One more vote for Really Right Stuff. Expensive, but worth every single penny. I'd never go back to Manfrotto when it comes to ball heads.
Manfrotto is so out of touch with reality. 500$ for a bracket?! For 100$ more you can get a dedicated SmallHD monitor, either a 7" OLED or a 4" DP4 that can also work as a viewfinder. Yes, their resolution is smaller, but I'd pick them any day over this overpriced nonsense.
To whoever is still on the fence - do yourself a favor and learn how to use Lightroom. Yes, it can be a bit confusing at first, but over the years it has proven to be the hands down most reliable, detailed and efficient way to edit batches of photos. In some regards it's even better than Photoshop. The HSL sliders are magical! There's a good reason why Adobe is the leading photography editing software developer...
I'm puzzled as to what justifies the enormous cost. Their usual Roller series, which we've used for years, are made with 1600-2000 denier ballistic nylon. These are 840. Their other models also use the high-quality YKK zippers, have included rain covers, laptop sleeves, TSA locks and actually offer more features then the Echelon series. What's the catch??? The design is very average and I would be hard pressed to justify paying 800$ for a leather handle grip. Does. Not. Compute.
I would guess that DJI Inspire II would feature a MFT standard lens mount with probably 2 or 3 interchangable lenses. Probably a fisheye, a wide angle and a "normal" 35mm-like lens. Most likely these lenses would have to have same or very similar weight and center of gravity. Something like that would potentially be a game changer in drone photography / videography.
The only thing that's actually good about this camera is the 30 meter rating. Unfortunately, it's also completely pointless to rate a camera for 30 meter depth when it's lens and sensor can't capture anything worth saving at low light conditions that are present at 30 meters. I would never ever recommend this camera for scuba diving. Overall, I'm really disappointed that year after year manufactureres churn out these half-effort cameras. What this world needs is a Sony RX100 III with a 2.0 lens packed in a rugged case with 30m rating. With raw support. Then it would make sense.
MikeFairbanks: These are great, but there are cheaper and safer alternatives (but with less mobility). You can purchase a helium balloon with a four or five-foot diameter for a couple hundred dollars (totally reusable) that will fit in the back of a mini-van. It will only lose a bit of helium and then will retain most of it (once the pressure is gone). The thicker materials of these balloons (you see them occasionally at car dealerships with a trail of those colorful triangular flags) keeps most of the helium from escaping.
They can generally pick up a couple kilograms. It's easy to make an attachable platform for a dslr, and with a little work you can put rotating gimbals on it for panning, etc. Being tethered to the ground makes it much safer. But like with anything, the weather and wind can send you home early.
These drones will get cheaper and safer as time goes on, and they are something we just have to get used to seeing. They're here to stay.
Sorry Mike, but that's just not true. How is a helium baloon cheaper? You need a permanently empty van to transport. Setup and launch takes waaaay more time, as well as the flight itself. It's not exactly "less mobile" because controls are virually non existent. You need to tether it, creating a whole new set of problems in urban areas. Also, the platform costs a lot of money and the fill-up itself is also very expensive.
CallMeAlan: Face detection autofocus, a mass appeal nicety, seems a little out of place in such a high-end camera!
You have no idea what you're talking about. Face detection AF is perfectly appropriate for a single-operator documentary oriented camera. Doing all the quick crowd grabs and street interviews without having to pull focus is very useful.
200 fps at 1080p for a 1000 pound Platinum version is very usable. If we were to compare this to the closest current camera that offers 200 fps at full HD, that would be the Sony FS700 (priced at 6,000 US$), then the advantages are not so clear. The Sony is a real camera, not a one-trick-pony, that offers more flexibility for video production. On the other hand, the size of the FPS1000 is a HUGE advantage. Being able to stick this tiny camera into remote vehicles, cramped spaces etc, while still having the option to mix and match lenses and f-stops, is very good. I can totally see this being used for TV or even movie productions. All is all, not a bad product that could really open up the world of high-speed videography to the masses. We also have to consider the upcoming GoPro4, that offers 120 fps at 1080p, but also has 2.7k and 4k video modes. Of course, we can't change lenses on the GoPro, but it's still almost half the price. If I was starting from scratch, I'd pick up the GoPro4.
Ever since about v4, ACDsee started cramming "feature" upon "feature" into what was once the best, fastest and lightest image viewer available. I remeber a time when ACDsee installation files were 5 MB in size. Nowdays it's over 100... It's just rediculous. Especially the "pro" version. If "pro" means a product is intended for professionals, then it's safe to asume they're using OTHER professional tools to edit and organize their photos. I have never ever used an "edit" funcion in ACDsee. All I want is is a super fast image viewer that instantly opens up any image file format and can equally quickly scroll through hundreds of images. And that's it. Unfortunately, ACDsee has steered away from performance and seems to be focused on being the jack of all trades, when all we need is a master of one: speed.
Nick8: Just one thought, not related to this new great camera in particular…In the film era, both the ASA and DIN standards were used for the film sensitivity.100 ASA was equivalent to 21 DIN.I think DIN would have been a far more practical choice. ISO 409,600 would be equivalent to 57 DIN.Another 2 steps in sensitivity from 409,600 and the ISO will become 1,638,400 vs 63 DIN.Certainly that cannot fit on a dedicated dial :)
Not sure if you're aware of it, but ISO is actually derived from both the ASA and DIN system. Also, there's absolutely no reason not to write common abbrevations such as 25k, or 100k, or 500k.
Even the reviewer was too embarassed to actually test this outside, being scared that someone might see him using this rediculous contraption, and just took some photos in his apartment.
Drazen Stojcic Buntovnik: Seems like a great improvement over the old model, but slightly disappointing in the resolution department. The problem is, Canon is not only concerned by the competition from other manufacturers, but also by the competition from it's own product lineup. And as long as they're gimping their high-end pocket cameras in order to protect the low end dSLR's, they'll be a step behind. Why not go all out? After all, going all out with 5dmk2 has launched them into the stratosphere. This is also quite a pricey camera... And I'm guessing the EVF will be priced probably above 500$, making the combination way above 1200$. For that kind of cash, there's plenty of other (and better) cameras floating around.
That's actually good news. I was worried Canon was going Sony-style with their insane 400$ EVF price. Still, here in Europe the camera will cost 1000$ and EVF will be 350, so I'm not far off the mark.
Seems like a great improvement over the old model, but slightly disappointing in the resolution department. The problem is, Canon is not only concerned by the competition from other manufacturers, but also by the competition from it's own product lineup. And as long as they're gimping their high-end pocket cameras in order to protect the low end dSLR's, they'll be a step behind. Why not go all out? After all, going all out with 5dmk2 has launched them into the stratosphere. This is also quite a pricey camera... And I'm guessing the EVF will be priced probably above 500$, making the combination way above 1200$. For that kind of cash, there's plenty of other (and better) cameras floating around.
jackpro: pow canon has hit a home run now we just need some better lenses!
Nikon 14-24 2.8 comes to mind... This comes from a Canon user, frustrated with it's' 14 2.8 / 16-35 2.8 combo!
tlinn: I find this new model more curious than exciting. I think sports shooters will be thrilled. Wedding photogs with strong biceps will be too. It will be interesting to see just what is gained in image quality and low light capability given the loss in resolution. Speaking only for myself, resolution is not just important for print size; it's also important for cropping.
It will be equally interesting to see how this fares compared to Nikon's upcoming D4. I don't think you can grade Canon without taking into account what Nikon is able to do with their next iteration of the D series.
My biggest disappointment is the lack of built in radio-controlled flash system. This was the number one capability I was waiting for. Canon patented a system a year and a half ago and they've filed additional patents since. This seems like such an obvious game-changing feature. Unless it debuts in a 5D III or a new high end body, it's likely to be a long wait before another opportunity comes around.
I think that's reserved for new 5d, which will probaly be more studio-oriented camera with higher resolution, slower speed and more attention given to flash.
Ceesprof: The drop of 4 MP makes now a difference of 6MP with the Nikon D3 and the Sony camera.Especially in the advanced stock photography and for those photographers making large prints, the pixel count is very important.With this new Canon camera we can shoot very fast pictures that we can't sell (stock) or can't print large enough.
I don't think 1Dx was ever intended strictly for studio. It's an all-around camera for pro shooter. However, even for stock, I can't see the reason for 18 mpix beeing too small. You can print A3 at 300 dpi with that for Christ sake! We use 5Dmk2's for our business, and I honestly can't remember when was the last time anyone used our photo for 300dpi print larger then that. Counting that the upscaling claims hold true, I really don't see a problem with resolution.
Makes you wonder what the 5d mk3 is going to be like, especially since it obviously needs to replace both the old 5d mk2 and in part 1Ds mk3 - resolution wise. 1Ds line is obviously gone for good. I wouldn't be surprised at all to see 5D2 replaced with same size body, higher resolution and low fps with same video features as in 1Dx. Maybe even 2k RAW video, depending on what the upcoming camcorder announcement is about...
Ouch! Jagged edges all over the place and a LOT of color bleed on even moderately high ISO. Just look at the first photo... The red is bleeding all over the place. But, to be honest, many of the shots look bad simply because the lens used sucks. I do like the details, but it seems this camera will perform best in controlled environment such as a studio.