Jogger: Seems ok for budget video folks.. but, why would anyone buy this for stills when the A7 is cheaper, much smaller, better built, and with 4x the sensor size... at this size and price, you might as well go for the D610.
The A7 is better built? How do you know that? I'm not saying it isn't, because I haven't handled the GH4 or read any reports about its build quality. Just curious where you're getting it from.
lester11: Either "Giotto's launch of 'Air' range of lightweight tripods" or "Giotto launches 'Air' range of lightweight tripods" but not "Giotto's launches 'Air' range of lightweight tripods"...
The company name isn't Giotto; it's Giotto's Tripods, usually shortened to Giotto's. So you can indeed say that Giotto's launches something.
Boiler_Jack: DPREVIEW make sure you don't "review" the Canon 1Dx Nor the Nikon D4, I mean it's not like review is in your web site name is it? Thanks again for NOT reviewing those cameras.
Those are professional cameras, and are mostly bought by people who are already deeply entrenched in one system or the other. When it's time to upgrade, most professionals and newspapers buy what's available in the system they have invested in. In other words, few people are going to choose between those cameras, which means that reviews aren't as important as in the case of consumer cameras.The main purpose of a review, after all, is to help people make an informed buying decision.
Anyway, what's this got to do with the A7/R?
Backstage: I had the chance to use it for an evening. Next to all the pros and cons already written I have two comments: The four way control buttons are quite on the same level as the back plate and I could not identify them clearly while keeping my eyes on the viewfinder. The second is that the X-T1 with the grip and the 56mm 1.2 lens is a heavy beast.
The size of a mirrorless camera will never defeat its purpose. The purpose of any camera is to take pictures, and large size doesn't stand in the way of that.The main advantage of mirrorless isn't smaller size, it's that you get rid of the mirror box. This leads to less mechanical complexity, and gives more freedom in lens design.
The possibility of making a mirrorless camera smaller is an option, not its purpose. If you prefer a DSLR-sized camera for ergonomic reasons, then you probably want a mirrorless camera to be just as large. And if you have no problems with handling a smaller camera, then there are several alternatives to choose from.
Samuel Dilworth: Page 8: we finally hear the story about the different grips! That’s a weird one. As usual, I prefer the one I can’t get, i.e. the US model. I would love to hear why European customers prefer bulbous grips while Americans prefer style. These camera companies are utterly inscrutable.
You know you’re in Britain when your trade show has a prim little garden. Fantastic.
I agree that the information is a bit scarce, but my guess is that the grips are user-interchangeable. There are a couple of screws on the side of the camera. If you can find a US grip I'm sure it will fit a European camera, because I doubt that Canon would design and manufacture two different bodies.
As for the reasons, I found this quote on Techradar:
"A grip on the side of the camera will be found in European models only. Canon says that Japanese and American audiences preferred the flatter look of the camera without the grip."
It seems like Canon showed both alternatives to test audiences, and Europeans preferred the larger grip.
From the Canon UK product page:
"The PowerShot G1 X Mark II Enhanced Grip Edition (available in Europe, Middle East and Africa) features a large ergonomic grip for excellent handling."
And if you click on "What's in the box", it doesn't mention any extra grip, so I guess the European version comes with the larger grip only.
Horshack: From the Canikon interviews we learned that we need an American/European camera industry, who would take more competitive risks and innovate faster.
Yes, those camera industries are definitely gone. Today, in Europe we have only small niche players specializing in luxury products and medium format (Leica, Hasselblad, Phase One).And in North America there's companies like Sakar and JK Imaging, who make their living by selling cheap Asian-made cameras under well-known brand names like Kodak, Polaroid and Vivitar.
If a new camera industry will emerge outside of Japan, it will probably be in another Asian country, most likely China, but there are other rising economies like South Korea, Taiwan, India, Indonesia, Thailand and Malaysia.
Thoughts R Us: The SL1 didn't sell well in America because it wasn't really marketed well, IMHO.
Canon had some marketing, but at least to me it didn't seem like they went all out to try to sell this camera on size/weight advantages.
It's a great product, and it's a shame it hasn't sold that well. I still think the SL1 or its successor can be a big hit but Canon has to market it aggressively.
I wonder if Canon was afraid of pushing the message of small/light too much, for fear it would undercut it's other camera offerings?
Actually, nowadays even most cameras that are less than state-of-the-art, are still good enough for most consumers. And at that point, for many people, convenience becomes a more important factor than that last little bit of performance improvement.
JEROME NOLAS: These interviews are pointless, waste of time. Talking about things they want not the things we would like to talk about. Basically PR and marketing talk. All media should boycott them but then they wouln't have a nice trip to Japan...
Things we would like to talk about? Are those the same for everyone?If you mean talk about specific upcoming products and new technologies, you won't get that kind of information from company representatives. It's just not good business practice to disclose such plans to the public (including your competitors).All we can hope for is discussion of general trends and strategies, and I for one think that's rather interesting.
dcdigitalphoto: How does including an image in a page which earns money through advertising not class as commercial use? By using it in a page you're promoting your business because your business revolves around posting pages that have advertising on them.
Aside from that, who in their right mind would embed an image directly in an advertisement, especially if Getty includes their own advertising in it.
Just posting an image (or video, text, music clip etc.) on a website that earns money in some way (through advertising or other means), does not mean that the content in question has been used commercially. If the content is used directly to promote sales, for example by being included in an advert, then it has been used commercially.So whether the site is commercial or not, and whether the content is used commercially, are two different questions. DPR is a commercial site, but the image embedded by Barney isn't used commercially to promote anything.
Gazeomon: 'Little need to use Raw most of the time'. ?? What do You know about my needs? Or are You talking to Yourself?
Any opinions expressed in a review of course reflect the reviewer's point of view. No one can speak for everyone.
fenceSitter: "50 Mpixel CMOS sensor with almost twice the physical size of the largest 35 mm DSLR sensor."
On which planet are 1.67 "almost 2"?
Does anyone know what the profit margin might be for this kind of camera? Taking into account the cost of materials, manufacture, quality control, warranty repairs, R&D, marketing expenses etc., what would be a 'reasonable' price for such a beast? I have no idea myself, but I'm curious.
SF Photo Gal: With 36 MP FF now available, I wonder if the need for this kind of beast really exists?
I think he's talking about usable DR in JPEG, as reported by DPR on the 'Dynamic Range' page of their reviews. DxO measures DR in the raw files, which of course gives a wider DR.
dynaxx: I am confused ; I thought CMOS used a rolling shutter unlike the CCD sensor that exposes the entire 44mm X 33m frame simultaneously.
How can the H system lenses with their central ( global ? ) shutters work with both CCD and CMOS ?
CCD colours have always been better ( like the Fuji X-Pro 1, the last DSLR with CCD ) so this seems to be the trade-off versus practicality.
I think you are confusing mechanical with electronic shutters. A mechanical shutter works with both CCD and CMOS sensors. I can't think of a reason why it wouldn't.
hdkhang: Regardless of the technicalities behind achieving the score, or the validity of such a score, or the relevance of the score to the general photography centric market that dpreview serves... the important thing to take away from this is that advances from video technology has the potential to improve still imagery. So all of those people who whine about camera companies using up their precious budget to add video capability should really think twice before adopting such a stubborn egocentric viewpoint. Much the same as how smartphone photography and all that onboard processing power has the potential to shape future standalone camera features. The improvements in video/processing etc. spill over into other areas and so far have yet to negatively impact still photography capability.
No, but they explain in the review, that the camera likely apply temporal NR by combining several frames. This has nothing to do with the HDR mode.
peevee1: If, instead of getting 24 fps video in 5:1 and then basing their tests on that, they got just one frame of 1 fps video (and RED is capable of that) in 1:1, the results MIGHT have some validity. As it is, they measured the results of both temporal (interframe) and 5:1 intraframe noise reduction.Just shows that DxO methods do not detect and take into account loss of color resolution coming with noise reduction (and it would mean that their results for X-trans suffering from the same problem would also be too high).
How I am tired from all the incompetent "testers" who really should be McDonalds burger flippers...
They always state when they think that NR have been applied to raw files, and they usually indicate it in their graphs with the term "smoothed", as you can see in the graphs for some Pentax and Nikon 1 cameras, for example. The problem is that they have no way of knowing how the sensor would perform without such "smoothing", since the raw files is the only data available to them. And from the photographer's standpoint, it doesn't matter, because it's the quality of the actual raw files we get from the camera that is photographically relevant, not some hypothetical, unprocessed sensor data that we have no access to.
And regarding the Red Dragon, they do mention the temporal NR, and the fact that their usual methodology doesn't apply. That's why they don't include the camera in their ranking lists.
PowerG9atBlackForest: Had dpreview's Barnaby Britton the opportunity to ask the same questions to Hasselblad he did to "senior figures at Canon Inc." before he probably would get similar answers, such as "We don't see smartphones as an enemy".
Do you expect smartphones to eat into the professional medium format market anytime soon?
Actually, it's not entirely accurate to say that DxO compares sensors. They compare raw files under the assumption that they reflect the hardware sensor performance. But a raw file may already include processing of the raw sensor data, such as noise reduction, so what they really are comparing, are combinations of sensors and camera manufacturers' processing algorithms.
RRJackson: I wonder how much DxO got paid to ignore the multi-sample noise reduction of the RED sensor? Or are they going to start testing everyone's camera based on multiple exposure HDR imagery?
They didn't ignore it; they mentioned it as an explanation of the high sensor score.With other cameras, you have access to single-shot raw files, so there would be no point in testing them based on multi-shot techniques. In this particular case, though, you don't get such raw files from the camera, only a proprietary file format with the multi-shot processing "baked in".
Francis Carver: No camera company in the world today is as completely clueless about where things are and where things are going than Canon-san. These poor people are truly completely clueless. One almost starts to feel sorry for the Canon people. Notice the word "almost."
In what way are they clueless? As long as they defend their market position and sell more cameras than any other company, it seems they know exactly where things are. They may not know where things are going, but they probably have a better idea than you or I.