.8-4.0 lens as well. It's light gathering ability is almost identical to any other sensor size. At certain ISO it may look a little noisier due to the smaller sized photo-sites but exposure will be the same.
The only difference is that the lens/sensor combo will have about 2.7 x more depth of field than FF at any given aperture. Period!
"A bigger sensor gathers more light than a smaller one at the same aperture."
Non-sense. Why are people trying to reinvent physics?
A bigger sensor gathers the same amount of light as a smaller sensor at the same aperture. The exposure will be the same.
Maybe you are confusing aperture and sensor size with the fact that a larger sensor can but not always has the ability to produce cleaner results than a smaller sensor at the same exposure.
tabloid: Sony A65 user.
Couple of questions to our learn-ed contributors.
If a camera like this one (FZ1000) has 4K capabilities would it then be classified as a professional camera.
Why is the sensor described as a 'large sensor', when in fact its a tiny sensor.
4K is a video feature.4K doesn't necessary make it professional. The codec and ability to attach XLR audio usually helps classify a video camera as professional.The Sony RX10 with it's XLR audio accessory, built in ND and an external recorder (ability to record 10bit 4.2.2) could help some make money and therefore be considered professional.....otherwise....
1" is larger than most 2/3" , 1/2" or 1/3" broadcast ENG cameras.The FZ1000 sensor is a little bit more than half the size of a super 35mm sensor video/film camera.
Einstein said it's relative - so therefore it must be.
This is where people get confused.The FZ-1000 lens is truly an f2.8-4.0 lens. It's light gathering abilities are identical to an f2.8-4.0 lens on any camera made by the hand of man.If one wants to talk about the lens+sensor depth of field behaviour of this camera then that's where one can say that this camera would behave approximately like a full frame camera with a 25-400mm lens at f7.6-10.9.
Thanks Richard for the preview. The term Bridge camera or compact doesn't seem to fit anymore. In fact the FZ-1000 is larger than the GH4 which is itself a "large" m4/3 camera.http://camerasize.com/compare/#556,525
No built in ND filter is a mistake. A camera like the Sony RX100III (that can be called "compact") has a built in ND filter. ND is not only necessary for video shooting but also as a means of avoiding lens defraction on the smaller 1" sensor.
On the positive side - good to see this type of camera with PAL video capabilities (sales region dependant). They finally realised that we don't all live in the U.S or Japan.
David Schloss, I believe it's Deutsche Börse not Deutche Börse.
tjbates: As a Panasonic GH2 owner, I bought the E-M10 because I wanted to see for myself what all the fuss is about. The E-M10 stills image quality is definitely a step up from the GH2. It's a keeper!I find autofocus more accurate on the GH2 with the same Olympus lenses. The viewfinder on the GH2 is still - after all these years bigger, brighter and clearer.I miss the C1,C2 and C3 dials that the Panasonic cameras offer and the extra external controls. On the E-M10, I waste too much time scrolling through the Super control panel and miss shots even after assigning all Fn buttons. The GH2 is operationally faster. I know Olympus offer the Myset feature but only one Myset can be programmed to an Fn button. The GH2 can easily be used one-handed. Great for parents! The E-M10 requires two hands.The Olympus software better than Panasonic but unbearably slow.The Olympus has auto ISO in manual mode!Overall the E-M10 is fantastic but I'll keep the GH2 for video.
Wanted to update my impressions of the E-M10 after 3 weeks of use.I've now discovered the target auto focus mode and find it to be superior to my GH2 for nailing focus on a moving subject.To use- press left arrow next to OK, then INFO and then scroll to the focus mode with tiny stand alone boxes.This little wonder really can keep a sharp focus on subjects moving towards the camera at 3.5 f/s. I still miss the C1-C3 dials on the GH2 but have found a work around on the E-M10 by assigning Myset1 and Myset2 to the ART and SCN mode positions. Olympus software is very slow with Raw files but okay with Jpegs.My files look like film - I'm very impressed. Lovely film like grain and beautiful rich colours without adding saturation to skin tones.My focus accuracy is 90% better than my 5DMK2 and the file quality is very similar.
As a Panasonic GH2 owner, I bought the E-M10 because I wanted to see for myself what all the fuss is about. The E-M10 stills image quality is definitely a step up from the GH2. It's a keeper!I find autofocus more accurate on the GH2 with the same Olympus lenses. The viewfinder on the GH2 is still - after all these years bigger, brighter and clearer.I miss the C1,C2 and C3 dials that the Panasonic cameras offer and the extra external controls. On the E-M10, I waste too much time scrolling through the Super control panel and miss shots even after assigning all Fn buttons. The GH2 is operationally faster. I know Olympus offer the Myset feature but only one Myset can be programmed to an Fn button. The GH2 can easily be used one-handed. Great for parents! The E-M10 requires two hands.The Olympus software better than Panasonic but unbearably slow.The Olympus has auto ISO in manual mode!Overall the E-M10 is fantastic but I'll keep the GH2 for video.
Whichever way I look at it - the E-M10 looks like a marketing mistake in favour of the consumer. That doesn't happen very often.The E-M10 is marketed as an entry level OM series camera - however on paper and I'm sure in reality - this camera looks to perform (purely in terms of image quality) as well as the E-M1. That's pretty special for a camera about half the price of it's bigger brother.
How about this one-
No 24/25p = no sale.
RichRMA: A bit ridiculous. m4/3rds, 16mp for $2000 versus FF from Nikon or Sony for the same price. What exactly makes the Panasonic worth that kind of money? At $1000 a body, premium m4/3rd cameras were ok, not for $2000.
It is indeed a video thing. There are several reasons why m4/3 is popular with videographers and therefore worth the price over FF Nikon and Canon.1. Panasonic know how to make cameras (GH2 and later the GH3) without noticeable moire and aliasing and near HD resolution.2. EVF3. Smaller lighter lenses that are tack sharp wide open - unlike many fast aperture FF primes.4. Improved codec over all other cameras in this price bracket with an EVF.
If you're just shooting stills then I'd go with FF as well. Infact that's why I use both formats.But right now for video, unless you want to hack a $3K 5DMK3 and then add an EVF, I'd suggest m4/3 is indeed worth $2,000. I'd pay a lot more if it had an internal broadcast codec like ProRes422.