Maverick_: That's a lot of effort for $399. Lots of features for so little. What would they have to do next to top this. Where do you go from here camera makers? 16mm to 2500mm for $299? And what comes after that fish-eye, to 3000mm for $199?
This to me sounds like the beginning of the end. You can't support this growth in order to give people reasons to upgrade their bridge cameras. If someone buys this camera today and shoots with it a few times a year, he/she would have no reason to ever upgrade unless the camera breaks. This camera already belongs to a small market segment.
With compacts going away, as phone cameras taking over that responsibility, a tiny segment who aren't shooting with DSLRs and phones would still want a bridge cam true, but this segment will keep shrinking fast.
My guess is that we are looking at the last of this particular segment. A couple of more years and that's it.
The future is phone cameras and FF DSLRS.
"The future is phone cameras and FF DSLRS."
No. Plenty of people still have a use and need for something in between. I've personally found M4/3 to be an excellent compromise on size versus performance and flexibility, and have no desire to go from my GH2 to a bulky, full-sized full frame DSLR. Similarly, I can't imagine the person who would buy a superzoom like the new FZ70 being happy with the limited optics of even the best camera phone.
Yeah, the bottom end point and shoot cameras are going away in favor of camera phones, but there still seems to be plenty of room for superzooms, travelzooms, enthusiast compacts, and interchangeable lens cameras built around M4/3 and APS-C sensors.
steven_k: To bad they went with he GH-2 sensor and not the newer GH-3 sensor.I think Panasonic blew it.
Using the multi-aspect sensor from the GH2, but omitting the multi-aspect feature just seems strange to me. If the sensor supports it, why not include this feature, which one that I've appreciated on both the GH1 and GH2.
mvdude: The G6 is right around the corner, but still no sign of the promised G5 review on this site. I'd be happy just to see the RAW studio scene comparisons for the G5.
I don't believe that the G5 and GH2 have the same sensor. The GH2's sensor hasthe "variable aspect ratio" feature that was also present on the GH1, and the G5 does not.
BorisK1: The 10-30mm lens suggests sensor size anywhere between 2/3" and 1".
Actually, it suggests a 1" sensor, since that's the same kit lens focal range as the Nikon 1 cameras have.
fatdeeman: I don't know how good the camera will be but the Android OS gives the potential for enormous flexibility and all sorts of interesting features.
I couldn't work out at first if it was a Nikon 1 relative or just happened to look like it but even the lens internals look the same, if you look at a head on picture of the Nikon lens the inside looks identical and you can see both lenses have a bayonet for a lens hood that look the same too so I think there's definitely a connection between the two cameras.
It could be a fun tool for experimenting with C mount (and some D mount) lenses that won't give full coverage on m43 as long as the camera has decent magnified live view and peaking for focusing. In theory the video quality could be hacked far beyond standard settings.
I will never complain about there being more interchangeable lens cameras on the market, if the fickle public start ditching needlessly small compacts for cameras like this it can only be a good thing for us all.
Another sign that it's related to the Nikon 1 is that the kit lens shown in the promo piece is 10-30 mm. That suggests that at the very least it is the same size sensor as Nikon 1. If so, hopefully lenses and accessories will be interchangeable between this Polaroid and Nikon 1 series bodies, as is the case with Panasonic and Olympus M4/3 products.
bg2b: There seems to be some confusion on different sites about the resolution in 3:2 and 16:9 mode. Is the sensor multi-aspect like the GH2's, as the spec here suggests?
From the quoted specs for image resolution in the different aspect ratios, it appears not to be.
Knight Palm: Is the sensor oversized a la Panasonic GH2/LXx, eg, keeping the sensor diagonal fixed for various aspect ratios?
Judging by the resolution specs, I'd say the answer is no. I note that the pixel counts for the 16:9 and 4:3 aspect ratios both fit inside the pixel count of the sensor in it's native 3:2 aspect ratio. That's not the case for Panasonic DMC-GH2 (or it's predecessor, the GH1).
Mssimo: 4k is for big screen theater. Some movies were make in 1080 but it does not look very good.4/3 sensors are the same size of 35mm movie film (or half frame) The orientation is different. I believe someone adapted 35mm film to be used for stills. They turned it sideways so achieve a larger image circle.In other words, 4/3 is the closest format to old 35mm film (correct me if I'm wrong)Since its the same size, it has the same feel as far as DOF and Bokeh.The u4/3 mount also has the flexibility to mount almost any lens mount format used for movie and still. Up till now, broadcast digital industry has been stuck with very small sensors. 1/3" broadcasting cameras still sell for about 10k
This isn't correct.
4/3 sensor is approximately 13x17.3 mm, compared to 18x24 for 35 mm movie film. It gets closer if you compare the sensor size in 16x9 aspect ratio with 3 perf 35 mm -- then it becomes 10.5x18.7 mm for 4/3 versus 13.5x24 mm for 35 mm.
The 14.7x23.6 mm sensor in Nikon APS-C cameras would come closest in size to 35 mm movie film, with almost exactly the same frame width. While I'm partial the M4/3 format and very happy with my DMC-GH1, it is fair to note that it's frame size really isn't as close to that of 35 mm movie film as is the case for the competing cameras based around APS-C sensors.
As for the $10k broadcast cameras -- are those using 1/3" or 2/3" sensors? I know that the larger 2/3" sensors are a standard for professional gear -- and still only have 1/4 of the sensor area of a 4/3 sensor. So in that regard, the advantage goes to M4/3.
Traciatim: Now if we could just get 1 of the two big players to suck it up and put their stamp of approval on it then we can have m4/3 as the one standard for all consumer level interchangeable lens cameras. Not that it will ever happen, because they are stubborn and refuse to put customers first.
Just imagine if all lenses could work like USB. You just find one your like, plug it in, and it works.
It's pretty obvious that neither Nikon or Canon are anxious to embrace a non-proprietary format such as M4/3. In particular, Nikon's "1" format would need to absolutely bomb before Nikon would consider adapting M4/3...and even then, they probably still wouldn't.
It's a shame, because I think that M4/3 represents a pretty good compromise position between D-SLRs and compact cameras. If one company offered full-frame and APS-C D-SLRs, M4/3 ILC, and compact cameras, they'd really have all the bases covered.
JayBratcher: I'm surprised there is no mention of schools in there. Texas has some laws on this, although I don't fully understand them, or even know where they are documented. Part of it is in the education code, but I seem to recall a law being passed some time back that forbids video recording of student's faces without some type of permissions (either school or parental).
That said, there are just common sense rules that should be followed which they did not address directly, yet seem to indicate would be perfectly legal. For example, can perverts shoot photos in a public restroom without permission? Their guide seems to indicate that it's okay...
Photography in a public restroom could hit other laws -- for example, if you're taking a picture of an unused urinal (don't ask my why you'd want to) in a public restroom, that might be legal. But if you're taking a picture of someone using that urinal, I suspect other laws (perhaps on voyeurism) might be violated by the photography.
And note that per the ACLU guide, that would only apply to a public restroom on public property -- the owners of a mall, restaurant, retail establishment, etc, would be well within their rights to toss out someone trying to take pictures in their restrooms.
The bottom line is that, of course, a brief guide can't cover every possible circurmstance.
Brad Ross: I was in a public town park and came upon a little league game. I thought it would be a good opportunity to try and catch some images of a ball caught in mid air. A parent asked if I was the official photographer and I said no the pictures were for me. A few minutes later a father/coach came over and ask me to not take any pictures of the children. The parents did not give me permission. He said that I could take pictures of any tree or flower in the park but not children. I was take aback and shocked and embarrassed. I said okay, and turned around and left. I guess I should have asked permission or introduced myself ahead of time but the game was already in progress
Personally, I believe that you did the right thing by quitting. While you may have the legal right to have taken those pictures, with the way that parents get paranoid about such things, it was a courtesy to respect the coach's wish that you not take pictures of the children.
In most instances, respecting the feelings and wishes of others is a good thing.