Incarnate . . . AGAIN !
Ben Raven: So let me get this straight,
Because some people MIGHT video a movie with a STILL camera, the REST OF THE POPULATION OF PLANET EARTH are now considered convicted co-conspirators. And without due process, must be assessed a penalty AND have our right to video ANYTHING for longer than 30 minutes straight revoked.Oh, and did I mention that this outrage is being imposed by a for-profit industry in conjunction with vulture camera manufacturers opportunistically using this pathetic excuse to attempt to squeeze more $$$$ out of their customers' pockets !!
One more important technical note--A quality HD video camera, unfettered by this limit, is capable of higher quality than the average still camera, and would be the obvious choice for intellectual property rights thieves.
Also, since more and more people are watching Blu-Ray level movies, the call for inferior video and wretched non-surround sound(with coughs) knockoffs is diminishing.
And we're supposed to be alright with this ?!?
Re: Recording time limits as a standard spec to be listed.
A most excellent and LEGITIMATE idea !!
Greynerd: Looking at the feedback over time on some cameras it might be an idea to carry a compact fire extinguisher with you when taking extended videos on a camera designed for stills, just in case the heat cutout fails to trip. Just a little tip.
trevmar and Andy,
I do not at the moment own any Panasonic cams, but . . .
Since the 30 minute limitation appears to be newer, it seems perhaps your two cams, both of which came out some time ago, pre-date it.
I might be a little leery, however, of any firmware updates from now on, and would check to see if they affect said video issue.
They even restrict the no. of batteries ?! Ay yay yay (not Chinese, I know)
Just returned from a brief wonderful trip behind the scenes in Shanghai (I'll take one of each of the eggs, please) courtesy of you -- thanks muchly !!
Let's hope the WTO does get these absurd and artificial limits lifted !
In the meantime, don't let the jerks get you down and . . .VIDEO ON MY FRIEND, VIDEO ON !
I assume this was a miss-placed followup to your heartfelt reply (above) directed to the insensitive,uninformed, and dismissive comment of rchg101.
For my part, I am TOTALLY with you about Panasonic getting onboard with the crippling, and your well-justified feeling of being betrayed by them as a customer.
I was also completely unaware of that Chinese restriction, but as we all know of China's repression of artistic and other freedoms, including the internet, I am unfortunately not surprised. Thank you trevmar, for letting us all know about it.
Well it's a dirty job and somebody's gotta do it.
Arbitrary restrictions on my and other's freedom, even technological and artistic freedom affects me, and I speak out about it in this most appropriate venu
At least I'm using my mind and doing it, you're just sittin' around reading it and complaining, and not even about the subject at hand, but about somebody else actually doing some thinking.
I am frankly surprised at this, zapatista, as I have noticed a few of your posts on other subjects in the past and have always found them on target, interesting, and at least on one occasion, laced with commendable sarcastic wit.
So let me get this straight,
Robbster, et al.,
WILL THE REAL VILLAINS STEP UP !
Who then are the culprit Manufacturers crippling their still cameras' video capacity out of opportunistic greed, and thus obstructing our creative control.
Let's make the list !
Robbster (you've obviously been on this for awhile),
What your reference has clarified for me, directly and simply, and which the ambiguous DP item above did not -- and please correct this previously uninformed soul if I am not getting this straight --is that apparently it is the MANUFACTURERS THEMSELVES (and not the WTO as I initially thought) that are imposing the actual equipment level limits.
And that this is a profit based decision to BOTH avoid the tariffs and/or duties of many countries and the European Union on video cameras,
AND IMPORTANTLY:in an additional case of classic cynical Corporate greed and opportunism:
The said manufacturers, in order to maximize profits at the expense and cheating of their customers, are intentionally crippling the tech performance of their cameras, to in effect try and force people to have to buy video cameras in addition to their still cams, JUST IN ORDER TO VIDEO LONGER THAN A MERE 30 MINUTES.
Ben Raven: STOP THE MUSIC ! Just wait a cotton pickin' minute ! And excuuuuse me, and my uninformed naiveté.
But do you mean to tell me, that all this time: it WASN'T a technological obstacle ?it WASN'T the fabled over-heating problem ? it WASN'T a manufacturing cost issue ?
That right from the get-go, the 30 minute still camera video time limitation has been an artificial non-tech intrusion on our simple "we hold these truths to be self-evident" freedom to video whatever the hell we choose to video, for as long as we darn well want to ?!
Imposed by an international body of bureaucratic farts -- because of someEuropean tariff ???? As far as I'm concerned they're all full of, er, "duty" !
What's next, are we about to learn that all along there's been a tariff limit imposed on high ISO performance ?
Well, dear readers, pardon my PG rated profane outrage, but:
SCREW THE WTO AND THE TARIFF THEY RODE IN ON !
You and Me both, Robbster,
I read your reference (thank you) and your well-spoken points and, as you could tell from my "mild" comments above, I could literally not agree with you more !
FREEEEEEEDOM ! NOW !
STOP THE MUSIC ! Just wait a cotton pickin' minute ! And excuuuuse me, and my uninformed naiveté.
Rachotilko: suum cuique pulchrum est
Thence the technologies of 1950's are best served by the mirror.But it does not suit the technologies of the 3rd millenium.
De gustibus non disputandum est.
tomeee: the x100 is great as it is.
If YOU'RE happy, then that's all that counts for YOU !Kudos on being big enough to laugh at the situation.Best wishes.
DOMO ARIGATO MR. ROBOTO,
Yes - it - is - great - as - it - isIt - is - per-fect - ca-me-raI - am - ha-ppy - ha-ppy - ha-ppy - ha-ppy - ha-ppy - ha-ppy - ha-ppy . . . . . . .
Neodp: I also wish to make the point that zero, usable market data can be garnered, from the goodness benefits of this camera, or any camera, that is likewise not well enough balanced, with all it's most important benefits. No just guess, at what people will buy, can be well ascertained, with such odd mixing of needed benefits. You would never know, what data is misrepresented, because of what you left out. Such as being soft, at the widest aperture.
Thank you Professor Neodp,
You were soooo close, just ONE more edit . . . ?!?!
Tee1up: I'm still holding out for a monochrome version that doesn't focus.
Now you've done it, Tee -- you've got me literally salivating !
But Fuji's going to have to up that paltry price structure big time to get us to buy in !!
WHOA THERE, FUJI !
Now X100 owners are going to have that steep learning curve trying to master shooting the wild perspective complexities ofU-L-T-R-A W-I-I-I-D-E !
At long last, a camera with a potential non-zoom, screw-on range of 28 AND/OR 35mm -- virtually unlimited !(and for only $1,550)What will they think of next ? Screw-on tele conversion to 50mm (!), for those great wildlife shots ?
C'est magnifique !
Diadra, you started with the famously great Olympus color and truly elevated it, and your elegant composition, to a higher level of magnitude.
Are you using full Photoshop or Elements as your base ?
A most well-deserved 1st Place !
Alexdi: Technically stunning, these shots. And some very nice compositions.
While the narrow market this camera targets will adore it, the D800 produces equivalent or greater output. That, and a couple of standout Nikon lenses like the 14-24, would be a preferable kit to whomever can bear the weight.
Good points, RR,
But to be fair, BELOW 21mm even rangefinder glass, (with its inherent design leeway advantage) Leica, Zeiss, Voigt., what have you, all start showing distortion (and increasing falloff), some of it complex.[I am talking technical performance here -- the intangible magic of particular glass (of course Leica comes to mind) is not to be ignored.]
And tho the RF glass too is of course correctable to one degree or another in pp, UWA lenses like the remarkable Nikon 14-24 on the cutting edge FF D800 (and for my money the D800E !)referenced by Alexdi, still stand out--tho his point (and yours RR) of being able to "bear the weight" (especially on a long hike, and climb, for example) is VERY well taken.
Though sorry, Alexdi, I am neither stunned technically, nor impressed compositionally, by any of the DP sample images -- but that's DP.
The Leica, by spec., rep, and M9 reference, would appear to be capable of far greater.
I await superior IQ and compositional examples.
Firstly, I am a long time user and appreciator of Leica product (my second "real" camera was luckily a gifted, old, perfect M3 w/50 lux), and current user of Leica glass, and when there is FINALLY, sometime later in this century, an M10 . . .
Cost aside (!), this is a great niche-dedicated product concept for uncompromising maximum quality digital B&W.
BUT, (yeah, you saw that "but" coming) the IQ of the image samples posted by DP can be summarized in one word: UNDERWHELMING !
I hope they do not represent the true optimum (or even lowest grade) output of this camera. Bear in mind I am viewing them with perfect eyes on a 27" IMac screen.
It is a mystery to me what some of the readers are raving about !
The potential ? I'm onboard, and anxious to see.THESE samples . . . not so much.
Hmmm, "Getting The Most Out Of The Olympus E-M5".
HOW ABOUT JUST BEING ABLE TO GET IT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Get a weekly update of all that's new in the digital
photography world by subscribing to the Digital Photography Review