leeys

2 hours ago, Damphousse said:

I have a science degree so I have the training not to view all sources as equal.  When Nature tells me man made climate change is real and CO2 is a contributing factor I don't do a straight average with whatever Brietbart's opinion is.   I may read Brietbart but it is weighted very differently.  There are plenty of sites I've read for longer than EOSHD has been in existence but I don't put much stock in their evaluation of video capabilities because they are stills guys who aren't passionate about video.

Andrew isn't quite wrong about multiple sources being the sum of a PR move. Canon famously doesn't let anyone with negative words about them get their hands on a review unit - I was denied any form of Canon gear for review after pointing out how Canon likes to "castrate" features for product segmentation (I think it was for the EOS 6D). O&M, Canon's PR firm, told me as such in polite terms. So if Canon only lets bloggers and reviewers who say nice things about their cameras have review units, you get this wall of positive noise about their cameras.

51 minutes ago, fuzzynormal said:

For what it's worth, yours is the only website that feels authentic.  We all know the internet is now just a brown stream of corporate content, so to have a place where things are real is welcome.  Enthusiast used to have places to go in the past untainted by monied nonsense.  

I agree, it's about the only blog I visit for DSLR video. As Andrew mentioned, pressure from PR firms is REAL, having felt it myself, so I generally don't take a lot of stock in any review site that's not particularly large (DPReview can sort of get away with it, but even then I suspect their influence is waning).

13 hours ago, Kisaha said:

D500 was way overpriced for what it was (1) a B camera to the big Nikons, or 2) A camera for bird-ers), I do not think that ,except Mercer and 1) and 2), anyone else was interested in this camera and the crop is unbelievable it isn't a slight x1.1 crop, it is a X2.25 crop and no DCI 4K on a 20mgpxls sensor (smallest in APS-C land). Samsung camera does full sensor read out since 2014 on a 28mgpxls sensor and it's (I think) slightly less cropped NX500 costed 600euros kit new back then.

Fuji did the video leap in just one generation, I can't understand why Nikon do not go all in in video, they do not even have any other cameras to protect on video features! 

If you take the larger perspective of the stills camera market, the D500 is great value. If Nikon didn't take such a long time with it I'd have upgraded from my D300 and still be shooting Nikon.

13 hours ago, tugela said:

The main problem Nikon have (one that is shared by Canon and a few of the other minor players) is that they do not have access to state of the art processors like Sony and Panasonic do. As a result they will not be able to compete effectively when it comes to cutting edge mirrorless designs. They have to rely on older technology used in DSLR systems to have advanced products, and those are pretty mature where game changer improvements are unlikely.

Nikon and Canon can call upon other Japanese partners if they want to, and they're not lacking in any cutting-edge tech either. Nikon's Expeed is co-produced with Fujitsu (now spun off and renamed to something I can't remember) and Expeed 4 was not too far behind the latest SoCs of its time (32 bit A5 ARM architecture). No one's analysed what the Expeed 5 has so I have no idea what it's in now.

BTW, top end DSLRs and top end mirrorless aren't too different - sensors and ASICs are similar to begin with, it's not like mirrorless requires significantly advanced resources.

1 hour ago, Phil A said:

Because you don't want no blurry pictures shot with a shutter speed of 1/50?

No one says you can't change the shutter speed? It just means that you have a camera that you choose to shoot stills or video with, but you still record a video stream regardless.

I think it's best you ask around in the music circles where most of their exposure comes from. Any musicians here as well?

So, at this rate, when is 8x10 LF going to be the new premium look?

On 2/23/2017 at 11:50 PM, sanveer said:

I am NOT sure this figure is correct. The D500 does 14-Bit RAW with a file size of  25MP photos at a burst speed of 10.2 fps. That's 255 MB/s.

The maximum transfer rate cannot be measured with SDXC Cards. They are much slower than the XQD standard. 

 

Bit late, but the figure is correct - many still cameras have a buffer (usually RAM) that they dump the data into first before writing it to memory card. When using a fast XQD you'll never see the buffer on a D500, but on slower cards you will. This is basically a test of the camera's memory card controller speed, which loops back to the argument about cameras not fully utilising the speeds of the fastest cards, even with the newest hardware in place.

5 hours ago, Ken Ross said:

Sporting event videos and run n gun shouldn't require 25,600 ISO. If you shoot horror films fine, but as I said, 'how many' really have this need? That doesn't imply 'nobody' has the need, but rather not many.

No one really shoots horror films at that ISO either - you still light the scene with proper lights, it's not like they're filmed in pitch darkness.

Knowing IR, you're comparing JPEG engines.

It seems like DPR shot the scenes as though they were shooting RAW stills. Very much ETTL and willing to err on underexposing to not clip ANY part of the scene.

14 hours ago, Mattias Burling said:

There you go! They live!

I also agree with you that the DL had alot on paper. And I dont believe for a second that the "sensor and processor" has anything to do with sales. Im pretty sure 99 out of 100 that buys a camera doesn't even know they have processors. Let alone if its the latest model or not.

Yes, you're right. Like I said, the Nikon 1 (which the DLs are based on) have some strengths, but Nikon never did anything to market its strengths. I mean, look at this:

14 hours ago, sanveer said:

Actually when I read this across various sites, I realized, that there may be many reasons for this:
1. Nikon isn't really stellar at video, and the 1" camera market does have an interesting emphasis on video.
2. Sony is literally monopolizing the newer 1" sensors, and using them for its newer RX100 models. Everyone else gets a generation or 2 older version, of the 1" sensor. 
3. Panasonic's FZ2500 and the LX15 seem to have captured the Market of two of the Nikon DL models. This apart from Sony's own RX10 iii. 

I can tell you straight off, the FZ2500 and RX 10 III will not come close to the operational speed of the DL 24-500 ever. For a big zoom camera this is a great advantage to have, but Nikon just doesn't seem to know how to (or worse, want to) market it, so it leads to people thinking that they're all very similar cameras. They're not. The DL 24-500 had a chance of capturing that segment, along with the 18-50 owning a special place, but Nikon just... well, they're just useless at the moment.

20 hours ago, Mattias Burling said:

The m4/3 might be doing ok but its still nothing compared to Canon. And Fuji is eating away at their fan base every day. 

But I do think Panasonic is in more trouble than Olympus. I don't know any Panasonic still shooters. And that's where the real money still is, not in video.

But there is currently way to many options compared to people buying cameras. 

Someone's gotta go.

I'm a Panasonic stills shooter!

5 hours ago, tugela said:

The problem with the DL series was that there were already well established cameras dominating that niche, with excellent optics, superior sensors and superior processors. There was never any real chance that they were going to compete effectively, the Sony equivalents just too much market presence. Nikon were always going to be a day late and a dollar short. The delays just sealed the coffin, that is all.

That's not completely true; the 18-50 is unique product with no competition (I was saving up money to get it), and the 24-500 lens coupled with the Nikon 1 AF's system could be something special. If you've never used the Nikon 1 you won't really know how good it is - it's still the only mirrorless system that is on par with a pro DSLR in terms of speed. Not even the A6300 can come close to that. (Disclaimer: I haven't tried the A6500 and E-M1 II yet)

Plus I've always liked base Nikon colour profiles. Wish I could get the same from my Panasonic when I want to do something quick.

3 hours ago, gethin said:

nikon are so cloistered I cant imagine them partnering with anyone.  DJI would also make an interesting partner. I cant imagine it will be that long till DJI could buy Nikons camera division with spare change.

2 hours ago, Dean said:

Very sad/disappointing and kind of serves themselves right for being so ... well ... Japanese in their conservatism and indecisiveness. 

They need a big shake up ... a western CEO and new blood.

You two just described how they got into this mess. I now worry about them, as I've never seen them bungle a product launch this bad. Together with news of restructuring and an extraordinary write-down, it doesn't look good.

On 1/9/2017 at 10:33 PM, cpc said:

If you are going to scan only, you should probably be shooting negative anyway. Ektar and Portra are excellent for stills, and you have the Vision 3 series for motion pictures. Ektar in particular delivers chrome-like saturation at very fine graininess. Scanning chromes is trickier in a sense, and requires more from the scanner. Still, pretty cool to have Ektachrome back so soon after its demise, it makes beautiful punchy pictures.

My experience in scanning has been the opposite for me - a modern reversal always seemed to scan better than say, Portra 160 NC. This was on a Nikon Coolscan though.

I'll echo what many have said: DXO is a fantastic resource, but you need to ignore the silly score they give and look at the test charts in the areas that are important to you. Also make sure the chart you're reading is showing the ACTUAL resolution, not the downsampled one.

21 hours ago, IronFilm said:

The 5D mk3 is fairly outdated, remember the old Nikon D5200 which was APS-C and nearly caught up to the 5D mk3? As Andrew Reid showed. 

Well MFT is not that far behind APS-C performance (and basically more or less no difference at all once you factor in a focal reducer). Thus it wouldn't surprise me to see the GH5 approach the level of many current APS-C cameras. 

Canon's sensors have weaknesses in low ISO dynamic range and read noise - these the former doesn't affect low-light as much, which is why a 5D3 still looks good at ISO 1600 and above. In the end you're still collecting 2 stops worth of light more than a 4/3 sensor.

And the current APS-C cameras? They all have similar tech (Sony or Sony-derived), so there's little to separate them... except for the sensor size.

On 1/5/2017 at 8:42 AM, Neumann Films said:

Version 1...lol.  Well, now I'm excited to see what dual IS actually looks like.

On screen I had dual IS notifications the whole time?  Seemed more stable than lenses that clearly had no IS.  I am pretty sure V1 had working IS.  

That's good to know - I don't have to replace my lenses. :D

42 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

My money is on the GH5 being better than a Canon 5D mk3 in lowlight. 

People for ages loved the lowlight capabilities of the Canon 5D mk3 and raved on about how important a so called "full frame" sensor is for that "lowlight ability". And the Panasonic GH5 will exceed that. It is the natural result of the forward march of technological progress.

Hopefully time will tell that Panasonic & Olympus made the smart move, with technology catching up to "full frame" level performance then everyone who wants a compact or lightweight system will go with Micro Four Thirds.

While those who want the "ultimate" will go with digital medium format instead such as Pentax 645Z or the new FujiFilm mirrorless medium format camera. (Especially as the relentless forward march of progress while within a few short years make digital medium format cheaper and cheaper, until even semi serious hobbyists will find it affordable at a stretch) 

I love my Micro 4/3s cameras, and in general anyone belly aching about "needing" full-frame to take better photos or videos really needs to look at themselves...

However from a pure technical perspective I can't see that happening, even if you include things like a focal reducer. Ultimately the sensor in the 5D is 4x the size and it's not that terribly outdated.

As for the GH5 itself, I'm in trouble. It looks like I need to find US$2000 by this summer!

8 hours ago, Tiago Rosa-Rosso said:

No it's not. It's more a statement about the direction of yen.

The rise of prices has more to due with the yen appreciation on the last 6 years.  

Making smaller production runs will drive prices up, regardless. Without the mass of consumer sales, manufacturers will be looking to up profit margins as well.

On the post at hand: Tony seems to take a lot of ideas from all over the Internet, including Thom Hogan (some of the stuff he talks Thom has written about for nearly a decade). Most of them might have worked had the Japanese moved earlier, but that ship has long sailed. I'll just echo what has been said: Camera manufacturers need to make workflow a priority. Right now compared to a smartphone it's completely clunky and annoying to work with.

13 hours ago, hoodlum said:

Dpreview just post their review.

 

https://***URL removed***/reviews/olympus-om-d-e-m1-mark-ii/10

 

Damn. I still do mostly stills work and that has me tempted. But the price... DCI 4K is definitely usable for web-work.

12 hours ago, Eric Calabros said:

The main problem with smartphones is their lenses. While Pixel lens is way better than other flagships but its still far behind even a P&S camera lens. and they can't do much to improve it though, I mean its ridiculously tiny plastic! 

Actually, given the smaller sensors, smartphone lenses are technically outresolving lenses from larger formats. It's always been this way - the smaller the imaging area, the harder the lens has to work. The volume moved means there's more R&D being done there - again, just like how 35mm lenses became so much better over time; more people were buying them so more R&D was done there.

The main problem really is the tiny sensor.

9 hours ago, Don Kotlos said:

Now OIS is quite useful in low light, but the differences between OIS and multi-frame capture in photos or OIS and EIS with gyro in video is small enough that I guess for Google not having a camera protrusion by not using OIS, was more of an advantage marketing wise. On top of that, since they use the gyroscope to compensate for motion, I am not sure how compatible it would be with OIS if there is no communication between the two. S7 doesn't even offer OIS during 4k video.

I wasn't expecting to see this here, unlike in mainstream tech sites where people were going by Google's announcements... but ask yourself, how does an OIS system know which direction to shift the lens element?

On 9/27/2016 at 3:12 AM, gt3rs said:

LensFOV 78.8° 28 mm (35 mm format equivalent) f/2.2
Distortion < 1.5% Focus from 0.5 m to ∞

OMG! It's going to be a proper rectilinear lens instead of that weird half-fisheye I've seen in some many action cameras? This alone is a big win for me.

6 hours ago, John Matthews said:

Does that include ALL M43 lenses, including the Samyang 12mm F2? I suppose it's hard to know exactly what Panasonic is doing with the Venus engine, but according to sources, it corrects for moiré in software. If that is linked to the lens, I'm not 100% sure. As you say, CA correction is not, but other M43 lenses have a minimum of correction being applied. The question is: in a given scene with moiré, will a Panasonic lens perform better than a non-Panasonic lens?

Isn't the Samyang a dumb mount? Then no, there will be no software corrections applied.

I suppose with other players like Yi entering the market, it may muddy the waters. No idea if the lenses will play properly with the m4/3 standard.

Oh good, a bigger battery. The E-M1 had such a small battery for a pro level camera.

2 hours ago, John Matthews said:

I only asked because the GX80 does a lot of corrections (distortion, vignetting, moiré, etc.) with Panasonic lenses but not with other manufacturer's lenses (Olympus, or any manual lens). In this case, it looks as though the frequency hit just right for moiré to happen. If the person backed up 1 meter or came closer by a meter, I bet it wouldn't have happened.

M43 spec includes corrections to geometric distortion and vignetting. The unique corrections for Panasonic are done to chromatic aberration. I don't recall anything for moire, but that may be new.

9 hours ago, mercer said:

Cannot believe they priced it so high. Hopefully, their eBay pricing will reflect the aforementioned $300 price. 

Learn some Chinese, order through Taobao, use a forwarder.

Don't let the camera AF - CDAF looks terrible in video.

On 7/29/2016 at 0:37 PM, jonpais said:

The Panny zooms don't have DOF scales and focus ring has no stop

If you're setting focus before-hand there is an indicator with infinity and minimum... everything in-between is useless on its own as there's no actual scale! However if you don't mind you can get some plastic films as overlays to mark points with using a marker.

It irks me because Panasonic lenses do have the distance info in them, the camera doesn't display them.

And of course all MF indicators disappear when the camera starts recording.