bertzie

The lack of internal raw is incredibly disappointing. Even Canon is finally jumping on the raw train (finally) so to see Panasonic lag behind in that regard is rather disheartening.

Nikons are just housings for Sony sensors anyways. Canon still holds the biggest single share in the market at over 50%. If Sony overtook Nikon that would put them both likely somewhere in the low 20%s or even lower. Takes more than a pea-shooter to topple a Canon.

Your stills camera isn't a great video camera, my screwdriver makes a shitty hammer. We both got problems. Does Canon have to remove video function all together before people get the friggen point?

They were charging too damn much for what it was. After blackmagic came in, the digital bolex was relegated to gimick camera. And those just can't be expensive.

He must want a lawsuit, because that's how you get a lawsuit.

It's funny, because 99% of people that buy this camera wont give a dry piss about video quality. Because they're buying it for shooting stills. Because it's a stills camera, not a video camera. That people buy for stills. Because it's not a video camera. How many times does this bear repeating?

Title of article says "Not just vinyl for hipsters" Goes on to be exactly that. Tarantino is just a hipster with deep pockets.

If Canon sold their cameras for $1 they'd sell hundreds of millions. I can make up arbitrary scenarios with arbitrary sales numbers too. Remember when the Blackmagic Cinema Camera came out and everyone switched to it? And then the Gh4 came out and everyone got that one instead? And then they jumped to the A7s when it was released? Of course you don't, because that never happened. There is no magical list of specs that will appeal to everyone, because people are different and have different needs. If there were some magical singular camera that was perfect for everything, one company would make it and no other companies would ever need to make a camera again. Each company has their own product strategy. Canons has worked for them thus far and until it stops working, they're going to continue using it. If it were easy to be successful, everyone would do it.

Did this market research also say what percentage of still camera sales accounted for video purchases? Because all this doomsaying about how not adapting stills cameras for better video production will ruin companies is getting rather tiresome.

If only there were other camera manufacturers allowing for diversity in the market!!

​When has any for-profit company ever in the history of capitalism ever put customer desires over profits?

To address something from the article They pack in advanced stills options on these cameras because they are stills cameras. How often does that need to be repeated?

​The GH4 sensor is larger, but also higher resolution. The difference in actual pixel size isn't that extreme, the GH4 is maybe 20% larger pixels. And yes, the GH4 records to cheaper media with much smaller files. But it's also an inferior codec to record to. The XC100 is 8bit 422 internal at 305mbps. GH4 is 420 100mbps. That's a MASSIVE dump in compression. $2500 for the XC10, or $1500 for the GH4 and another $1000 for a decent lens. Call it "oversimplifying" if you want, but it's the truth. At $2500, the GH4 has options for better lenses and a (marginally) larger sensor, but the XC10 has a substantially better codec. In regards to the FZ1000, it may have a leica named lens, it might even be leica designed, but at that price point not a snowballs chance in hell it's leica manufactured. The FZ1000 also has smaller pixels and yet again, another inferior codec. It might get "close" to the XC10 if you have a very loose definition of the word close.

GH4: 100mbps 8bit 420 XC10: 305mbps 8bit 420 A7s: No internal 4k. So the only real argument between the GH4 and the XC10 is better lens vs better codec.

​At least it records 4k internally, unlike the a7s.