Zoron: i would prefer 3x zoom, 24-75mm f1.4-2.8
Well either way, my sentiment still stands. Give us a full stop with more zoom range a smaller package and people ask why not 2 stops!?
Dave Luttmann: No OVF. Pay extra for an EVF. Hello Canon.....anyone home?
They included an OVF last time and everyone complained that it was too small and the lens blocked it. And it made the camera too big.
Zigadiboom: Being a G1X owner I was looking forward to a faster lens, better AF performance and macro performance. Looks like Canon have delivered here.
But why take the swivel screen and all dials away! Why??
Cramming a F2-3.9 lens relative to such a large sensor into the size that they have does deserve a pat on the back. Well done Canon. Look out Sony RX100.
control dials moves to the lens. Looks like tilt LCD on the back. G1x was too beastly to popular. This is a good compromise.
nathondetroit: Dear Canon,
I’ve been buying your G-series cameras for several years because of the excellent external controls.
Unfortunately, I’m sick of them. Slap on a huge sensor and let me menu dive!
-SAYS NO ONE
I should make ignorant comments while missing the mention of dual control wheels on the lens....
-SAYS NO ONE!
quiquae: Canon's mirrorless killer may finally have arrived. If you're the type of person who want good image quality but find the kit zoom sufficient for everything--i.e., like most casual ILC users--why bother picking an MFT body over this one?
Assuming the image quality, AF speed (hopefully they learned something from EOS M!) and UI snappiness are all in place, this could be a real winner. Looking forward to the review.
Especially when you factor in the fact that the lens is f2 at the wide end. It can be used almost anywhere in all kinds of light. And it's probably like f3.5 at 85mm equivalent, so should be no problem with some decent bg blur for portraits. This could truly be an all in one for many.
HaroldC3: Not for $799 Canon...I understand the street price will be lower but still. They aren't Fuji.
Ask yourself how much a 12-62mm f2-3.9 lens would cost for a mirrorless system. It's like canon is bolting on a decent mirrorless body to the lens for free.
Just thinking I paid almost this much for a 15-85 with a measly f3.5-5.6 aperture for my 60D. This covers same zoom range with a f2-3.9 aperture, and the whole camera + lens is probably smaller than the 15-85 alone.
Makes me wonder if I should sell my 15-85 and put down a pre-order.
But why take the swivel screen and all dials away! Why?? Also no phase detection it seems.
However cramming a F2-3.9 lens relative to such a large sensor into the size that they have does deserve a pat on the back. Well done Canon. Look out Sony RX100.
Sure looks like a tilting LCD on the back to me.
Bill T.: Maybe staying at 12mp has some payoff in the high ISO noise department.
Let's not forget the Canon 1DX is "only" 18 megapixels, and Nikon's new D4S is "only" 16 megapixels. Both those cameras have great high ISO performance and by some accounts they manage to produce nice sharp images.
I have used a Sony RX100, and I think its 20 megapixel sensor loses more in high noise levels than it gains in "sharpness." And nice though the lens is, it is nowhere near worthy of a 20mp sensor. Just look at the corners in some of the published jpgs. This G1X seems like it might be a better balance of the trade offs between megapixels, realistic lens quality, and noise.
Biggest benefit of lower resolution is that when you zoom in to pixel peep a photo, your noise is magnified less so you feel like you have less noise. It's a good way to keep the peepers in check.
They just dropped a stop off the wide end and 1.5 stops off the long end but nothing is ever good enough for people.
f2-3.9 makes this infinitely more attractive than the previous version.
Why can't I have that fast pancake prime for the M, though?
rfsIII: Just out of curiosity, about photo 0966, in what Stygian hole were you shooting that required the use of ISO 9000?
f5.6 and 1/200 shutter it wouldn't have to be that dark.
chida: They should make mounts for Nikon and other lenses. Filmmakers like myself who have plenty of Nikon lenses, can use them on Blackmagic, and their marketshare also increases!
They picked EF because Canon EF has the most lenses in terms of models and also in terms of lenses out in the world. It is also a mount that has dedicated Cinema lenses from Zeiss and others.
There are only 4 Sony E mount FF lenses right now. While you can adapt, saying you only have 4 native lenses is not a great marketing campaign for Black Magic. Not to mention that when they started designing this camera, E mount FF lenses did not exist.
Rooru S: Pretty amazing how much money Blackmagic has... Because this is an agressive marketing strategy and it seems either they have a lot of capital to sell thse things at a low price or they really know how to produce great stuff at a lower price
That's like saying "there's really not that much in a car". It's just an engine, wheels, gas tank, controls and a place to sit.....
Never mind R+D, software/firmware development, product design, sensor fabrication/sourcing, testing, manufacturing, etc.
These aren't like tablets or $100 compact where you can just go buy your own slightly tweaked version from one of the 3 main factories in China.
RichRMA: Wasn't their HD model only $999?
Thanks for clarifying my comment. I did mean m4/3 mount. The sensor is about 12.5x7mm which is pretty close to the 13x9mm Sony RX100 sensor cropped to 16x9.
It's still a" Black Magic HD" for $999, though.
The 4/3 sensor "pocket" is $999.
tkbslc: Thanks to competition from the Panasonic GH4, no doubt.
If you say so.
mpgxsvcd: Whoever does the first GH4 vs. BM 4K camera shootout is going to get a lot of attention.
EF mount is quite versatile. It doesn't support FD, Konica or Minolta, but pretty much any other SLR or Medium format lens can be adapted. You won't be lacking for lens options. There are really no lenses in those too-short mounts that you can't find in compatible mounts.
I am pretty sure the Blackmagic Design marketing department would prefer you didn't abbreviate their name to "BM".
Whether or not you find them comparable, they are still competing for similar video customers and budgets.