Eric Hensel: Here come the armchair engineers, and box-thinkers...
Don't forget the armchair business managers and market analysts.
alcaher: More virtual reality so people can use their brain less.
In a way, virtual reality is actually what our brains create all the time. In real time, no less.
spatz: If Lytro today have a 755MP sensor (with 16 bit colours, no less) that they can read at 300 fps, why do they bother going into such a niche area? They are many, many years ahead of anyone else in the sensor business.
In other words, there is either some creative pixel-counting, or these are fantasy numbers for some future product.
That may very well be the case, but the future isn't here yet. Most technological breakthroughs start out as niche applications before they trickle down to consumer products. I suspect the sensor Lytro uses in the cinema camera is extremely costly to produce, so using it in a device with a consumer-friendly price tag is likely out of the question. For now, at least.
f64manray: This seems kinda absurd. I'm sure the video IQ is quite nice, but who in this price range wouldn't opt for Cinema EOS or Alexa over this? I don't think the video will be a draw, and it's probably a waste of their R&D's resources.
Someone stated elsewhere in this thread that medium format is a 20,000 unit market worldwide. If only a minority of those are used for weddings, then it's no wonder you (or I) have never seen them in real life. Doesn't mean that video couldn't be useful to the few who do shoot with them, though.
Well, perhaps you're right that it's overkill, but some high-end wedding photographers do use Hasselblad or other medium format cameras.
Considering the costs involved, such a sensor would be tailormade for a niche area. You won't see such a sensor in a mass-market consumer device anytime soon.
We don't know the size of the sensor, just that they claim it's the largest video sensor ever made. And we don't know the pixel pitch, either. Wait until you have the technical specs before you accuse them of "creative pixel-counting" or "fantasy numbers".
Khai Nguyen: It's a good move by Lytro to leave the consumer stills market and head into cinematography. It's a bold move and success will depend a lot on their positioning, and hopefully they won't repeat similar mistakes that they made in the consumer products.
I guess they're still sticking with their interpretation of what a pixel is.
They are stating the number of pixels on the sensor, not in the output picture. It's not a question of interpretation, you just need to know what the are referring to.
aramgrg: Lytro's Revolutionary needs to be taken with grain of salt. We saw it's "revolutionary" field cameras are useless in real life.
Also, the stills cameras had low resolution, with the Illum requiring a 40 MP sensor for 4 MP output. This Cinema camera seems to address that.
Fashion and wedding photographers who want a camera that can do both stills and video probably won't choose a Cinema EOS or Arri.
Thuravi Kumaaran: Richard Butler wrote,'If cameras with class-equalling image quality, class-leading AF and class-leading video don't deserve Gold, what does?'
But, no class leading lens support, no class leading user friendliness - it is something like ‘she/he is so intelligent, compact and beautiful, but non cooperative’.
Lens support is not a quality of the camera body, it's a quality of the system to which the camera belongs. This is not a system review, it's a camera review. You need to judge for yourself if the system as a whole meets your needs.
Imagine giving a lens a bad review because there's a poor selection of bodies to use it with. Wouldn't that be absurd?
Dan DeLion: Fascinating to see that dpreview finds this Sony APS-C camera superior to a D750 or a D810. I don’t believe many other reviewers would come to the same conclusion. Does dpreview not want to offend Sony owners with the real facts? Does dpreview receive monies from Sony? Are dpreviews even worth reading? - It now seems that in order to get an accurate review one has to read between the lines. The a6300 has terrible ergonomics, can’t be trusted to shoot 14 bit stills, overheats, has terrible battery life, and has a third rate menu system. How does putting all those faults together yields a superb camera?
Scores aren't comparable across different categories. It only makes sense to compare a product against its competitors in the same market segment, since the expectations and requirements of a product vary according to the intended target market.
One could of course take issue with the categories used by DPR, but I think few people would make a buying decision between a mid-range APS-C mirrorless camera and a prosumer/semi-pro full frame DSLR.
moawkwrd: "excluding the lens which is manufactured by Leica, not Panasonic."
Pretty sure that isn't the case.
It might not even be designed by Leica. I read somewhere that Panasonic can use the Leica brand as long as the design is approved by Leica, and the manufacturing methods and equipment meet Leica's requirements.
rrccad: IMO.. it's a novel experiment to see how it ends up being used.
I suspect this was a camera that canon just "threw out there" to see how professionals use it,etc.
what is interesting it that they showed this off or something very similar at the previous canon expo as a futuristic mockup.
4:2:2 at 300mps at h.264 4k codec is quite alot of data to push.
That certainly takes it beyond the "consumer" grade bitrates which usually top out around 100 mbps for internal recording.
What will be intriguing is the next one, and how they take this potential video / stills camera line.
Interesting review, it must have been hard to write that up keeping far more of an open mind than most of the whiners and complainers in the comment section ;)
why ARE people whining anyways.. if canon wants to toss out a video camera that shoots a little more in the stills department, guess what .. they can afford another camera in their portfolio.
Being paid to use the gear isn't necessarily the same as being paid to only express positive opinions about it. The reason manufacturers pay professionals to use their gear is (or at least should be) because they want feedback from them, both positive and negative.
The Silver Nemesis: Good experiment, but it will need the new Canon tech to be more convincing... My take.
I guess he meant Dual Pixel AF, which really was new tech when the 70D was released. It was a new way of implementing on-sensor PDAF, with every pixel consisting of two photo receptors, and therefore capable of both image capture and PDAF, instead of masking off half of some pixels that are dedicated to PDAF.
Donnie G: I rented the XC10 back in November, and much like the reviewer here, I had a mostly positive experience in using this little camcorder. My wife and I used this camera mostly in good light, so I really can't comment on it's low light performance, but its zoom lens reach was more than adequate for our needs. Also, neither one of us considered the lack of an EVF for this camera to be a negative. As a matter of fact, the detachable loupe was so comfortable to use that it became our default viewing setup for working at normal eye level. Still, we found ourselves wishing for Dual Pixel AF and better control over camera functions with the toggle control when the loupe is in place. So we decided to wait for Canon's next generation of this camcorder in the hopes of adding that one to our kit. :))
To accuse someone of being paid by the manufacturer, just because he didn't have an entirely negative experience with a camera you've decided is "junk", that's trolling in my book. Completely unnecessary.
Archiver: This quote doesn't give a lot of confidence:
'We developed this small 4K camera so that the users themselves can figure out how to use it,' he said. 'We really want users to explore the camera, and we're looking forward to what they come up with.'
Instead of saying this camera is a bridge between DSLR video and the dedicated Canon cinema line, they say, "we made something and are hoping that it gains traction in the marketplace". That doesn't speak well for their product development or marketing teams.
One big problem with not knowing how your product is going to be used, is that you really can't market it well. And that's bound to have a negative impact on sales.
Khai Nguyen: 4K/UHD is a nice inclusion but do people actually use these cameras for video?
Many high-end fashion and wedding photographers use these cameras, and they probably appreciate the video capabilities.
CopCarSS: The inclusion of 4K video is a bit curious. I don't see a huge user base for this. Those shooting video that could afford this would probably be looking at something like a RED. I guess every camera has to be 4K compatible anymore. It would be nice to see a still camera that is, you know, just a still camera.
I can imagine some of the fashion shooters who use this kind of camera would also be interested in improved video capabilities.
Murat Sahan: Is there anyone here that actually buys and uses cameras like these? Im just curious, so many comments by so many but no one that is actually in the target area?
I know a couple of professionals, one owns a portrait studio and the other is a wedding/portrait photographer. For them, the equipment is just the tools of their trade, and their interest doesn't extend much beyond that. They work and then go home and live their lives. They don't spend hours on gear forums, just like carpenters don't spend their pastime on hammer and nail forums. And when the time comes to replace their equipment, then they do their research, but they don't constantly read and think about new camera releases like many hobbyists do.
I'm sure that many professionals are dedicated photo enthusiasts even outside of work, but I also know that many are not. It's something they do for a living, that's all.
Revenant: Judging by the last sample image, the camera is anything but pocketable!
No, of course it wasn't. But I thought it was a pretty funny joke, considering the image of the woman dragging something heavy behind her. Oh well, silly me.