Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Camera of the year  (Read 8756 times)
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5120


« Reply #60 on: January 03, 2014, 07:17:12 PM »
ReplyReply

The entire DOF calculation ...
Barry, I suspect that this reply is futile, but I will try anyway:
I was responding to your comments about compression. Neither your claim about compression nor my rebuttals have anything to do with DOF, or with the desire of some people for portraits with very blurry backgrounds, so your entire post about DOF and portraits is irrelevant to our discussion.


(Aside: I suspect that by now almost every long-time participant in this forum knows that 35mm format achieves roughly the same compositional characteristics of angular field of view, depth of field and shutter speed as 4/3" format with twice the focal length, twice the aperture ratio (and so the same effective aperture diameter or entrance pupil diameter), and thus four times the ISO speed.
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5120


« Reply #61 on: January 03, 2014, 07:40:08 PM »
ReplyReply

Michael Johnston of The Online Photographer also chose this as his camera-of-the-year.
And with the Sony A7R as his runner up, and a nice discussion that makes it clear to me that half a dozen different cameras deserve this honor, from different photographers with different objectives and priorities:
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2013/12/

P. S. And from the sublime to the ridiculous, it was the same 1-2 of Olympus OM-D E-M1 and Sony A7R in the DPReview reader poll. The main take-away from this is the wide-spread shutout of the dominant brands (Canon and Nikon) and the dominant system camera sensor size ("APS-C") in these measures of "online new gear enthusiasm".
« Last Edit: January 03, 2014, 08:13:07 PM by BJL » Logged
Telecaster
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 763



« Reply #62 on: January 03, 2014, 09:47:57 PM »
ReplyReply

P. S. And from the sublime to the ridiculous, it was the same 1-2 of Olympus OM-D E-M1 and Sony A7R in the DPReview reader poll. The main take-away from this is the wide-spread shutout of the dominant brands (Canon and Nikon) and the dominant system camera sensor size ("APS-C") in these measures of "online new gear enthusiasm".

I suppose this has something to do with sheer novelty. I'll admit that's part of what originally attracted me to m43. A fairly new system with an expanding & developing lens lineup. But also some genuinely creative design, participation from Cosina (whose various Voigtländer lenses I like a lot), quality EVFs, accurate manual focus and auto focus that doesn't sacrifice accuracy for speed. IMO Canikon is stuck in a rut. It does a lot of things well, but the things it doesn't do well all irk the hell outta me...and it doesn't seem interested in addressing any of those things. So I take my business elsewhere.

Sony's A7r interests me for much the same set of reasons. Despite my contempt for the term "full frame," and the condescending attitude that often accompanies it, I have nothing against the 35mm format other than a lack of enthusiasm for its aspect ratio. (EVFs and in-camera aspect ratio selection to the rescue!) Most of the lenses I own were designed for this format. Most of the photos I've taken have been with cameras using this format. So Canikon wants to make it difficult or impossible for me to use their "legacy" lenses on their current cameras? Despite the fact that some of these lenses are amongst my all-time favorites? Screw 'em...I'll use someone else's cameras.

-Dave-
Logged
Manoli
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 485


« Reply #63 on: January 04, 2014, 12:38:25 AM »
ReplyReply

... and a nice discussion that makes it clear to me that half a dozen different cameras deserve this honour ...

Add to that that this 'Camera of the Year' nonsense seems to be a rolling accolade throughout the year, and you begin to understand the futility of it. Originally, TIPA adopted it, mainly as marketing ploy and spread the awards around on a fairly politically correct basis. I'm sure there has not been a year since 1991 when, if Canon won one category, Nikon won another, Panasonic another etc. etc ... you get the idea - just look at the winners for 2013.

http://www.tipa.com/english/XXIII_tipa_awards_2013.php

'Camera of the Year' is a misnomer. Change the title to 'Technical Innovation of the Year' or 'Contribution to Industry' - and then award it to Olympus for IBIS, by all means.

« Last Edit: January 04, 2014, 01:04:50 AM by Manoli » Logged
Manoli
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 485


« Reply #64 on: January 04, 2014, 12:56:02 AM »
ReplyReply

Sony's A7r interests me … I have nothing against the 35mm format other than a lack of enthusiasm for its aspect ratio. (EVFs and in-camera aspect ratio selection to the rescue!)

Dave, I also dislike and don't print in the 3:2 format, preferring the more rectangular 4x3, 5x4 aspect ratios. But the one advantage of the 3x2 format is that, if you stitch, a simple 'portrait' 2-stitch becomes 4x3. On a 36mp camera that gives you a 72mp capture.  On scenics, that can be useful.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2014, 01:05:32 AM by Manoli » Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7241


WWW
« Reply #65 on: January 04, 2014, 01:14:04 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I guess there is little doubt that in image quality the A7r is the one that wins, mostly. Mostly because of the shutter related vibration, BTW, how does OM-D E-M1 handle that?

On the other hand, there is something called good enough, and most cameras are already there. Or rather, for many applications most modern cameras may be there. Than it it plays a big role how well designed a camera is, workability. It seems from reports that OM-D E-M1 is very well designed.

I would call the A7r an enabling technology, being widely adoptable to a lot of different lenses and probably having some of the best image quality available at a very reasonable cost.

Best regards
Erik

And with the Sony A7R as his runner up, and a nice discussion that makes it clear to me that half a dozen different cameras deserve this honor, from different photographers with different objectives and priorities:
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2013/12/

P. S. And from the sublime to the ridiculous, it was the same 1-2 of Olympus OM-D E-M1 and Sony A7R in the DPReview reader poll. The main take-away from this is the wide-spread shutout of the dominant brands (Canon and Nikon) and the dominant system camera sensor size ("APS-C") in these measures of "online new gear enthusiasm".
Logged

Telecaster
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 763



« Reply #66 on: January 04, 2014, 02:28:02 PM »
ReplyReply

Dave, I also dislike and don't print in the 3:2 format, preferring the more rectangular 4x3, 5x4 aspect ratios. But the one advantage of the 3x2 format is that, if you stitch, a simple 'portrait' 2-stitch becomes 4x3. On a 36mp camera that gives you a 72mp capture. On scenics, that can be useful.

Yep! You can stack two horizontals too for a 3:4 portrait assembly. Another advantage is cropping to (or even shooting in) 16:9 for HD monitor/television display. You don't have to throw away as much data as with a 4:3 frame. I like panoramics and semi-panos...but I've always found 3:2 itself an uncomfortable shape to frame with. This is probably why I've always tended to frame top-to-bottom, not minding if the side-to-side coverage was a bit wide. When I started scanning transparencies in the 1990s it was such a pleasure to finally see what I'd had in mind framing-wise when I took so many of those photos. (I could never bring myself to wrestle with Cibachrome or other such processes.) Just a personal quirky thing, I guess.

Sony needs to add additional aspect ratio options to the A7(r). With an EVF camera, not including 4:3 and 1:1 at least is inexcusable. Maybe they're afraid of scaring off "full frame" absolutists.   Wink

-Dave-
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7241


WWW
« Reply #67 on: January 04, 2014, 03:17:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I would think I crop to subject, but what I see in the viewfinder affects my view of things. When I shoot with the Hasselblad and the primes I have compositions sometimes turn out better than the more precise ones I do on the DSLR and zooms. Perhaps limitations enhance vision? I still need to find out.

I really don't feel cameras are that important. I really enjoy shooting with my 15 year old Hasselblad. When shooting with the 'Blad' I also feel how easy it is to shoot with a modern DSLR. I never go for a walk with the Hasselblad alone, a DSLR and a pair of zooms always make company.

Best regards
Erik


Yep! You can stack two horizontals too for a 3:4 portrait assembly. Another advantage is cropping to (or even shooting in) 16:9 for HD monitor/television display. You don't have to throw away as much data as with a 4:3 frame. I like panoramics and semi-panos...but I've always found 3:2 itself an uncomfortable shape to frame with. This is probably why I've always tended to frame top-to-bottom, not minding if the side-to-side coverage was a bit wide. When I started scanning transparencies in the 1990s it was such a pleasure to finally see what I'd had in mind framing-wise when I took so many of those photos. (I could never bring myself to wrestle with Cibachrome or other such processes.) Just a personal quirky thing, I guess.

Sony needs to add additional aspect ratio options to the A7(r). With an EVF camera, not including 4:3 and 1:1 at least is inexcusable. Maybe they're afraid of scaring off "full frame" absolutists.   Wink

-Dave-
Logged

Telecaster
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 763



« Reply #68 on: January 04, 2014, 03:47:36 PM »
ReplyReply

I guess there is little doubt that in image quality the A7r is the one that wins, mostly. Mostly because of the shutter related vibration, BTW, how does OM-D E-M1 handle that?

Olympus has an "anti-shock" option that introduces a delay between the shutter closing and then re-opening to begin the exposure. Of course any mechanical movement at all is bound to induce some degree of vibration under some conditions. A good reason IMO to dispense with physical shutters (except perhaps as protective shields).

Quote
On the other hand, there is something called good enough, and most cameras are already there. Or rather, for many applications most modern cameras may be there. Then it plays a big role how well designed a camera is, workability. It seems from reports that OM-D E-M1 is very well designed.

Yes, the E-M1 is very solid and easy to operate. Ridiculously configurable, too, to the point of making your head spin while first setting it up. But once you've got it configured the way you like it mostly gets out of the way.

It can be fun and rewarding to own & use "the best." IMO there's a degree of healthy obligation involved: I feel I need to perform at my best when using a device with capabilities that exceed mine. I know my photography improved a lot when my dad started letting me use his Leica...I was kinda intimidated by it, though in a good way. OTOH the pursuit of more for its own sake eventually runs you off the rails. I can't make a print large enough to exhaust the resolving capabilities, tonal or spatial, of any electronic camera I currently use. Now I could buy a bigger printer...but what would I do with the bigger prints? Buy a bigger house to display them in? Do something absurdly egocentric and open a gallery? (I mean egocentric for me...some folks do work that warrants huge prints and gallery displays.) Uh...no.

Quote
I would call the A7r an enabling technology, being widely adoptable to a lot of different lenses and probably having some of the best image quality available at a very reasonable cost.

Yeah, I'm on the verge of giving this camera a spin. I'd get a Yashica/Contax adapter, maybe the native 55mm lens and stop there. No messing with wide M lenses or other optical experimenting. 16:9 aspect ratio only. Shoot with electronic (4k) display, not prints, in mind. Video as well as still images. Could be lotsa fun!

-Dave-
Logged
bcooter
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1052


Bang The Drum All Day


WWW
« Reply #69 on: January 05, 2014, 07:14:25 AM »
ReplyReply


Yeah, I'm on the verge of giving this camera a spin.
-Dave-




The only things that half interested me in the A7 (not the R) was it partially tethered and I like the A mount Zeiss glass I used on my FS 100 video camera.  (underscore used, past tence).

Ok, I'll admit the ability of full 35mm frame I thought  might produce a better file and a contact told me the A7 will tether,  so it  got my attention, until I tested it against the olympus em-5 then the em-1.

I can use any camera I want and honestly, except in extreme situations 15mp vs. 20 something is almost imperceptial to me. 

The Sony had possiblities, if I can leave the Canons at home.  We travel so much, every case is $150 a trip, multiply that out in a year and the camera costs start to shrink.

The things that bothered me wasn't just  the shutter noise, the area of focus coverage with the A mount lenses, the build quality (A7).  It was just the overall feel and the look of the evf.  It looked like video where the em-1 looks like film.

I can make the leap from optical finder to "digital film", polaroid to "film", camera rear lcd to " digital film", even a crappy powerbook screen to " digital film", but looking though that finder with jagged lines just was too much.

I'm not knocking anyone that uses or bought a sony, but once I put the new olympus em-1 next to the Sony the em1 is  one of those cameras that feels expensive and shoots right.

The closest I can compare it to is a Leica, but I'm sure Leicaphiles would take exception.

So I bought the em-1 and honestly love it except the damn thing doesn't tether and if any human can explain how to actually wi-fi tether  with the olympus wi-fi "system"  I owe them dinner.

I even set it up using those flaky eye-fi cards and shot a hundred frames coming in at about 12 to 15 seconds a jpeg until it just quit receiving.   Don't know why, don't know if anyone knows why, but I'll try it again if I get the time.

Honestly though if you shoot with clients you have to tether.    and when it comes to tethering only the 1ds 3 with usb, the 1dx with ethernet hooked to dpp is the most rock solid, second would be my phase backs on an older computer that takes fw 400.   The Canons and the phase are the only tethering I've done where it's solid and you can see an image on the lcd and the computer at the same time. 

Even the Leica S2 which I really want is reported to have slow tethering.   I'll test it fully but hasn't any of these companies heard of usb 3, or ethernet, or some connection that's stable.

And that's the kicker with the Olympus.  To me it's a complete professional camera, shoots a great file (though I believe the em-5 shoots a prettier file than the em-1), focuses like no camera made but you really have to wonder how much more would it have cost olympus to just make a usb connection to a computer?

Now in regards to all the noise we hear on this forum about  Canon, I've never been in love with Canon and owned about every professional still digital camera they make.   

This forum seems to want to roll them over and stick a fork in em, but before anyone does that they need to look at the complete Canon line up.

They make a professional series of cameras from video to still, shoot pretty skin tones, are the only company that has a professional still camera that shoots a 4k video file (all though it's $18,000) and has a lens line up in Canon and PL mount that combined, nobody gets close to.

I'll bet dollars to donuts that more professional photographs, still and motion  are shot with Canon than any other brand and once again keep in mind this isn't a brand that I'm in love with, I just think they're good, stable and logical cameras.

In regards to Sony, they should own the world, they know how to innovate but they do just flaky stuff that makes no sense (see fs 700 video camera). 

I just feel Sony covers so many segments that I get the feeling that they're so busy covering territory they have issues  making any one segment  really, really great, they just get close enough and move on, but that's my take.  If I'm wrong, they improve the camera, I'll take a deeper look.

But the final note is with all camera sales taking a hit I strongly suggest anyone that makes a camera that takes a 9 grand spend  in bodies and lenses needs to really give some deep thought into how to make it as best as possible, not just try to cover market share.

Olympus should also adopt this policy, because other than tethering and video, the olympus really is there.


IMO

BC
Logged

barryfitzgerald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 566


« Reply #70 on: January 05, 2014, 01:52:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Sony's mistake is trying to be the swiss army knife of the photographic world, shotgun product releases trying to hit something purely with numbers (at times)
They're also particularly bad at resolving issues with firmware, and are very poor at actually taking in user feedback and responding.

The can hit the mark, sometimes by accident, but their products never really feel quite finished and you can usually see areas where they simply got a suit to work on something, and didn't spend enough time listening to field testers (that's if they actually have field testers I wonder at times)

Regarding mirrorless and even the industry as a whole in 2014, unless there is a good upswing in sales there will be blood as they say. I personally think the entire mirror less take has been grossly over hyped, and was never going to be the runaway success some said it would. It will stick around, but it's a very very obvious mistake to try to put all users in one box and hope it meets all their needs. The idea is fine, but the reality is all the more affordable ILC models don't even have a viewfinder, many are too small for comfort and represent poor value when compared to "budget DSLR's"

As buyers in Europe and the USA have shown little interest in these products, I for one believe that the size argument doesn't cut it for many folks. Just making something smaller isn't going to sell it on it's own. If they priced these cameras at more competitive lenses to take into account reduced costs then you could at least give them a nob. Right now I suspect 70% of the thinking behind ILC's is nothing to do with users needs/wants, but purely to try to cut costs and increase margins.

But the good news is if 2014 isn't great for the industry at a whole, we might start to see price reductions even on optics. If they can't get the sales prices will have to fall, and that's good news for everyone.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2014, 01:57:14 PM by barryfitzgerald » Logged
michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4782



« Reply #71 on: January 05, 2014, 02:15:40 PM »
ReplyReply


But the good news is if 2014 isn't great for the industry at a whole, we might start to see price reductions even on optics. If they can't get the sales prices will have to fall, and that's good news for everyone.

Good news for everyone except the industry. Falling prices due to reduced demand means reduced profits, which means less new products and possibly failing companies.

Is that what "everyone" wants? I don't think so.

Also, your continuing dissing of the CSC marketplace does not recognize that in some markets they're doing just fine, thank you. And, there are some of us who think that they are great tools and prefer them over larger and heavier cameras.

Michael
Logged
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5499



WWW
« Reply #72 on: January 05, 2014, 02:23:24 PM »
ReplyReply

... If they can't get the sales prices will have to fall, and that's good news for everyone.

Is it? I wish the prices will go tenfold up, so that everyone who deliberates whether to go to movies+popcorn+soda or buy a camera would drop out and leave photography to photographers. I am getting tired of this mastardization™ of everything... leave democracy to voting.
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
ilsiu
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7


« Reply #73 on: January 05, 2014, 02:49:34 PM »
ReplyReply

It seems to me that all mirrorless systems are remarkably overpriced.  Given that a mirrorless camera does away with all the complicated mechanical parts of SLR viewing and focusing, what you have a basically a large sensor compact with a lens mount.  It ought to be cheaper than similarly featured SLRs.   We ought to be able to get mirrorless cameras at every level from budget to pro that offer better value than DSLRs but the opposite is the case.  In every market segment, those complex, hand assembled obsolete DLRs cost less and provide higher specs. For example, name me the mirrorless body currently available that offers a 24MP sensor for under £300 like the D3200 does... Ah, yes, um,er.  Mirrorless manufacturers haven't taken advantage of the cost savings from dumping the mirror to lower the cost of entry for the buyer, they've tried to have their cake and eat it: sell you less for more... a lot more.



I don't think mFT as a whole is overpriced (at least in the US, where mirrorless is not very popular).  While it's true that there are no 24MP mFT (there is a 24MP APSC mirrorless - the NEX7), there are several 16MP options that are pretty competitive to their 16MP DSLR counterparts that are still in production. 

Here's a list of the Olympus 16MP models (current B&H prices, USD):
PM2: 369
PM2: 399 (w/14-42 F3.5-5.6 kit lens)
PL5: 599
P5: 999
EM5: 999
EM1: 1399

and here's a list of Nikon 16MP DX models:
D3100: 430 (only sold w/18-55 F3.5-5.6 kit lens)
D5100: 549 (only sold w/18-55 F3.5-5.6 kit lens)
D7000: 699
D300S: 1697 (12MP)

and here's a list of the current Nikon 24MP DX models:
D3200: 527 (only sold w/18-55 F3.5-5.6 kit lens)
D5200: 647
D7100: 1147

I'd say that the lower tier Olympus offerings actually cost less than their Nikon 16MP and 24MP counterparts.  The EM5 was also price competitive with the D7000 before it's price fell (used to be 999) with the introduction of the D7100.  And although mFT should have a cost savings for fewer mechanical parts, there is always a premium for compactness/portability (consider prices of ultrabooks vs similarly configured laptops).

It seems that everyone gets fixated on the high price of the EM1 and compares it to an entry level DSLR, but never considers that there are entry level mFT bodies as well.  And if someone is wondering why the 16MP EM1 is more expensive than the 24MP D7100, then they should also wonder why the 12MP D300S is even more expensive.
Logged
Telecaster
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 763



« Reply #74 on: January 05, 2014, 02:53:55 PM »
ReplyReply

BC, I hear ya. I wouldn't disagree with calling the E-M1 "Leica-like" in build & feel. Use one for awhile and it makes sense why it costs what it does. The Sony is a mid-level camera housing a high-end sensor. The E-M1 is a high-end camera housing a smaller, less expensive sensor. With technology most cost gains come from miniaturization. You can make the photosites and supporting components on a 24x36mm sensor smaller but the sensor size itself is fixed. (I'll skip the gory fabrication/yield details.) Thus to make a relatively affordable 135 format camera you've gotta reduce costs elsewhere.

I also agree re. Canon. Best SLR AF system I've used, most refined out-of-camera tonality. Some lovely lenses, others just okay. I never got along well with the cameras feel-wise, though (aside from the AE-1...a different beast from a different era).

Eye-Fi cards are as much PITA as useful. For me, as a glorified happy snapper, it's not so much an issue. I use one in my Pentax to transfer downsampled JPEGs to my iPad. It works except when it doesn't.   Wink

I intend to use the Sony in a way likely to make the sharpness crowd cringe. No tripod, no 400% on-screen scrutiny. 16:9 HD aspect ratio. 30mp downsampled...screen display/TV presentation only. If the JPEG engine is up to it I might not even bother using the RAWs. The aim is to use my favorite SLR lenses, the Y/C Zeisses. Not even the faster ones, aside from the 50mm, but the compact f/2.8s and 3.5s. The camera is merely a platform for the lenses, one that lets them provide the horizontal FOV they were designed for. If it turns out to be too quirky in use I'll just move it on. We shall see...

As an aside, once 4k display matures my printer is history.

-Dave-
Logged
trichardlin
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 48


« Reply #75 on: January 06, 2014, 11:45:39 PM »
ReplyReply

...And although mFT should have a cost savings for fewer mechanical parts, there is always a premium for compactness/portability (consider prices of ultrabooks vs similarly configured laptops)...

Don't forget many M43/mFT cameras have electronic view finders, an expensive part.
Logged
peterottaway
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 57


« Reply #76 on: January 07, 2014, 01:15:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Actually I think that EVF will be cheaper than a genuine pentaprism OVF in both production and installation. The pentamirror is probably a lot cheaper and it shows.
Logged
barryfitzgerald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 566


« Reply #77 on: January 07, 2014, 05:58:45 AM »
ReplyReply

Actually I think that EVF will be cheaper than a genuine pentaprism OVF in both production and installation. The pentamirror is probably a lot cheaper and it shows.

Probably correct, but then that doesn't explain why Sony's A99 was priced so high other than profit gouging.
Most of the lower end ILC models have no viewfinder at all, thus should in theory be somewhat cheaper than their more complicated to make DSLR rivals, yet this is not reflected in the retail price.

There is no room for sentimentality in this market, I'm not dissing the ILC concept either, I'm just asking why it's not taken off in many regions (ie USA/Europe), why I'm seeing lots of blowout deals on Panasonic G's and Nikon 1's being discounted to silly prices to move stock. One reason I think might be price, one might be size (some like bigger not smaller) and I think we all know there are too many wolves chasing an ever decreasing pile of meat, ie the market is getting smaller with too many makers.

I suspect camera makers would be happy to make a profit in the coming years v a loss. Most know that it's likely some makers will pack up entirely. So yes there will be changes, like it or not the market has evolved and the boom times are over.
Logged
bcooter
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1052


Bang The Drum All Day


WWW
« Reply #78 on: January 07, 2014, 08:30:52 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm just asking why it's not taken off in many regions (ie USA/Europe), why I'm seeing lots of blowout deals on Panasonic G's and Nikon 1's being discounted to silly prices to move stock. One reason I think might be price, one might be size (some like bigger not smaller) and I think we all know there are too many wolves chasing an ever decreasing pile of meat, ie the market is getting smaller with too many makers.

I suspect camera makers would be happy to make a profit in the coming years v a loss.

I work professionally so since I'm a hammer the world's a nail, but it seems to me that since the dawn of digital capture the process has been to lay out incremental upgrades every 18 months or so.

I can run the list from the Canon 1dc ($18,000) to the Sony A7 that are either rushed to market too soon, or purposely hobbled to move you to the next version.

Panasonic just announced a gh 4k still and video camera that will have sdi out and two xlr inputs.  It won't be perfect (though video autofocus on the panasonic gh3's is pretty amazing) and I'm sure the gh4 will be limited on frame rates at different resolutions, so it won't replace a RED or an Arri but even for professional work, it will get damn close.

But think about Olympus which has amazing stabilization that is perfect for motion imagery, but a weak video codec and limited sound pre amps and connections, so it's really not a cross media camera.

Same with the Sony A7.  Better connectors, xlr inputs, but no in camera stabilization and also a weak codec, with a kind of a work around in tethering for stills.

I don't doubt for a moment that there won't soon be an A8 that has better autofocus and maybe a 422 codec, but knowing Sony, they'll still hobble it in some way so not to break into their other segments and that's where the camera industry seems to have problems.

Take the olympus, panasonic, sony, heck any camera and why not add modules (though not the Sony $6,000 fs700 4kmodules), but in place of the right angle grip add 4k, or a prorezz recorder, and xlr inputs.

Why not a removeable finder that changes the focusing style, from fast stills to smooth motion?  I could go on, but a camera system that encourages you to invest, knowing the system will not be obsolete in less than 2 years.

In the professional world there is a change that is already with us, shooting combination still and motion projects.   Photographers like me who have added and moved to motion had to spend 6 figures to get to professional 4k, with lens sets, monitors, etc. etc., and to this day only one camera I work with (the gh3) is the only real usable still and motion camera that shoots with any quality.

I can see that a company like olympus is fighting costs and a $5,000 omd would be a tough sell for the average public, but for me, if they added modules I'd happily pay 5 grand or more to get what I need given that two cameras, one large lens set would save me the costs of the camera bodies in a year just in baggage overage and transportation fees.

I've participated in the digital revolution since almost the start and I've come to the conclusion to stop worrying about it, because when you read the specs of a new camera, there is always that blank space.

All I know is sony lost my purchase with weak video and no touch screen autofocus.    Olympus only got my money because they make such a good little camera, but had I not already invested in the gh3's, I never would have looked at the olympus.

Oh and btw: since we're talking about camera of the year the omd em-1 everyone should try the vf 4 finder.  It really makes the omd em-1 a waist level camera and allows for great focus and shooting angles.

It also works on the em-5 with an upgrade.

The only downside is you lose the hotshoe, but hey maybe in the next version?

IMO

BC
Logged

BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5120


« Reply #79 on: January 07, 2014, 09:11:10 AM »
ReplyReply

A few comments about the pricing of compact system cameras, and comparisons to Canon/Nikon DSLR pricing:

1) Some of the entry level CSCs with no EVFs are priced below DSLRs; it is the higher level, lower volume, models with EVFs that are "not inexpensive".

2) Pricing depends on far more than component costs; indeed factory door component costs are often only about half or less of the retail price. Other cost factors relate to economies of scale and how much new R&D expense has to be defrayed. So of course the long-established, high volume, consumer level DSLR lines from Canon and Nikon have a cost advantage --- at least for now.

3) In a competitive market (rather than a centrally controlled command economy or some other economic fantasy world), prices are set on the basis of what is expected to produce the most profitable balance of unit margins and volume, not something like a fixed percentage markup over unit cost. Cutting prices to increase sales volume is _not_ always a profitable business move, despite this being by far the most common advice I see given to camera makers in internet forums!

4) With most camera makers struggling to break even, let alone make big profits, it is absurd to accuse them of "gouging"!
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad