ttran88: Sony is making money? I thought they were giving up with cameras, I have been told A mount is dead and now E mount APSC is dead as well.
I recall their electronics such as TVs and BD players were not doing so well.
justmeMN: It's ironic. Sony makes a lot of money selling sensors for smartphones, but their own smartphone division is a money loser.
I totally agree. Sony phones are so hard to see in people's hands, but a lot of the other phones use Sony sensors. Go figure.
dash2k8: For everyone laughing at its price tag... remember that there are already plenty of 30K+ cameras on the market. Arri, Red, Panasonic, Sony, etc, and they're not exactly bankrupt.
A joke? If having a fine market share is a joke, that's a fine joke to me. I can name 25 established pros who use the C500 or C300 for their documentary work when they could easily be using Sony or Panasonic equivalents. And where do you get they only shoot HD? C500 and the new C300 can both record 4K.
For all your defeatist comments, you have not once convinced anyone that the $30K price is not going to be a deterrent to sales. All you do is keep harping "it's not a camera, it's not a camera, it's not a camera." Your real problem is this thing has a Canon label on it.
Donnie G: It'll be fun to see what the creative minds in the motion picture industry produce with this camera. It'll be even more fun watching the Canon bashers beat their keyboards to a bloody pulp as the ME20F-SH goes about the business of generating new revenue for Canon and does its part to help propel EF lens production toward a 120 million milestone. Now that's mirrorless done right, lol. :))
Francis Carver, you seem bent out of your way to discredit a piece of technology that's not even produced yet. What's it to you? All the things you say, I could read from online blogs written by other people or even the manuals.
It's how you use it, not what the spec sheet says. People once didn't think the 5D2 could shoot movies and documentaries as well as "real cameras," but that proved to be untrue. GoPros were only helmet cams... until DJI made a drone that took it in the air. To leave the jurisdiction of video, "experts" once claimed that the iPod would never sell in a market already flooded with MP3 players. I'm sure the big studios will have a use for 4 million ISO. Deep-sea explorations will find this super handy. Even search and rescue operations at sea will benefit from this. The possibilities are endless, but all you can talk about is how this thing can't record on its own? C'mon, you're better than this.
SmilerGrogan: I predict great things in the DPR Challenges once this camera is in stock at your local rental house or LensRentals and BorrowLenses....And I also can't wait to see this thing go into the camera comparison widget—the comments will be awesome.
The Red camera brain also cannot record anything on their own without the dedicated RedMag unit, so it's kinda the same idea. The a7s couldn't record to ProRes 422 without an external recorder, either (yes, I know it can record regular video to SDXC). Cameras have been using external recording forever, why is this a surprise?
I can already imagine this camera being useful for shooting dark scenes in movies. For one thing, the lighting technicians will have a much easier time and there's less need in post to make the brightly-lit shots look "dark." Outdoor night chase scenes on foot or in cars will also benefit tremendously. Ever try to light an action scene outdoors? Yeah, that's a lot of fun. This camera could potentially alleviate all these issues, much as the a7s opened up numerous new opportunities to indie filmmakers and docu-shooters.
I merely point out that "price" is not an issue. An ISO 4 million camera for extreme low light performance at 30K is definitely feasible, especially for the target consumers like, oh, I don't know, National Geographic, Discovery, and other not-so-poor media companies. I do not presume to judge this Canon camera's actual performance.
And why NOT compare this camera to "those" top-tier cameras? Canon already has the C500 and C300 eating up large (not majority, read right) chunks of the documentary market. These two cameras are for real. Only Canon haters automatically presume this camera will be bad. If this were a Sony/Arri/Red product, all the criticism instantly disappears. That's just how it works.
For everyone laughing at its price tag... remember that there are already plenty of 30K+ cameras on the market. Arri, Red, Panasonic, Sony, etc, and they're not exactly bankrupt.
Alternative options to the mainstream solution is always welcome in that it keeps the big dog serious.
whyamihere: I find the level of cynicism of most of the comments to be simultaneously unsurprising and utterly infuriating.
Nowhere else can you find a group of people who are completely defeatist about a production team taking a photography and film tool that the majority of people have on their person at any given time and making a full-length feature.
I'll gladly argue against the use of a 'real camera'. I'm fed up with footage from 'real cameras' being post-processed into appearing as amateur handheld video. This is the real deal, which lends to the character and authenticity of the movie.
For all the concerns about the footage quality, I can't say that I've read a single review of the film thus far complaining of how the film looks. Your average audience member doesn't care about IQ unless it adds or completely distracts from the story being told. It looks like an interesting movie, which means I'll probably take it over the countless beautifully-shot yet otherwise-garbage films out there.
Everything you said makes sense and I agree wholeheartedly with every point, so I'm not here to argue. Just wanted to say that even though the average viewer doesn't give a hoot about IQ, we as shooters should and it's totally reasonable to complain about the IQ of a smartphone versus a Red Epic. I agree that if a good story is told, IQ isn't a problem unless it's absolutely horrible. Just saying that we should care.
I think this film is more a celebration of the team's overall artistic skill than any display of an iPhone's technical prowess. That they could pull this off is incredible, but it's not like they shot with "only" an iPhone: there were lighting rigs and props and professional audio recording. Even the iPhone was rigged with a Steadicam. In the end, this film could have been shot with a Samsung/HTC/Sony phone just as easily, maybe even a GoPro. Kudos to the team for pulling this off. In this case it's more about the people than the tool.
Thus far Nikon is killing this competition. I am surprised by the photo rankings, as some of the ones I like are waaay in the back and some I find not so amazing waaay up front. Photography truly is subjective!
As a photographer myself (though not a music photog) I naturally side with Mr. Sheldon on this one. If this ends up beneficial for all photog's (sports, music, portrait, wedding) then why not? Mr. Sheldon doesn't hurl curses or toss insults in the way of Swift's company or agent, but has kept it civil and on-topic while not dodging any points, unlike Swift's agent's response.
dash2k8: Everything is great for me except the no-AA. At such a huge resolution, all the surface imperfections will be too much for me. I can see where the extra detail will be great for nature photog's. For my portrait work where skin is rarely perfect, it will be more of a hindrance than a bonus.
My mistake, I looked up the Zeiss 135mm for Sony!
That's the trick, isn't it? To touch up without making it look "plastic." I prefer the in-house tried-and-true tricks, though there are situations where automated apps can speed things up.
The Zeiss 135 is absolutely amazing, I agree. For that price, it'd better be! The Canon equivalent is a terrific value at half the price but not half the IQ.
Did I say I don't like the high resolution? It's non-AA at such a high resolution that's troublesome.
Both of you know exactly what I mean, so don't be silly. You ever shoot a model and have to touch up the facial skin? Then you know what a pain it is. Detail up to a certain point is unwelcome. Like I said, detail is excellent in scenery and animal shots, but not so great for people. AA will help "smooth out the wrinkles." Nobody likes wrinkles.
Try watching a movie with no antialiasing at 4K. Your eyes will hate you.
Morpho Hunter: Did Sony just do the impossible?
Nope, true the camera is small .. but the lenses (compared to the mft system) are huge (albeit Zeiss fantastic). However I just wonder how this camera will fair (sales wise) when the rumoured Olympus E-M1 replacement, with it's HAND-HELD 40mp sensor shift system is released. More importantly, just how many people out there can afford (or are willing) to pay for those Zeiss lenses .. I mean .. just how often does one blow up a print to the size of a barn door?!!
The Batis line is relatively new and yes, Sony-exclusive, but there are only two thus far and they truly are similar in size to other brands. I guess I should have worded my piece better. "Most" of the medium-priced Zeiss lenses are very similar to Canikon counterparts.
Their lenses aren't much bigger than Canon and Nikon's variations, right? And when you mention Zeiss lenses, I assume you're talking about the truly expensive, exclusive ones, not the regular run-of-the-mill Zeiss lenses listed on Sony's site. The average lenses cost about the same as Canikon's counterparts and the quality is about equal (slightly better sharpness, much worse vignetting and distortion). The really expensive Zeiss lenses are also made for the other brands so it's not an issue (the Otus, for example, is available for several mounts).
Everything is great for me except the no-AA. At such a huge resolution, all the surface imperfections will be too much for me. I can see where the extra detail will be great for nature photog's. For my portrait work where skin is rarely perfect, it will be more of a hindrance than a bonus.
photosen: Looks very nice. "Canon should expect some cancelled EOS 5DS orders..." and Sony should expect more cancelled lens orders...
From DPR's own review of the Sony Zeiss 35mm:
"The 35mm F2.8 generally compares favourably to other recently-designed full frame 35mm primes. It pretty much matches the Sigma 35mm F1.4 DG HSM for sharpness, but loses out on distortion and vignetting (the latter a consequence of its small optical unit). It's much the same story when we look at the Canon EF 35mm f/2.0 IS USM; the Sony's measured central sharpness is higher, but this substantially reflects the fact that it's tested on a much higher resolution sensor. However if we look at edge sharpness, the two lenses are a pretty close match, and again the Canon has rather lower vignetting and more-tractable distortion characteristics."
Common theme here: bad distortion and vignetting, equal sharpness. So I'm not sure they are of "highest end quality."