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.
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.
Maybe they should make a traditional 1" sensor'd camera. Such a camera with a 30-250mm f/2 lens might be a good seller for a touch over $1k. But something tells me that a 30-250mm f/2 lens capable of excellent performance wide open with a 16MP+ sensor is going to wind up being larger than what sits on the Illum.
this isn't fooling anyone...
AngryCorgi: "This, you can't help but feel, is the kind of camera that Apple might make, if it were so inclined."
Except that Apple wouldn't allow it to be all form and very little function. The GUI would be intelligent/intuitive and it would operate briskly. People would complain because the Apple version would have proprietary ports that needed special cables, but it wouldn't be a functional flop like this thing is.
Yes they did, but I believe the author of the article was referring to Apple in it's current state, following it's current design ethos.
"This, you can't help but feel, is the kind of camera that Apple might make, if it were so inclined."
Tonio Loewald: If nothing else, Leica has schooled all the other camera companies on how to do a modern camera with good controls (aside from setting AF points, but then Apple and numerous camera app makes have nailed that). So at least we might see some others imitate them.
Well, I for one hope nobody else thinks a 3-second startup time, laggy image review, nonsensical AF point selection behavior, and astronomical price points are traits worth imitating.
Wow. You shouldn't ever shoot JPG with the V3. Worst JPG engine I've seen in quite a while. Very Sony-P&S-esque!!
AngryCorgi: I don't hate this camera. I think it "looks" sexy with the grip on it. But the price remains stupid given its performance. It simply is outclassed in terms of IQ by just about everything.
You are free to disagree. I only have my eyes to show me and they show greater chroma noise. I'd state that this is reinforced by DXOMark testing, but you are probably one of those "DXOMark takes money from [insert name] to skew results" type people. Unfortunately, the chroma noise the J3 (and all aptina 1" sensors) shows is that ugly yellow staining. It's a low-frequency noise that requires desaturation of other yellow colors in the photo elsewhere to correct. Similar things occur with it's competitors, but they do so only at higher sensitivity settings.
Raw or JPG, both show an advantage to the RX100 and FZ1000. It's blatently clear. The chroma noise on the raw images show a significant advantage to the sony and panasonic. The only difference elsewise is the obvious fact that the Nikon has no AA filter, whilst the other two do. To clean up that chroma noise (as the JPG engine does) causes a dulling of colors and softening of the image. You can compare raw, which makes sense, but you have to think about how your process is going to differ and affect the final IQ.
Set the comparison tool to ISO1600 with the J3, FZ1000, G16, and RX100-III. Set the quality to "Print" and walk around the image. The G16 is closer to the J3 than the J3 is to either of the competing 1" sensors. This is just SNR. The color accuracy and dynamit range are also poorer than its competitors.
The other 1" sensor'd cameras (RX10, RX100, FZ1000) outperform the 1" sensor used in the V3 by a healthy margin. There are compact P&S cameras that are on par with the V3 in terms of IQ (S120, G16, P340, etc). With the kind of deficit the V3 has in terms of IQ, the pricing should be more competitive. As it is, the pricing isn't remotely competitive. It's $500 more than a RX100 mk3, $300 more than an FZ1000, $200 more than an RX10 and many, many times more expensive than the P&S cameras with which it shares many IQ qualities. All that for a little faster AF and poorer IQ? That's absurd.
I don't hate this camera. I think it "looks" sexy with the grip on it. But the price remains stupid given its performance. It simply is outclassed in terms of IQ by just about everything.
AngryCorgi: Leica seems to have stumbled toward the path labeled "Hassleblad".
The lenses in the M system are not cheap compromises with large price tags; they are competent-to-phenomenol performers with large price tags. Hence the term "all hat and no cattle".