mpgxsvcd: I think Dpreview raised their standards for the “Gold” award because they knew cameras like this one were just around the corner. It is almost in a class all by itself.
I am certain that Dpreview will place it in a class with other cameras. I seriously doubt they will put it in a class all by itself. That is why I said "almost".
I think Dpreview raised their standards for the “Gold” award because they knew cameras like this one were just around the corner. It is almost in a class all by itself.
Sony is firing on all cylinders now!
Those are nice lenses that I could never afford.
Useless for astronomy with its 4 second shutter speed limitation. That is the area where it had the most potential.
Here is the moon at 3200mm equivalent with a GH2 and a $30 tripod. Try catching a plane in front of the moon at that focal length. It isn’t very easy especially without a tracking mount.
And here is the moon with a $500 telescope and the GH4 at 4K. This did use a tracking mount though. That makes it much easier.
Nothing in these pictures make me want to run out and buy this camera. The lens wasn't great for these images and the noise was distracting. It wasn't the photographer' fault. It was the equipment's limitations this time.
Really noisy for ISO 640.
JeanPierre Thibaudeau: What is this? A full frame camera with all sample images shot between 100-800 ISO?? Nothing above 800! When DPR reviews a 4/3 sensor camera, the ISO is pushed beyond ISO 6400 on their samples.
Does Canon need help to hide their high ISO performance?
We want to see samples at ISO 12000 and beyond for the new 5D full frame cameras.
It doesn't go beyond ISO 12,800 and even that ISO is already in its expanded range.
I was disappointed that they haven't figured out how to fix the RAW compression issue. That will be a tough thing for them to overcome when the other manufactures have that advantage over them.
That being said their camera has so many more advantages that some people might be able to work around the RAW compression difference.
ANAYV: This is the best the GH4 can do, for a moon shot ?I think todays superzoom can easily outperform this...showing more detail..perhaps do to better optics, and less need to crop. Plus no need for tripod, with their superior O.I.S. Surely I don't miss my GH2 with 45 to 200mm lens.
No that is not the best the GH4 can do. The optics are the limiting factor there. That was with a fast focal ratio Newtonian telescope. You need a fully corrected SCT scope to do the moon and the GH4 justice.
However, it isn’t a bad picture considering the scope only costs $450 and can also take amazing deep space photos as well.
The large sensor fixed lens zoom camera probably would do just fine for moon shots. However, you will find that atmospheric conditions will be the limiting factor no matter what camera and lens you use for single exposure images like this.
You are much better off taking video and then stacking the frames to eliminate the changes in the atmospheric conditions. There the GH4 really excels as you can see from some of my other and better moon pictures.
mpgxsvcd: It isn’t a bad camera. However, it is just simply a little late. There were too many great options in this category last year. Everyone bought a camera back then.
I am sure they will sell plenty of these cameras. However, it definitely would have sold better if it was announced last June instead of this June and I don’t see any reason they couldn’t have made this camera before now.
There is simply too much competition now. Which is a good thing for consumers but not so great for manufacturers that are selling less and less cameras every year.
They won’t be as pleased about the sales of this camera as Sony was about their RX100 cameras or even Panasonic was about their LX100. I can tell you that much.
You can always think of this camera as a $1250 camera with a removable EVF. Then it is simply overpriced but it actually has a feature advantage in that you can remove the EVF when you don’t need/want it.
A removable EVF is a good thing and not a bad thing especially in a camera this small. It allows you to have a flash and an EVF simultaneously. There simply isn’t a place on this camera to put a built-in EVF without removing the Flash or the hot shoe.
If you think about it that way you will see that Canon designed it exactly right. They just didn’t hit the price point they really needed to hit.
It isn’t a bad camera. However, it is just simply a little late. There were too many great options in this category last year. Everyone bought a camera back then.
mpgxsvcd: Great now I can get cell phone quality pictures from 1-2 miles away. I honestly never understood the allure of these super zoom cameras. When zoomed all the way in atmospheric conditions start to become the biggest factor. Really how often do you need to take a picture of something that you can’t see with your naked eye?
Just look at the quality all of these cameras produce. Yup the subject fills the frame but there is no detail at all. Everything is mush because of poor optics and diffraction limitations.
I really wish they would just stick with 25x or less instead of the ridiculous 80x+ that these cameras do.
My 8 inch telescope is F4.0 but they can only get 800mm focal length with it. How can you expect these super small sensor cameras to do the job better than a large diameter telescope can?
This category is just a marketing gimmick. The sample images that Dpreview was able to take are terrible. It is impossible to take a decent picture at 2000mm with these cameras.
If you can’t see it with your naked eye then you certainly won’t be able to follow it with one of these cameras. Much less take a picture of it with the subpar image stabilization these cameras offer.
Just try to follow a bird that is a mile or so away. You won’t even get it in the frame.
You are much better off with a 25x camera with good RAW capabilities and then cropping in post.
The Panasonic FZ1000($720) is $123 more than the Nikon P900($597) on Amazon right now. You would have to be stupid to buy the Nikon over the FZ1000.
mosc: the lens comparison isn't working for me here...
I would LOVE to see the results of the test that MOSC mentioned. I bet the super zooms wouldn't stand a chance.
You would be so much better off with a bigger aperture medium sized sensor camera than with these small sensor super zooms. I really think that the 24mm-400mm focal length range is just about ideal. F2.8-F4.0 would work just fine with that as well.
If you really do a lot of birding then 28mm-800mm would work but no more than that. You can’t get around the fact that a bigger aperture is ALWAYS necessary to do proper telephoto. You can’t cheat physics.
Great now I can get cell phone quality pictures from 1-2 miles away. I honestly never understood the allure of these super zoom cameras. When zoomed all the way in atmospheric conditions start to become the biggest factor. Really how often do you need to take a picture of something that you can’t see with your naked eye?
But did they add GPS to it?