Jump to content

astrotripper

Members
  • Content Count

    7
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About astrotripper

  • Rank
    New member
  1. I made a very similar proposal on MFT forum on DPR couple of months ago. Can anyone guess what was the response to that? As for GH5, I don't think it's realistic. As much as I would like to see something like that, I'm having a hard time believing Panasonic would be capable of such a bold move. But who knows. I'd at least would like to see a modern MFT camera with a multi-aspect sensor. I always liked that idea, although I only used it on an old LX P&S from Panasonic. Anyway, I think it will most likely have the same 20mp sensor as found in GX8, only coupled with a new image processor. If this is the sensor Sony has listed on its website, it can do full-sensor readout (whole 20mp) at 27fps. That's plenty of headroom to do full readout of an uncropped 16:9 area of the sensor (that would be around 5K I think? not sure) for video recording. This coupled with better processing and I'm sure they can get around 1 stop of noise improvement in video this way. Not to mention video quality. Panasonic will simply have to come up with something else to stay competitive.
  2. All this is not all that surprising. To me, it looked like Samsung never treated NX seriously. At least in my country. It actually looked like they were not even interested in selling their cameras. And even less interested in marketing them. And that super cool NX1? Those nice high-end lenses? They might as well not exist. Samsung is not selling them here (and from what I hear, in some other regions as well). You can get the kit zooms and some of the cheap primes and that's it. Imagine if Canon was not selling L lenses in your region. Silly idea, isn't it? So who in their right mind would take NX seriously, if even Samsung does not do that? No wonder it's not selling well. People are not that stupid. It seems to me that Samsung thought that selling photography gear will be the same as selling home appliances, TVs, smartphones or whatever. And that was a mistake, apparently.
  3. I can relate with that sentiment. I've recently decided to force myself to be more thoughtful in my photography by downgrading to a simpler camera. And I bought Sigma DP2 Merrill. One, standard focal length, not much in bokehliciousness, can shoot maybe 90 photos per battery, can't really go over ISO 200, unless I want B&W, must wait 12 seconds before I can review the photo I've taken (so I just don't do that now), can't shoot bursts (unless you call shooting 3 photos a burst). And each RAW file weights 50 megabytes and is a bit pain to process. With all this, you better make every shot count. Now, that is a serious downgrade, even from my modest E-M10 with a humble set of lenses. Surprisingly, it's been a true joy to shoot with this little bugger, and I haven't really used my E-M10 for weeks now, except for night photography. And I also found that I shoot much more often, much less (in terms of shots fired), and have a lot more keepers. And I actually enjoy taking photos more. And now I'm starting to have an urge to print some of my photos... So I can fully relate. Sometimes less is better.
  4. I agree with the article's sentiment. What's even worse, is that modern cameras have all the necessary technologies built-in. We have NFC, WiFi, touchscreens and so on. The problem is that those technologies are not fully utilised. I'm not into social sharing at all. I don't need my camera to give me the same level of integration as a smartphone. Yet I still feel that my camera is not really a modern device. Sure, it has all the bells and whistles. Only it can't make proper use of them. My camera has a touchscreen Yet it's totally ridiculous how badly it makes use of it. What can I do with it? I can focus or focus and shoot. Ok, that's impossible to get wrong. What else? I can magnify live view. That's nice. But once I have it magnified, I can't move it around using touchscreen. I have to use physical buttons for that. Anything else? Well, in one of the live view modes, I can tap on the parameter I want to change. But again, I have to use physical controls to actually change anything. And that's about it. I can't even navigate menus using touch. Maybe that's for the better, as menus are a contrived mess that really need a manual to explain some of the entries. There's a built in RAW developer in my camera. Which would be nice, if not for the fact that it's so horribly designed. And of course it does not make use of touchscreen. My camera has WiFi Yet if I want my photos, I need to remove the memory card, place it in a card reader and manually copy the files to where I want them. Why can't I just press the "sync" button on the camera to offload the contents of the memory card to some cloud service that will automatically sync the collection on my PC, tablet, or whatever devices I want them on? And I have another gripe with camera companies. If you can't deliver software solutions yourself, at least create a competent API for interacting with your cameras and let actual software developers do the work. My camera still acts as if it was 19th century If I want to take a 3 minute exposure, how do you think I go about doing it? I press the shutter button and hold it for 3 minutes. Or I press the shutter once and come back after 3 minutes to press it again. Or I buy a release cable with electronic timer that can do that for me. And I ask. Why can't I just set arbitrary exposure time in my camera? It's 21st century, I can remotely control my camera with my smartphone, yet I can't do such a simple thing. So yeah, camera manufacturers are behind the technology curve in software so much, that it's not even funny.
  5. While I'm curious as to how Canon solves their "mirrorless problem", I'm not holding my breath for anything particularly interesting. My bets are that we're gonna see EOS 1200D replaced by a cheaper mirrorless model (basically something to compete with Sony A3000). I just don't see them releasing anything that could compete with A7 for example. And any mirrorless offering from Canon will need to work well with their existing lenses, since this is Canon's legacy and probably the biggest advantage. So EF mount is most likely. Canon already started a new, mirrorless mount, and that kinda looks to be abandoned (or at least not taken seriously). Frankly, EOS M is the problem for Canon. Nobody takes it seriously, and Canon got a bad rep for not being able to introduce a competent mirrorless system. Changing that perception is gonna need some work. And people seem to expect Canon will go into mirrorless with full force with something different than EOS M ("coz everyone knows it sucks"), but I don't see the point, frankly. Going mirrorless for mirrorless sake makes no sense at all. It might be a way to reduce costs and keep the low-end segment alive for a bit longer, but what else? Compete with GH4, A7S? No way, the cinema line is too precious to cannibalise (or so they might think). Compete on size, weight, mobility? Not with EF mount, and everyone knows EOS M sucks. Full frame mirrorless? Maybe, but wouldn't that just be "hey, look at us, we can make full frame mirrorless camera, too". It would have to be something more than 5D with EVF. Video might be a good reason to go mirrorless, but I bet Canon will want to protect their cinema line by castrating their mirrorless offerings. So maybe they'll get to it from the other end by introducing lower end cinema line cameras? And the idea of global electronic shutter replacing the mechanical one is interesting, but that's probably years away.
  6. :D I'm perfectly fine with being totally wrong on this one. It's just impressive, that a single video frame can be that good.
  7. This seems fun, so I finally registered on the forum (been lurking till now). A - RAW, because it looks like there's more detail (which I would expect after scaling down a 28 MP image), and CA is corrected B - video, because I doubt the camera can both record at 4K and still apply lens corrections to every frame If that were shot with a lens such as Otus, it would be harder to tell, probably impossible, without pixel peeping.
×
×
  • Create New...