Livin' la Vida Loca
GodSpeaks: Film cameras?Did I miss a memo, or something?
'We', as in 'the world', migrated in droves from film to digital around the turn of the century. Personally, I stopped shooting film sometime between 2000 and 2002.
Angrymagpie: I don't see myself using this when it doesn't have user removable battery. If I can't carry backup batteries for it I'd just be constantly thinking about its battery life. I would rather use a RX100 instead in that case.
To the best of my knowledge, no iphone has ever had a user replaceable battery.
Marty4650: This phone is almost an inch thick! (Well.... .83 inches to be exact), making it among the thickest phones on the market.
That means it is almost three times thicker than an iPhone 6.
Most phone users who wants a better camera will probably prefer a real camera to carrying around this beast. Of course, there are a few who won't. But I cannot imagine a large market for this large and expensive toy.
Marty, this phone obviously is not for you. But why so negative about it? I only wish other manufacturers would take up the gauntlet Panasonic has thrown down. With increased competition in this space, we the consumer would benefit from a price/feature war.
We left the world of film around the turn of the century.As for 100MP sensors, I will pass, thank you.
Peiasdf: It is like a $350 OnePlus One with a $650 camera module attached.
Well, the point is to have a dual purpose device, instead of having to carry two separate devices.I currently have two 1" sensored cameras, and have been very impressed with the image quality out of each. So perhaps it is worth the price.Now if only other manufactures will take note and offer some real competition in this space.
Too late for me. I was in the USA in April and early May. I'll pick one up in Singapore next month.
Film cameras?Did I miss a memo, or something?
I wish Sony would update the design of the body to something a little more aesthetically pleasing.
brycesteiner: Still only USB 2? What's the deal? some of us use our cameras as the card reader!
Chris Weller: Am I the only one that thinks a version of this sensor is going to end up in a Nikon DSLR by Christmas anyway?
Even if it doesn't, while this camera certainly has a bunch of great new technology as a Nikon shooter who primarily shoots sports, wildlife (birds mostly) and my kids running around, this camera cannot compete with a Nikon D810 or a 750 or a d4 for any of those types of photography.
They don't have serious telephoto lenses, I'm guessing the AF will still not be close to as good (which is absolutely critical for that type of photography).
And for the IQ geeks (like I would have to think you are if you buy a 42 MP camera), the 11+7 bit Raw thing cripples this camera. Which makes it inferior to the D810 for Landscape and Portraiture.
It's a really nice camera, but my belief is that it falls short of the best camera Nikon offers for every single major type of photographic type (sports, wildlife, portraits, landscape.
I might be in the minority, but I also prefer OVF
Nathan8: Oh dear, what is to become of the fz1000?
The FZ1000 is around $500 less, plus it has a fully articulated LCD and a longer excellent quality Leica lens.
Hmmmm, so this is supposed to compete with the Panasonic FZ1000? And at $4-500 higher price?
I hope at least the build quality is better than the FZ1000, as it seems the FZ1000 beats it in most other areas.
Rexyinc: ok thanks guys - that clears that up,
Next question as I've never used m43 before.
What lenses do I need if I need to be at 24/28mm equiv FF ?
I shoot interviews weekly using 3 cams for multicam, the group main camera is space limited in a tiny room. I'm currently using 550d and eos-m with the kit lenses at WA 18 to get them in, which at 1.6x gives me about 28.8mm guessed?. What lense will I need on the main camera to get this shot in ? the other two cameras are closer up MCU on each talking head, so a 50mm on the eos-m/550d is enough to grab that angle. Guessing the 14-42 kit glass would be suitable for that shot right?
I hear there's a 4k 2.3x crop factor we have to factor in ?
10 or 12mm will give you about 23 or 28mm eq for 4K video.
For stills, 12 or 14mm. A zoom that covers that range would give you the most flexability (7-14mm).
Rexyinc: hey guys - lets talk G7 4k video quality for a bit..
pause it on ANY frame with motion .. is this youtubes compression making this blocky mess or something more to do with the 100mbits and h264 compression in the camera?.. in both 4k and 1080k this sample clip from panasonic looks a total mess when paused on my macbook.
You really cannot use youtube to check video quality. Download some footage straight from the camera and have a look.
My GH4 (and FZ1000) produce beautiful 4K video.
lglass12189: ...and why is 4K video a must-have feature?
Because 4K video is the next BIG THING.
To be fair though, if you have not seen 4K video you are really missing out on something spectacular. The problem is that once you see it, you then realize you must now upgrade your computer, computer monitor and TV to be able to take full advantage of 4K. LOL.
Allen Yang: I used to like Panasonic, but the skintone of indoor portraits and high ISO noise were hideous! I took a picture of my aunt in a restaurant and showed her the pic. What a horrible mistake, she almost killed me! Her face looked sort of purple in that picture. By the way, the camera I used back then was a Panasonic LX3.
Yet the skintones I get from my Panasonic GX and GH cameras are beautiful. Of course, I shoot only raw and use Capture One to process them. Capture One produces some of the best skintones possible, IMO.
Things have changes A LOT since the days of the LX3. The high ISO performance of current MFT cameras is truely excellent.
cruz031: Reading the comments below it appears that MIT is acronym for - "Mostly irrelevant Technology" ;)
Hardly irrelevant. Did you miss the bit about robotic vision uses? And likely law enforcement too. Not so much for the billions of cell phone snaps per day.
johnsmith404: While I don't really see much of a use for it as it is because the reflection is still very noticeable, it'd be a great tool if they can improve it.
I can see certain uses. The Robot vision listed above and probably some criminal investigation/law enforcement uses too.
For the majority of photographers, not so much.
LightCatcherLT: Seems overpriced and big. Answer to this is kickstarter funded Zano http://www.flyzano.com/
BIG red flag to me too.
Muqdad: Something doesn't sink in here guys. The review and the pictures imply that at 0° position the light direction points downwards at a certain angle, this being supported by the reviewer saying that the flash becomes on the "normal" position when it gets to 40°. I assume by "normal" the reviewer means straightly forward for direct flash illumination. Now someone help me get this: starting from this angle of 40° at which the flash is sending light straightly forward, when we tilt it up an additional 50° to reach 90°, how could it now direct its light straightly upwards? Don't we need a stroke of 90° to change from horizontal to vertical? If the reflector sends light horizontally while the body is tilted to the 40° position because it is built at an angle with the flash body as the pictures show, if the flash body moves the remaining 50° of its 90° stroke the light should now point to 50° upwards, not vertical. Am I missing something here?
Correct. The unit will not tilt back beyond the 90 degree mark, meaning the flash fires forward of straight up.