Only $300 for the red Leica sticker? That's the cheapest I can remember Leica selling their red stickers for. Must be a down economy.
AngryCorgi: $1800??? Canon, go home, you're drunk.
$1500 would make more sense. $1800 seems a little out-of-touch with the market. Or maybe they don't expect to sell many and want to get largest profit of early adopters. Sigma pulled that nonsense with their newer sensor in the SD1
Only if Canon were the only DSLR maker on Earth and had ZERO competition. Otherwise, it's well ABOVE the price it should be expected to be at to compete.
$1800??? Canon, go home, you're drunk.
With the G7X and the LX100, the G1X mk2 just became an obsolete device. And it's barely even been 4 months since it was reviewed. I guess Canon kinda saw that coming. I think their move to create the G7X was briliant. Rangier lens and cheaper price than the RX100 mk3 for those who don't need/desire an EVF. I think it will sell well. I think the G1X mk2 price may tank a little as intrest wanes. The LX100 may be $100 - 150 more than the G1X mk2, but it offers several advantages:
*Very nice EVF*faster lens (albeit not quite as long)*4k (and a 24P option, thank goodness!)*2x shooting speed*better sensor (assuming it performs on par with the 4/3rds 16MP sensors)*smaller/lighter
This is a no-brainer. RIP G1X mk2; All hail the LX100 (and G7X)!!!
Why does everything that Pentax/Ricoh puts out looks like it was made for a child? Seriously. Bright colors. Unnecessarily large in a g-shock type style. I don't get it.
Poweruser: "Canon EF to Micro Four Thirds Speed Booster will cost $599"
Silly... Get a proper EOS Digital at that price.
Maybe if Canon was interested in bringing their sensor technology into the 21st century that would be an option. As it stands, the Canon lenses are great, but their sensors lag the competition by a couple of generations. This company has sold nearly 20 different camera bodies using the same 18MP sensor with the same performance. That's proof to me that they've essentially given up.
ThatCamFan: And the reason to buy the Fuji X30 just went away for me, this is NOT a retro look + the optical viewfinder is WHY the x20 became such a success.And now not even having a 1" sensor and being WAY overpriced I see this more as failure on Fuji's part rather than a success.
With the 2.4mdot VF, I can understand why they didn't go crazy and cut the price to $400. I think there is value here, but I agree that on a purely IQ ground, it will have a tough time competing. On the other hand its significantly cheaper than the G1X-2 and the RX100-3 (about $200 cheaper).
Just an FYI:
Launch Prices (US) ---X10: $599X20: $599X30: $599
If the X20 was successful (at least in your estimation), I can't see how the pricing will be the reason the X30 is unsuccessful.
So after they basically charged $1000 extra just to have the stupid red dot on the camera in the "T", now Leica is charging $1000 to REMOVE THE RED DOT. This is a 180!
RRRoger: I can also record Video that is only limited by the huge battery life and my 128GB memory card. I have gone over two hours of unattended continuous recording with the GH4.
The AFF (continuous AutoFocus), DFD (Depth from Defocus), and DOF (Depth of Field) of my 12-35 lens at f/2.8 is so goodthat I can capture (indoor poor light) Bowlers on three sets of lanes at the same time
The only thing the A7s has that I could find usefull is the great LowLight capability. Thankfully the GH4 is more than "good enough" for my use at ISO 6400.
Actually, no camera at all will record UNLIMITED while unattended, with or without an external recorder. ;)
AngryCorgi: The gh4 is a neat idea from a video standpoint, but once you buy it and the interface unit for recording 4K at higher-than-100Mbps rates, you could have bought a Blackmagic 4K with an internal SSD, Prores 422 HQ & CinemaDNG options, a global shutter and a full copy of Davinci Resolve (worth $1000) and still had $300+ left over. So unltimately, I don't know who the camera is for. People that want 4K, but want their camera to behave like a cheap camcorder?? I just think the move to 4K, at this price, is silly if you aren't going to do anything with it.
"The result off the GH4 in compressed mode is not quite at BMCC level, but close."
No, it is not close, particularly to the raw output. Not only does it not have the dynamic range, it has more visible gradiations in some areas. Properly graded BMCC 4K raw footage looks considerable better than the same footage on the GH4.
"You are saying that the GH4, which one now generally accepts produces better results than a Canon 5D mk iii with Magic Lantern, can not go where Canon went?"
First off, I don't know who "one" is that "generally accepts produces better results...", but I never mentioned anything in that vein one way or another. I never even typed the word "Canon" anywhere above, so I don't know where you are going with this argument.
The monkey deserves compensation! I know some clowns who call themselves pros that don't take as nice of shots as this monkey took of himself.
I don't hate the GH4, to each his own. I just don't get the rationalization for it. It is neither here nor there. It occupies a zone between pro-hardware and consumer-hardware (albeit natively closer to the consumer level) and offers poorer VALUE (performance/cost) than that of its closest competitors. Moreover, I just can't understand why Panasonic decided to throw the FZ1000 in the mix and effectively defeat their own product in terms of video value. It's just weird to me and makes no sense.
*sigh* That is NOT the bigger picture. You can get a FZ1000 for $900 if you want 100Mbps 4K camcorder footage similar to the GH4. There is no need to throw the other $800 away. If you are going to get serious about 4K, though, there is no logical advantage going with the GH4. Good at a few things, but master of none of those things. I guess the GH4 is for those people who want a plastic spork with a knife-like handle. It's a cute gadget, but not a serious utensil. I find it odd that Panasonic actually opted to compete with itself with the GH4 and FZ1000. Any argument FOR the GH4 requires a larger investment, thus nullifying it as it crosses into pro-4K price territory without producing pro-4K results.
We arrive at the same issue: who is the GH4 for? No uncompressed or uncooked 4k for less than a small fortune and the serious video competitors have significant price and technology advantages the GH4 can't overcome. Is it marginally better than the 7S at video? Maybe in some circumstances. But I wouldn't buy the 7S as a serious video tool either. They both feel like dead-ends and bad investments as serious video platforms.
Actually, I had been too kind. The cheapest 4k recorder adds another $3000 to the price ($2000 when sometime in the future the shogun is released). The BMCC 4k records at 880Mbps 10-bit prores 422 HQ natively to SSD without need for any external device. Not to mention its CinemaDNG ability. OOPS! I'm sure that's been discussed ad nauseam elsewhere too. So in reality, you are looking at $3700-4800 for the GH4 to do what the BMCC 4k already does at $3000 and you still don't have 12-stops of DR or a global shutter or a super 35 sensor with the panny.
The gh4 is a neat idea from a video standpoint, but once you buy it and the interface unit for recording 4K at higher-than-100Mbps rates, you could have bought a Blackmagic 4K with an internal SSD, Prores 422 HQ & CinemaDNG options, a global shutter and a full copy of Davinci Resolve (worth $1000) and still had $300+ left over. So unltimately, I don't know who the camera is for. People that want 4K, but want their camera to behave like a cheap camcorder?? I just think the move to 4K, at this price, is silly if you aren't going to do anything with it.
The digital "blur" to simulate bokeh also looks like crap. This is nothing but a dumb trick.
I honestly couldn't care less about this light field nonsense. Taking photography further and further into the synthetic realm and removing some of the joy and skill of it is rarely something I'd sign up for.