Looks like the hood has the same thread-on design as the 35lux.
I hate it. it just cannot stop loosening itself.
Photomonkey: Yes it is expensive. It is a Leica.
It is a testament to the brand that it has lasted these many years. Great brands selling at similar prices have exited the stage over the years. Zeiss, Alpa, Rollei etc. These are legendary brands as is Leica. Arguably, they expired because they did not charge enough to support their expensively produced excellence.
Leica have survived and thrived despite a few near death experiences because the quality is undisputed and their careful moves into digital have broadened the appeal of the line. They have also wisely refused to discount their brand.If you do want to spend less and get a Leica you can, but it won't be an M.
sorry optics and quality did not save Leica. LVMH did, and turned it into a luxury brand, i.e. to get excessive margin from affluent people.
Felix E Klee: When reading RGBW, I was thinking about W, which lets R, G and B through. At first sight, that increases sensitivity. Why do most cameras filter RGB separately? It's quite a waste of photons. They get absorbed in the filters. It should be possible to filter combined colors, such as red and green, i.e. yellow. That would give the same information, with much less waste. Looking at the Wikipedia article about color filter arrays, I see that Kodak used CYYM filters in a few cameras. Why isn't that the standard? What's the disadvantage?
Or is the RGB filter array for the Bayer pattern nowadays realized using small prisms, that redirect different frequencies to different pixels, thereby not wasting any photons in absorption?
What you gain in light sensitivity, you lose in color info. Early test of Huawei P8 (using the RGBW) has confirmed this.
This is not the 1st gen SONY RGBW sensor. If my memory serves, the 1st gen was used by LG G2, which was an utter failure. Let's wait and see how this 2nd gen plays out.
I found it super ugly when the 1st photo leaked. But now it looks kinda OK.
In comparison to palm size, I expected to be similar size vs. X100s, except for the hump in the middle.
To me, the look feels a bit like the Kodak Retina, which was a beauty in retro sense.
Any how, the cam looks like a solid choice for prosumers.
LukeDuciel: is it me or D810 does look very similar in terms of detail resolution vs. 5DsR?
I am staring at the green faux feature stuff at ISO100.
if this is true, then ... thinking about the price D810 would be at when 5DsR actually hits the stores.
in my part of world, 5D3 is also cheaper than D810. But 5DsR will be priced up a tier (reported by DP) vs. 5D4.
I agree with you and I am all for the competition, the fiercer the better.
is it me or D810 does look very similar in terms of detail resolution vs. 5DsR?
installed and used on my A7M2. It is far from perfect but it did make me missing less of a remote cable.
The camera behaves weirdly in some ways (resetting some quick setting, some buttons stops working etc) when you try to keep the app on and shoot. I did not dwell into that though.
I was using it along with slow shutter speed. So I first setup the framing and focus and exposure; then activate the app just for trigger the shutter. (kinda like using a cable).
In my short usage, I came to trigger the shutter with a distance ~3in to the viewfinder.
BaumBoyPhoto: This camera may be useful, and the ergonomics are intriguing to say the least. I will probably end up renting it as a B-Cam for one of my run of the mill video gigs just to see how it handles. I don't plan on buying it, though. Definitely not at this pricepoint.
I mean, Chuck repeats often that some limiting design decisions were made to reduce cost, but I fail to see him convince us that the $2,500 is worth what is offered. I just don't see it. It definitely feels like paying a premium for slightly better ergonomics, bit rate, and the Canon name tag, while sacrificing the flexibility of Interchangeable lenses.
$2,500 can get you solid photo performance. $2500 can get you decent video performance.
If you are heart set on a 4K hybrid, just about everyone in this thread has pointed out how much $2,500 can get you in that market.
It's just not a great pricepoint for Canon.
a7s yes. not quite suitable for camera movements. GH4 is OK in my test. both in HD.
@BarnET thanks for the info. I almost gave up hope for this line up after AX100.
The X70 looks very very interesting. But I cannot find any pricing hint. Hopefully it would be affordable.
X70's XLR and power zoom are two key superiority for me. It is almost zero "still" compared to still+video in Canon's thinking.
I would still wait and see how the jello would work out for both Canon and Sony options. The AX100 failed this (and other aspects) big time.
Michael Long: If one were to actually read the patent, you could would see that it claims to increase resolution by using the optical image stabilization system to move the image across a fixed sensor.
As opposed to similar systems on other cameras, which typically use additional actuators to move the sensor itself. And I see it as a typical Apple refinement, using the existing moving part (OIS) to accomplish the task instead of adding additional moving parts. Elegant.
So while the basic effect is the same, the mechanism by which that effect is accomplished is completely different. And as such, worthy of a patent.
finally a sane man to reply.
I won't argue with you for the capabilities GH4 has. It is truely a wonder for prosumer video shooters.
However, the ergonomics of its still camera design get in the way of video production.
I use to do corporate stuff from time to time. Between GH2 (back then) and AF103, I know GH2 is much more capable especially with all the ROM mods. I always pick AF103 as my main cam, just for the smoother operations and faster PP. As for the inserted / sideline photos going along with the video, RX100 level of still quality would be good enough.
One thing I see as XC10 big miss is the lack of reliable audio interface. This is also the ache I have with GH cameras. Of course, there's plenty options for affordable quality recorder but hey we are talking about lowest effort here.
From hybrid content production PoV, XC10 makes a lot sense. All the design choices aim squarely at productivity.
BUT Canon is too eager to turn around the bottom line. This camera should sell very well at $1500. At $1500, a lot of indie or small team / studios can afford owning 2 or 3 XC10, which would upgrade their business to handle much larger and more sophisticated jobs with 4K outputs.
Quite some people are comparing this to USRA mini. But they are indeed very different equipment for very different applications.
In terms of video production, XC10, as small TOTAL package one-stop solution, aims squarely at the absolute running&gunning situations.
Think of the reporters riding in campaign buses, the one-man band journalists lurking in shaken apartment in Yemen. These people need the tool that can be tossed in the bag of laptop, immarsat / cell phones, pens and notebooks. And most importantly the workflow must be as light as the camera, while the output video is broadcast grade after minor editing on a Macbook.
In above situations, the URSA mini would be a barrier to deliver. The barrier comes from "too capable" and too heavy a work flow - both the weight the camera+lenses and the time and resource needed to properly edit the raw/ProRes footage.
For my limited experience, I never touched RAW video as I just don't have time to finish the intended work with it.
I definitely look forward to the time RED 8K - like capability comes into nowadays DSLR size. It will help greatly my still works.
losing WiFi does not sound logical.
mpgxsvcd: I absolutely love the Direct Aperture, exposure compensation, and Shutter speed control dials. However, I can get those exact same things on the Panasonic LX100.
What I can’t live with is a fixed focal length lens. At 16 Megapixels you aren’t going to be able to crop enough to overcome the fixed focal length.
This appears to be an excellent camera that I would never ever even consider buying simply because the LX100 fits my needs so much better for less money. However, I will say that their implementation of Auto ISO looks to be outstanding. I wish other companies would do the same thing.
Then buy a LX100. It is a wonderful camera. Buy what you want and you don't need an excuse for not buying something.
thumb up for adding 5 axis stabilization on a travel zoom, big competitive edge over all other in the same niche.
big thumb down for the proprietary port. I HATE this kind of design. I have a tg-2, you have to charge via that port, such a shitty thing. I have to taken care of the precious special cable, carry it and find it when needed.
Baron Sekiya: Canon has bought sensors from Sony in the past, and possibly present, for their compact cameras. My PowerShot had the recalled Sony sensor and had to be sent in to be fixed.
Canon has had a history of not be consistent across their lense line with quality. I've seen kit lenses what output garbage images with how soft they were and I owned their orginal EF 16-35/2.8L that was terrible. If they're going to put their name on a product it should produce quality images.
As for dSLR bodies Canon doesn't do a good job of listening to the American pro photo market and catering to their needs. They may listen to their own countrymen/women photographers in Japan but they are a go super slow company. I'd like to see mirrorless 7DMkII level dSLRs and higher that can shoot with minimal noise and higher flash sync speeds.
They also need to help with the legislation to get the EU to remove the videocamera tariff so dSLRs can shoot longer than 30 minutes continuous video.
The working pro (mainly commercial and events) I bumped into are not really moving to mirror-less right now.
Jonathan Brady: You STILL didn't ask (or at least didn't publish that you asked) about on-sensor ADC. You guys have asked them about DR in the past and when looking at the sensor, and ONLY the sensor, Canon keeps up. It's the off-sensor ADC that introduces all the noise and destroys the DR. So... why are you not asking about this VERY SIMPLE idea?
I guess Sony might have some patent that prevent Canon going for similar route of on-chip ADC pipeline. Similar to the dual-pixel, it work well for canon and Sony aren't making anything in similar structure.
As an illiterate in optics, my 1st reaction is "renamed Fresnel lens?"
But I feel this might be the break through we have all been waited for. We know from high school physics: when the dimension of things are reduced to be comparable to the wavelength of light, a lot of strange stuff start to happen.