Shamael: In simple words, we had until now photo cameras that could make video, and from now on, we have video cameras that can make photos. What the heck is that good for? And, then, 2000$ for a body that contains things I never use. When do camera manufacturers start doing again cameras for photographers? Now, stop talking about Nikon DF low resolution cripple and it's fantasy pricing?The world is definitely upside down.
Also seems a bit strange to complain about paying for features you never use. The GH4 is obviously intended for people who are interested in advanced videography; if you're not one of those people, just don't buy the camera. Problem solved.
I think Fujifilm, Ricoh/Pentax and Olympus will continue to make stills-oriented cameras. They don't seem to have videography "in their blood".
lenseye: Which means no more support of any kind for GH3 users! The only way to get anything is buy GH4 and in less than 6 months time the same story, they'll have to buy GH5... it's a joke! I learned my lesson when I bought a GFG-1, we are not on GF-6 and counting...
Thanks but no way I'll even consider this...
Do you expect the development of new models to stop as soon as you have bought a camera? Use what you have, and when the time comes to replace it, see what's available in the market then.
HaroldC3: There are always going to be consumers who look at the zoom range and go goo goo over it but I have to wonder how large the market is for this type of camera with something like the Nikon 1 series available for cheaper.
The fact that the manufacturers are still releasing a myriad of superzooms, probably means that the market for them is rather large. The smartphones haven't really eaten away at this particular niche of the compact camera market, while the mirrorless ILCs is still a very small part of the overall camera market.
Interesting that the S32, which is supposed to make photography easy for all family members, has a slower lens, a smaller sensor, and no physical image stabilisation at all. The manufacturers do so much cost-cutting with these "family-friendly" models, that they're almost useless for their intended purpose.
Kevin Purcell: I'm still a bit suprised that there is no RAW in rugged compact cameras.
It seems the obvious "premium compact" feature to add (along with a slightly bigger 1/1.7 sensor with fewer pixels). I'm sure there are plenty of outdoor folks who PP their images.
Raw allows you to adjust exposure, white balance, NR, sharpness and more, in a non-destructive manner, i.e. without degrading image quality. You can't do that with JPEGs. With less data to begin with, it would seem like an excellent idea to be able to make such changes without having to apply lossy compression on an already compressed file.
forpetessake: So slooow, hardly usable. The FF version is so much better.
That's true, but my point was that the two new Tamron lenses have the same equivalent apertures. The OP seem to think that the FF lens will be much faster on an APS-C camera than the APS-C lens. See his comment in the other thread.
As I explained in the other thread, both lenses are equally slow. The focal lengths and f-stops stated on a lens is the actual physical properties of the lens, no matter what sensor size the lens is intended for.If you want to know how a lens behaves in FF equivalent terms, then you multiply with the crop factor. Both lenses are true f3.5-6.3 lenses, and on APS-C cameras (crop factor 1.5x) both lenses behave as an f/5.3-9.5 lens would do on a FF camera.
forpetessake: This FF lens is far superior to the APS-C version. It's APS-C equivalent is 18-200mm f/2.3-4.2, which is quite usable, unlike the slow f/3.5-6.3. Or if you are using APS-C mirrorless put it on a focal reducer and get the same benefits. The APS-C version is just boring and slow.And as an observation, despite all those ignorant posts that crop sensor somehow means smaller lenses, because of smaller image circle, this is just another demonstration that image circle has little or no effect on the lens size.
I think you made a miscalculation there. The FL and f-stops on the lens are always in FF terms. Then you multiply with the crop factor to get the FF equivalent, when used on a crop sensor camera.The FF lens is 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3, and will behave like a 42-450mm f/5.3-9.5 if used on an APS-C camera.The APS-C lens is 16-300mm f/3.5-6.3, and will behave like a 24-450mm f/5.3-9.5 on the APS-C cameras it's made for.
completelyrandomstuff: I don't know if dropping Pentax name is such a good idea for them, but I am sure they have done their market research...
Unless they see the GXR as a modular compact camera, rather than an interchangeable lens camera.
shaocaholica: Horrible name for the app regardless how long its been since the first release. The photos have already been 'captured'. Only processing left.
Yes, but 'capture' is not just a verb, it's a noun too. A photo is a capture, and the software is used to process it. Using 'capture' in the name is no more wrong than using 'photo' in the name, which a huge number of photo editors do.
UnitedNations: It is indeed a beautiful camera... but I will hold off buying one until I see the X-pro2.
Hopefully X-pro2 comes with high performance EVF like the x-t1 & at least have 24 megapixels resolution, & have noticeably better Image Quality than the X-e2/X-t1/x100s(which are all the same). I would like to have something better than the X-e2/X-t1/x-100s in image quality.
Also, the new phones coming out now like the Galaxy will have 16mp resolution cameras. Although a proper camera can't be compared to a phone camera.... it still bothers me that a phone would have the same or higher picture resolution than my camera.
Hope Fuji delivers with the X-Pro2 flagship & distinguish it from the X-t1/ X-e2/X100s in image quality...
Diffraction and noise reduction will obliterate a lot of the details in those phone camera images, so in practice you won't get 16 Mp images.
LaFonte: I want to see that evf in real life. Other than that, while I am a big Fuji egghead I did notice that lately Fuji seems to favor to repackage extremely similar internals into various different bodies in the same year, just to have different price points. That is going to be a recipe for frustration for first time buyers. One month you buy xe2 just to see it morph next month into a more dslr like body with bigger evf... and as soon as that will sell for a month there will be quickly something else announced with one or two things changed.
When you've made your decision, and bought a new camera, you don't have to care about what's released next. Just go out and shoot some pictures.
Kevin Purcell: A CCD sensor. That's a novelty these days.
Not really. Most of the manufacturers use CCDs in some of their cheaper low-end compacts.
onlooker: Sad. It's like seeing your favorite aunt from childhood turn hooker.
Yes, I hate it when that happens.
RichRMA: Ferrari licensed their name to a number of companies, including William Optics a Taiwanese telescope company. I would like to know exactly what changes Hasselblad made to the 99.
I think the changes they made are the ones we see on the outside. Otherwise, the specs seem to be the same as the Sony version. They even use Sony's raw file format, and probably the same JPEG engine too.
nathanleebush: The problem here is that stunt pricing like this diminishes the brand's value in the eyes of real photographers. When they knowingly present an existing product at many multiples the price, how do we know that their medium format pricing isn't as arbitrary and invalid?
I'm sure the pricing isn't arbitrary. It's very well calculated to give Hasselblad a nice profit margin.
And as long as the intended target users are willing to pay the price, the products are worth it (to them). That's how the market works. A product doesn't have intrinsic value; it's all about the value perceived by the buyer.
I certainly wouldn't buy one of these Hasselblad/Sony creations, but I don't think I'm the kind of customer they are targeting, either.
yonsarh: why Hasselblad cannot make their own camera? instead borrowing technology from SONY?
Actually, Nikon does design some of their sensors, for example the D4 sensor. Those are manufactured by Renesas.They also use sensors designed and manufactured by other companies, namely Sony, Toshiba and Aptina. And those were of course designed to meet the requirements specified by Nikon.
R Thornton: I thought they had fired the guy...?
Maybe he got fired because he wanted to stop the madness?
completelyrandomstuff: I can't really see a reason why would one buy this over a leica M if they were in a market for an expensive, prestigeous camera that's used by accomplished photographers.
Leica M is too affordable for the intended target market. And it doesn't have "style, spirit and soul", like the Hasselblad HV has.