Mais78: I shoot Canon but I know that some day the time will come to switch to Sony. Waiting for better lenses (fast zoom, 24-70 f2.8 and fast primes).
So is this another "floating" sensor that cannot be cleaned DIY, like the EM5, without damaging the IS?
I've had two canon cameras with auto sensor cleaning and over seven years never had to clean the sensor.
A dedicated infrared, ultraviolet, ultra low light camera with ghost detection technology so we can see the impossible...with an 18 mpx sensor and a $6000 price tag.
Dr_Jon: Though you could argue that the Moon is peppered with rockets that landed just like this...
All of the packages we've landed on the Moon and other planets were short and stout, with a low center of gravity. The gravity on the Moon is less than Earth, the Moon has no atmosphere, therefore, no crosswinds to knock it off center.
And landing, then taking off from the moon is a much different operation than taking off and landing. All the vessels that have landed and launched from the moon have left the landing platform on the moon. It takes a lot less fuel to launch the assent module from the Moon than it takes to launch all the components to the Moon. Most of the weight is fuel and most of that is burned getting into orbit around the Earth.
Tall rockets are inherently unstable and it's difficult enough to keep them stable going up; hovering and descending is much more difficult. Early tests were unsuccessful so the concept was abandoned long ago. All of the moon landers have had control rockets to stabilize them, but this rocket uses thrust vectoring.
Lee Jay: "While the F9R hovers at about 250m (820 ft), future tests will go much higher. Hopefully the drones will be able to keep up. "
Not likely, since some of the planned tests are exoatmospheric (out of the atmosphere - > 300,000 feet), and even the lower ones will require the rocket to climb out at hundreds of mile per hour.
They'll just have to make rocket drones.
They already have space drones as many satellites have small rockets and the capability to move around and re-position themselves. The dragon space capsule that delivers supplies to the ISS is essentially a big cargo drone.
But if you want to film a rocket through the complete launch all the way to orbit, all you need to do is launch another rocket next to it with a camera on it.This was done quite regularly in the nuclear missile testing programs during the sixties and seventies.
Simon97: What are the advantages of the larger sensor? Some I can think of:
Larger Pixels for low noise. The old 645D wasn't that impressive at high ISOs, but this new sensor sounds very interesting.
Smaller DOF for artistic effects. Hopefully Pentax designed the new lenses carefully concerning Bokeh quality.
Smaller apertures before diffraction blurring is noticeable.
Probably others I'm not thinking of.
@ Carlos; Shooting aerials from a helicopter. Clients frequently want giant prints to hang on their walls and viewers of aerial images tend to get up close to the pictures to scrutinize the details. They need to be tack sharp, which means using a camera with high mpx to capture the details and fast shutter speeds to counter the high frequency vibrations. When the light starts fading at dusk, slowing the shutter speed and opening the lens wide open will reduce sharpness, so I start pushing the ISO up as the light fades, until I reach the point at which noise become unacceptable.
If the maximum ISO at which noise is acceptable is higher than it is on FF DSLRs, then I should be able to keep shooting longer into fading light without having to slow shutter speed and opening up.
How useful this will be will depend upon the maximum ISO with acceptable noise. I would expect that on a MF sensor, hi ISO noise would be better than a FF.
But I’ll reserve judgment til we see test results.
Rawmeister: Had me going for a minute.Then I realized those old OM lenses - no way they resolve a 36MP sensor. lmfao.
Are you sure those lenses aren’t up to the task?
I used OM-1s and my film of choice was Kodak Technical Pan processed in my own formulation of POTA developer that I mixed from scratch. This results in a negative that is, for all intents and purposes, grainless, with very high edge acutance. The resulting 11x14 prints I made from them are crisp and sharp as a tack.
When I showed the prints to professional and fine art photographers, they assumed that I was shooting with a 4x5 and would not believe that they were made with an Olympus OM-1.
I think the Zuiko lenses would work just fine.
OK. You got me! I can laugh now but I can hardly express how excited I was when I first started reading it, and how disappointed I was to learn it was just a joke. Taken in light of the recent introduction of a full frame, 36mpx mirrorless camera by Sony, it was totally plausible the Olympus could do the same.
So, April Fools Jokery Rule Number One: Never lead one on to think they are getting something they really, really want, like; a marriage proposal, a new car, or a high megapixel, full frame Olympus that will accept legacy lenses! The disappointment of realizing it was just a joke negates the humor of it.
That was just mean, especially for an old OM-1 shooter who has been nothing but disappointed with the cameras that Olympus has been making.
And now a few days later, the review is being quoted across the web without mention it was a joke and a few photo forums are all abuzz about this. Oops! DPR has started a rumor.
Wouldn’t it be funny if Olympus has one in the works?
Surprisingly, the Panasonic website does not offer any specifications.
Digging around, I learned that it has a sealed battery, USB charger input; built in mic, there does not seem to be an input for external mic.
What I would like to know is the optical specifications; focal length, zoom range, minimum focus distance, close up magnification, zoom and focus controls. The specs given above only say; Ultra wide angle up to 160dgs.
Looking at the video, I found the movements a little disturbing. ;sudden moves, tilted horizons, etc. One would have to learn to move ones head like a videographer. Same applies to using a Go Pro on a helmet mount. At least with a head mount you can take multiple views, hands free, and then edit the transitions out. But keeping horizon straight is a crapshoot because it might be hard to look at the monitor with a 160dg FoV.
The real potential with this camera is being able to squeeze it into tight places where even a Go Pro would not fit.
GCHYBA: I wonder if they'll make a way to extend the cable?
On the current version the cable is permanently attached and not user serviceable.
It does have WiFi capability and can be controlled remotely via a compatible smart phone. But the ability to use a longer cable would be useful. Maybe the next iteration will have an interchangeable cable.
Mister J: Go Pro has never let me down, but as with everything tech, if a new entrant is better/cheaper etc, then it'll be competition.
Can't say I like the colour though.
Go to the Panasonic website and you'll see that they offer it in grey.
In fact you can get it in any color you want, as long as it is grey!
It's odd that it is being promoted in the orange color but on the website it only appears to be available in grey.
What's in a name?
To those in the know, this is a Kodak in name only. But unsuspecting consumers may think "Kodak is back" and associate this product with the Kodak legacy.
That's not to say the camera isn't comparable to a Kodak, it may even be better than what Kodak might be making if it was still manufacturing cameras.'
With the Kodak branding AK Imaging will get marketing attention that it could not garner if were entering the market as an unknown upstart. Who knows what this may lead to. Just think of where Hyundai and Samsung were ten or fifteen years ago.
Let's hope AK Imaging will better represent the Kodak brand than the makers of products that carry the Polaroid label do.
mpgxsvcd: Canon is left scratching its head. Wondering how they did this.
@ Archiver...you hit the nail on the head in the first paragraph.
While Panasonic, Sony and Olympus have gone full speed ahead in the Mirrorless ILC category; and Nikon, Sony and Pentax are advancing higher resolution (24mpx +) cameras affordable to mere mortals, Canon seems to have it's head in the clouds, advancing it's high end video products while letting the second tier brands get the upper hand.
The Canon and Nikon entries in the ILC sector (Canon M and Nikon V1/J1) fell way short of what I expected from the top tier. I thought they would outdo Sony, Pana and Olympus but they seem to have conceded that segment. I give Canon credit for the 100D/RebelSL1 but expected Canon would have set the bar higher in the ILC segment.
Canon could surprise us in the future with cameras that put the A7r and D800 to shame. But those of us who are waiting for that are growing weary while Canon develops it's Cinema cameras that most of us don't want or need and can't afford.
ZhanMInG12: Just building on some reasons why DP thinks the A7 is not a good camera
1. You need to buy a $50 official charger or $10 knockoff to avoid plugging the camera in to charge it.
2. You can’t control minimum shutter speed in Aperture priority mode, and have to use manual mode with auto ISO to set whatever shutter speed you want.
3. The jpegs have too much noise reduction, which can, um, be turned off in the menu.
4. The default controls are bad, but can be easily customized
5. No built-in flash, despite the vast majority of FF bodies not having one.
6. Wifi implementation is not mature at the desktop side, but mobile wifi live view works like a charm.
7. New, high-performing lenses are expensive.
What an awful, crappy camera!
Yes I do realize that Canikon have plenty of aftermarket manufacturers, that is why I listed them by name!
And in this case, instead of making an aftermarket accessory to go with a camera, Sony is making an af/mrk camera that will work with Canon lenses. This is beneficial to Canon.
As Nikon, Sony and others are pushing ahead with hi MPIX cameras and, full featured, mirrorless ILCs, Canon has been dragging its bottom. Canon users are chomping at the bit for a hi MPIX and an advanced ILC on which they could use their existing lenses. (The EOS M is a joke and Nikon has failed on this point too). Many of my colleagues are considering dumping Canon and going with the Nikon D800.The Sony A7/A7R, provide hi MPIX/advanced ILCs cameras that Canon users can use their glass, forestalling their abandonment of Canon. They might even invest in new Canon lenses like the 40MM f2.8 STM pancake lens @$169 vs the Sony/Zeiss 35mm @$799!
Both Sony and Canon benefit. By definition; symbiotic.
That’s an interesting perspective, looking at cross brand compatibility as being parasitic. What about the hundreds of aftermarket accessory brands like Sigma, Tamron, Nissin, Metz and Kenko that make components that duplicate accessory items that the camera makers already have in their product line-ups?
Camera companies benefit from the after market. It expands the choice of available accessories for their cameras, which may be a selling point for someone trying to decide which brand to buy. Wouldn’t you rather buy a camera that has a wide variety of compatible after market lenses; like the affordable Tamron 150-600 super-tele zoom, or a premium quality Carl Zeiss?
Cross brand compatibility is not parasitic, it’s more of a symbiotic relationship with both feeding off one another.
The A7 does not need to parasitize other brands to be viable, but with a Metabones adaptor (another aftermarket accessory) the A7 becomes a compact hi-mpix accessory to the Canon system.
Holger Drallmeyer: Am I missing something? LR runs on Surface tablets for a long while already. And what about $99 a year? Isn't that a huge rip off? I probably just don't get it.
Remember the days when we would lug a full Mac G3 tower and a Lacie Blue CRT to a location shoot?
We must be getting jaded if we consider a two pound mobile PC to be too heavy. That's even lighter than a laptop! By no stretch of the imagination is Surface Pro 2 heavy.
I once had a leak in my darkroom. All the dark leaked out and film got fogged.
So what's going to happen with a Lightroom leak?
Jogger: Dont photographers mostly use Lightroom or similar.. unless you are a graphic design or in a production environment why you would use PS in a photography workflow.
I ask the opposite question; Why use Lightroom when Bridge and Camera RAW can handle the same tasks of Digital Asset Management, RAW conversion and basic image processing as Lightroom, and Photoshop offers much greater image editing capabilities than LR?
PS and LR are tools, just like cameras lights and lenses, and each photographer has different need and requirement. So while Lightroom may be adequate for one, it won't meet the needs of others.
For wedding, portrait or other high volume photographers who need an efficient workflow, then LR may be the right tool. But for those who put a lot of effort into creating a small number of very complicated and creative images, efficient workflow is not an issue. Instead, they need the capabilities of Photoshop more than they need the efficient workflow of Lightroom.
Dvlee: This feature could be popular with narcissistic teen-aged girls, but not a $350. Those that might find this feature appealing are those who prefer using their cell phone for taking pictures and do not want to carry around a separate camera.
More mature or advanced users who are interested in making good photos, might consider the selfies embedded into the picture to be an intrusion. Remember the old point and shoot film cameras that embedded a time stamp on the negative? I can't tell you, as a darkroom technician, how many people came to me requesting I crop out the time stamp.
And I bet you, that as soon as this was announced, someone started writing an app for doing this on dual camera cell phones.
This is a gimmicky feature for a niche market.Since it requires additional hardware that drives up the cost, I don't think this will be popular enough to become a standard feature in P&S cameras .
Some people might like this , but for me it's a pass.
As far as anonymity is concerned, I post under my real identity, not an assumed name. But we all know that Howard Roark is a fictitious character from Ayn Rand’s novel: “The Fountainhead”. So which one of us is hiding behind anonymity?
These comments sections are not here just so we can praise the merits of every camera. It is also so we criticize them if we choose.
If you really like this camera, then speak up and state the reasons why! If you disagree with someone’s assessment of the product, then you are free to engage in a civil discussion about that.
Resorting to name calling, insults and inflammatory comments is counterproductive. It just creates an uncomfortable environment and a bad experience for all. Those who have something positive to contribute will not want to join in.
It has always been my motto that when engaged in an online discussion, one should “attack the question, not the people.”
justinwonnacott: I am going to use mine backwards . . .
That actually makes a heck of a lot more sense; a selfie that has a small embedded picture showing where the selfie was taken! >.."me at the concert", '"me and my friends at the beach"
That puts the selfie in context and it's much better than embedding the GPS location!
Yxa: Is this where Canon has put their engineering resources instead of in the sensor development?
Actually, I think Yxa has made a good point.
I'm sure that Canon has hundreds, maybe thousands of people working on R&D. The further downstream the project goes, the more effort and resources are expended it. From original concept>design>prototypes>developing the manufacturing procedure>retooling>staffing and training>production and finally onto marketing and distribution, a lot of resources will be expended to bring even the smallest new product to market. Resources expended on one product fewer resources for developing others. Even big companies like Canon have finite resources for developing new products, and given the number of new products they bring out each year, the cost of develping must be enormous. Therefore they need to choose well which ideas they develop and which they don't.
Conversely, the bigger profits of the consumer division probably helps fund the pro division, which cost much more to develop products they willl sell fewer of at a lower profit margin.