DougSchuch: Speaking of logic; glass is HEAVY. A backpack of average size or larger needs a padded waist strap so the weight can be transferred to the hips. It doesn't take much hiking with camera and lenses to start the shoulders aching, without one.
Yup. That much weight pressing down on your shoulders, and down every vertebra and disc. You'd have to be nuts! Why no hip belt? Madness.
onlooker: Wait, this thing is nearly 100g heavier than G7? What is this obsession of camera manufacturers with making ergonomically-sized cameras unnecessarily heavy? Why, do they think we wouldn't buy it if it didn't weight our jacket down like a brick in the pocket? Plastic is your friend. Quit this pretense that one is buying a camera for life. Digital cameras are have a built-in obsolescence, and the plastic body will certainly outlast the rest.
I think magnesium alloy gained its spurs before the current alternatives were available. I'd love to know which performs better for equivalent mass - magnesium alloy or a modern polycarbonate/composite alternative.I know metal has that 'premium' cachet about it, same in the mobile phone arena, but I'm really keen to know which material would win in a dispassionate functional contest.
daddyo: Wow, what was Panasonic thinking? This 'behemoth' weighs a whopping 3 oz. more than the GX7! That's almost 1/5 of a pound!I'm not sure I'd be able to lift it to my eye level -- especially with one of those huge micro four thirds lenses attached.
Back to reality, a small but legitimate problem I see is that the hot shoe is off-center from the lens axis (unlike the GX7 which is centered). This will result in slight side shadows when using a flash.
Other than that, it looks like a pretty nice camera -- pending in-depth reviews.
I've not seen it, but maybe the flash unit will have a compensating offset?
wetsleet: This is nuts. Even if the lighting effects on the Eiffel Tower, or a paricular building, are copyrighted, unless I produce a copy of those works then how am I infringing copyright?
A book is subject to copyright - if I take a photo of the book I have not infringed that copyright, because I have not copied the book.
A photo of a building is not an ediface, it is not a building, so it can't be a copy of a building. Whereas the house next door to mine is a copy, it was built from the same plan, and it is a house.
And does a photo of a lighting display really constitute a copy, in any meaningful sense? No, it is just a visual description, as a news report would be a written description.
I could understand that if I take a full-face photo of a copyrighted painting then just possibly I am in a very limited sense 'copying' the painting - the photo goes some way to fulfilling the utility of a painting.
So let them sue Las Vegas for *building* copies of other famous buildings - but photos?
reasons not to be allowed to take photos in museums and public buildings are often nothing to do with copyright. Flash damage to light-sensitive artefacts, public nuisance, protection of gift-shop post card sales, etc.
This is nuts. Even if the lighting effects on the Eiffel Tower, or a paricular building, are copyrighted, unless I produce a copy of those works then how am I infringing copyright?
"When buying from the big sellers like Amazon ... things are a bit more clear"
I disagree. At least with eBay you go in with your eyes open. On Amazon it's easy to be lulled into a false sense of security, trusting the Amazon name. Trouble is, often the same listing has multiple sellers, yet the review listing does not distinguish. You have to read between the lines to work out which reviews relate to seller A (selling the real thing) and which relate to seller Z.
For example, look at the Galaxy Note 4 (for which as well as multiple sellers per product listing, there are also multiple product listings - confused?). Some of the reviews give it one-star, lambasting it as a fake, others sing its praises. How are you supposed to know what you are buying - the reviews are not linked to the sellers. And don't get me started on replacement phone/camera batteries - it's just a lottery.
Amazon, which must know which review went with which supplier, does sweet FA to put its house in order.
steelhead3: Nice piece Rishi...Do you think with the BSI sensors, fast lenses will be able to use 1.4 or 1.8 light gathering? Right now there is no advantage in using fast lenses over 2.0 or 2.8 except for DOF purposes.
Rishi, is it fair to say the "light fall-off of fast lenses at corners" issue is exacerbated by exploiting the shorter flange distance available to mirrorless lens designers? And that unless the shorter flange distance is exploited by lens designers the lenses won't have any size/weight advantage over SLR lens designs?
wetsleet: Lots of comments about no EVF, and I'd tend to agree that a 'proper' viewfinder (i.e. not a display screen) is an essential part of any camera. However, every time I look through one in the shops, it is like looking down a tunnel with a little window at the far end.Are there any decent ones out there? By which I mean, about what I used to get in the days of film SLRs, say >70% magnification in 35mm SLR terms.
Slightly off topic, but every once in a while I pick up my old Nikon FE2 and hold it to one eye, hold my DSLR to the other and get the two images to overlap in my brain. It still shocks me how much more the FE2 "fills the eye" even than a D800.
Given that "seeing" the photo is fundamental to taking the photo, I'm upset by how easily we have given ground on this aspect of cameras.
Huge strides have been made since film photography, but we have sadly gone backwards in this fundamental area. I guess I'm amazed at how little lamented it is.
PS thanks for the replies on EVF sizes.
wetsleet: "pitch and yaw are corrected digitally"Are you sure? I'd have thought pitch and yaw were always corrected in the lens, with roll and orthogonal x and y shifts all done either by sensor shift or digitally.If Canon are doing pitch and yaw correction on the sensor, at 600mm, how do they do it?
Pitch and yaw are rotations, and at 600mm you will not need much rotation for the error to be of the order of the entire field of view. Think of hand holding a telescope, just keeping an object in the view is a challenge. So I don't see how that can be corrected other than by compensatory movements of lenses within the optical path.
The error generated by linear x and y movement will depend on the magnification ratio. Think how large one pixel would be painted onto the actual scene - you'd need to move the camera by that amount in the x or y direction before you saw a one pixel displacement on the sensor. So these can be more readily compensated in software (or sensor shift).Roll can not be corrected in the lens.
I'm sticking to stills photos here (like Eleson says).
Lots of comments about no EVF, and I'd tend to agree that a 'proper' viewfinder (i.e. not a display screen) is an essential part of any camera. However, every time I look through one in the shops, it is like looking down a tunnel with a little window at the far end.Are there any decent ones out there? By which I mean, about what I used to get in the days of film SLRs, say >70% magnification in 35mm SLR terms.
"pitch and yaw are corrected digitally"Are you sure? I'd have thought pitch and yaw were always corrected in the lens, with roll and orthogonal x and y shifts all done either by sensor shift or digitally.If Canon are doing pitch and yaw correction on the sensor, at 600mm, how do they do it?
Schuks, they already do this kind of resolution everyday on regular webcams over on CSI: Enhance that image, enhance, enhance, there - in the reflection, enhance - I know that face!
Pandimonium: Like selling Ferrari's with a Peugeot engine
Show me a car manufacturer that does not source the same component from different suppliers, or any major manufacturing enterprise for that matter. So long as they are produced to the same specification, who cares?
Archiver: This is actually pretty funny, and a good commentary on the evolving narcissism of the selfie.
Just today, I was talking to someone who leads winery tours. She said that a few people have been on her tours and said, 'Oh, we haven't taken photos and uploaded to Facebook, it's like it hasn't happened!' They were actually questioning the value of doing something without the validation of Facebook. Now that is scary.
Is that so different to getting married and not having photographs taken and loaded into an album, to show to yourself and friends? We all love to share memories, always have.
An arm and a leg for just an arm, that's poor value.
Miike Dougherty: Just got back from shooting Avocets at Joachim marsh with my new D7200 and legacy 300-800. This combo works really well. The Avocets were quite active with yearlings constantly jousting with each other. My camera was going clunk, clunk, clunk (6 FPS) while the new 7DII nearby sounded like a machine gun (10 FPS). I got a few, frozen action images that I really like but the guy next to me I suspect got a lot more.
Gotta love these one-dimensional analyses.
Scottelly: I'm trying to figure out why the old Sony A77 can shoot at 12 fps, but this "new" camera can only shoot at half that speed, even though both cameras are 24 MP. Anyone got any ideas what's up there? They're about the same price, right?
A77 is an SLT, fixed pellicle mirror.
mpgxsvcd: “The Canon XC10 may be the first true 'convergence' camera.”
If you have your head buried in the sand and don’t realize that the FZ1000 came out last year for 1/3 the price.
@Barney "How many times are you going to leave some variation on this comment?"
How many times are you going to write up the same piece of kit? ;)
Bjorn_L: This reads like it was written by a fanboy not an analyst.
If you need 4k, then the lack of stabilization would seem to be a deal killer on this. Particularly when combined with the slow lens. The Gh4 simply seems a better solution. It too has all-in-one solutions which cover the same range but don't give up stabilized 4k video. Sealed lenses too, if you want that. Plus you have the option of using f/1.4 or even f/0.95 lenses and high end add-ons. Ultimately the gh4 seems to be a better solution and while you can add many $1000s in add-ons to it, to achieve the modest specs of the xc10 you could do so at a lower price point.
If you don't need 4k video (and very few really do) then the Sony rx10 seems a better solution. The lens takes in 4x as much light at the long end. It is wider and about as long. The rx10 has the same DR & bit rate, stabilized zoom, sealed lens.
I fail to see how this is worth considering by anyone not just in love with it because of the brand.
you can't do 5-axis stabilisation via the lens, since no amount of shifting the lens will counteract roll. So the roll has to be stabilised either via sensor shift, or electronically (software).
DStudio: The right to record such incidents is absolutely a constitutional right, and must be maintained to preserve our freedom. I'd be VERY concerned to see this taken away.
However, we still have another problem, in that much of the media is more interested in a story then the truth. And much of the general public - as well as juries themselves - fail to view such video clips with common sense. The whole incident, situation and context must be taken into account. This problem goes back at least as far as the Rodney King incident, where people ignored the fact that King refused to pull over for 20-40 miles, driving at high speed under the influence, and was a big man who then charged officers just as a person under the influence of PCP would. The police had to use batons because their use of firearms (and even tazers now) is restricted. King's skin color and last name made it sound worse.
But the Texas law is an AWFUL response to the public's lack of discernment. There's no place for it!
Yes Jacques, I did read it. Moreover, I said nothing about the First Amendment nor the Supreme Court with regard to the protection of free speech, photography, and such. I was replying only to your barb about Catholics:
"Please quote me the line in the Constitution that says "You have the right to be a Catholic." Go ahead."
So I went ahead.
The First Amendment prohibits any law which impedes the free exercise of religion. As another has pointed out, that is not the same as guaranteeing a right to anything, it is a limitation on the power of government. But I think it adequately addresses your invitation to "go ahead" about Catholics.
On a point of style, I find your sarcasm unhelpful.