Canon needs sweeping management change. They can start by hiring someone who knows something about motion and still photography, and codecs. And marketing.
And common sense. Come on, it's 2016 and Canon's cameras still don't have intervalometers on them for time-lapse. That's just one WTF example. The outdated codecs are another.
Funny thing is, Canon could've taken Red's market. And they utterly failed.
MikeFairbanks: Another thought: Apple and the Android makers could really take over if they decided to go ahead and thicken up their phones and then stuff more technology into them. I could be completely off (I'm not trained in marketing), but it seems that the technology is available to put a one-inch type sensor into a phone with a moderate zoom lens and still have all the phone features. The phone would be thicker, but not any bigger per say.
They could be manufactured and marketed as a premium product. For example, the iPhone 7p (for photo). It's a couple hundred more, but functions just like a Sony Rx100 series while still enabling texting, calling, and all the other apps we use on our phones.
I'm not sure why every phone has to get thinner and thinner. Why not make them thicker and add functions? That's my opinion.
All they need is more lens space. There's plenty of "technology" in there already.
And the great thing would be if they'd use the thickness across the rest of the phone for goddamned BATTERY. But Apple has proven itself too stupid for that. Their lens already sticks out from the camera, and they didn't use the opportunity to add battery thickness and make the back of the phone flush.
Gentleman Jim: Thicker phones certainly could make great compact cameras, but they wouldn't make a very compact and usable phone. The joy of an iPhone 6 or Samsung galaxy is that it is now wafer thin. Sadly, the laws of physics still require that a lens have a certain length which is much larger than a phone can realistically accommodate
Actually, it would make a BETTER phone. If the morons at Apple could be beaten over the head firmly enough to realize that the "thinner" marketing gimmick is not only played out, but destroying their products.... it would be a win for everyone. All the extra thickness allocated for camera lens could be padded out with BATTERY across the rest of the phone. Oh, but wait; Apple wouldn't do that. They'd make the lens jut out and still have a shítty battery.
Anyone used this yet?
I have the original Pi camera, and it sucks tremendously. It's so noisy and insensitive that I never bothered to do anything with it after initially testing it out.
Also, a lot of the lib functions to control its parameters simply didn't work.
It'll be great if this has better low-light performance.
the decent exposure: which camera is using microSD?
It makes more sense to have an adapter that takes full-sized SD cards. Most micro cards come with adapters to turn them into full-sized SDs anyway.
If a device takes full-sized SD cards, that's what I'm using. I don't want to dick around with fingernail-sized cards and adapters in the field.
Scottelly: Awesome! Now people can really use their iPad Pro for 4K video editing and transferring files to Wi-Fi hard drives like this one: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1076399-REG/wd_wdbdaf0020bbk_nesn_2tb_my_passport_wireless.html
Wi-Fi hard drive? No. I think I'll use a proper computing device that isn't crippled by fear, and transfer files to and from storage with a direct connection.
MikeFairbanks: Wireless is better as it can update frequently. Either get a camera with wifi capability or buy and eyefye card, etc. to transfer wirelessly to ipad or iphone.
All of this is pretty much jpeg only, but there are exceptions.
That doesn't make sense. "Update frequently?"
And the Eye-Fi cards (and similar) have terrible reviews.
Mobile devices should have proper I/O ports, period. That's what Apple has never understood (and is, incredibly, getting WORSE about).
This makes no sense at all. It should take full-sized SD cards, which would make it capable of handling all smaller variants as well.
Even the little Sony RX100 (thankfully) uses full-sized SD cards.
This product is moronic.
electrophoto: ALL iDevice storage add-ons suffer from one major software design flaw in my opinion: the app's "sandbox" and the limitation to actually access shared storage across apps... so you need the "Lexar" app to put stuff on the device ... or you need to run the stuff through "Photos" and actually import whatever there is into apple photos (iOS) first.Apps like iOS "photoshop" can NOT DIRECTLY access such storage devices.so it's a back and forth between App - photos - other app - external storage..Why apple doesn't allow access to external storage is absolutely beyond my understanding (at least practical reasons)
Apple is a fearful, retrograde company. That's why there's no proper I/O on iOS devices, no user-accessible file system, no USB connectivity to devices like cameras, no card slot.
And soon, not even a headphone jack. So mobile devices that have always been paradoxically cut off from the world around them will now be even more pathetically so. Apple's products are essentially sealed gimmicks that will only do what Apple imagines. Yes, that's totally antithetical to the lie Apple sells with the App Store and hobbled SDK.
WTF, why would we want an inverse color scheme? This is equivalent to reading black text off the surface of a light bulb: idiotic.
The whole inverse (black text on white background) scheme was born out of the "desktop publishing" craze of the late '80s & early '90s. During this time, vendors tried (and failed) to make the screen an analog of a piece of paper. This failed because paper does not EMIT light. The result was people sitting with three electron guns going full blast in their faces all day, a color scheme that Apple still forces on its users. Although Microsoft still ignorantly defaults to it, you can at least set up a proper color scheme at the OS level. Even Linux GUIs let you set up a proper color scheme.
Jonathan Mac: I don't get all the anti-Flickr negativity of the last couple of years. Flickr is a great site with a good mobile app. I think it'll survive just fine one way or the other.
I'm not following anyone, so no, that's not what it is.
However, to be fair... I just went to the site and it looks like they've cleaned it up considerably. The crap is just a vertical strip now, not a quilt covering the whole screen. And the "you" heading has a drop-down list, another new addition.
"I dont want to see mine when I log in, I know what they look like."
Well, that's you. When I go to the site, it's to POST THINGS or grab a link to something OF MINE.
You had to question Flickr from day one, though: What genius created a site with "flick" in the name, but no video hosting?
Maybe because it is now an execrable MESS. The design "overhaul" of a couple hears ago rendered it barely usable, and highly undesirable. WTF IS all this crap on the page when you log in? It's hard to find your own content!
Sapateiro: Surely everyone stating that this lens is similar to a 70-200/2.8 FF is missing the point... IT'S A 1.8! While the DOF is similar to a FF 2.8, it still gathers a ton more light! And this isn't for FF anyway, so why would a crop sensor user want to compare it with a slower lens with a different focal length?
For us videographers APS-C (ie. Super35) IS the standard. This lens is going to be ideal for run&gun or event shooters using C100/300/500's. I can't wait to pair it with the 18-35, especially for indoors/lowlight.
I would surely consider this lens for cine use, but Sigma failed to put hard focusing limits and an aperture ring on it.
So... that sucks.
If Sigma would make its lenses with hard focusing limits and aperture rings for cinema-camera use, I could see standardizing on them for everything AND buying the Sony adapter.
It'd be a no-brainer for buyers, and Sigma wouldn't be cannibalizing their own sales because they don't make cine lenses.
But nope. Opportunity missed. Oh well.
No loupe for use as a viewfinder?
Did they fix the bug where new pictures you add to your directories on disk don't get picked up by Lightroom?
Meanwhile, you STILL CAN'T ZOOM.
ThatCamFan: So basicly Instagram could make all the top images be from companys to get money for ads or just do plain old propaganda, well done Zuckerberg your becoming quite the fascist.
"your becoming quite the fascist"
you + are = YOU'RE