tugela

Not necessarily. There is more to hardware than just the processor. There is the sensor as well as the circuits interfacing it with the processor. Canon have a tendency of "fixing" issues like this in consumer lines through next years model (which would be the XC15), so don't hold your breath.

The Digic DV5 is the same family as the Digic 7. The Digic 5+ is the same family as the Digic DV3. The processors used in stills cameras are not exactly the same as those used in the video camera, and they don't follow the same numbering convention. The XC15 uses the same processor as the XC10.

I prefer the screens on cameras like the NK1 and the a7 series, because usually when using an articulated screen I want to hold it at waist level for improved stability, then look down at the screen to monitor what is on screen. With the full articulated design that Panasonic uses this forces you to have the screen sticking out to the side, which is awkward. I can see that if you were doing selfies the screen on the GH4 would be better, but for most other things the flip up/down type is superior IMO.

I believe the M5 shoots MP4 at35 mbps, in other words the same format that is used in their consumer camcorders.

The quality is pretty bad though.

"a lot of the chatter consists of posts from people who... don't even own the camera" is corporate double speak for "we are not going to do a damned thing about it" When a CR responds like that, it is not promising.

My copy crashed in the first 10 minutes I used it, while applying curves to some footage, lol. It seemed to be OK after that though. H.265 seems somewhat smoother now.

Like I said, don't use the body stabilization when panning. Basically what it means is that it is really effective at stabilizing a shot. Unless the camera has sophisticated algorithms for predicting intended movement as opposed to unintended movement, any camera with IBIS is going to do this. It is the nature of the beast. The image stabilization in these cameras are designed primarily for stills, which means that it may not be that useful for video. So. just turn it off if you want to pan. If you don't want to pan then it is probably going to provide a really steady platform for video. If your style is to shoot a lot of panned shots, then this camera is not for you. If you don't shoot panned shots then it is probably going to have one of the best stabilization systems around.

so, basically you are complaining that the camera is too effective at stabilizing the image? Because that is what is causing that jerking motion on panning. If it is reduced, so will the overall effectiveness of stabilization. You can choose a solid image without panning, or a wobbly image that can be panned. Which is more important? The camera does not know the difference between motion you intend and motion you don't intend. I guess you could always turn the stabilization off.

Hmm...I wonder if it is not fully clearing the sensor pixels after each exposure, so partial data from the previous exposure is still there. Something like that would be a hardware problem.

Their profits were down, apparently due to strengthening of the yen according to them. That means that they have to increase prices outside of Japan to get profits back up again.

Different sensor sizes will give different looking images no matter what framing you use because of parallax changes. Parallax will be in direct proportion to how far you are from your subject and independent of things like aperture. It would also be affected by the size of your front objective as well. The effect will be more obvious with an object closer to you than one that is further away. So there would not be a big difference if you were shooting landscapes, but there would be a significant difference if shooting portraits, for example.

They don't have short life cycles. A product cycle is not a life cycle. I have 9 cameras of various ages. They all work fine, if I chose to use them. But right now the only ones that see use are my NX1, P900 and RX100M3. NX1 for most photography/video, P900 for long range stills (video on it is crap), and the RX100M3 as a travel camera (I will likely replace it with a RX100M5 next year in March). Based on what has been announced so far, and what might be anticipated in 2017, I don't see the need to replace the other two in the foreseeable future

Samsung's camera's did not fail because their products were lacking at the end, they failed because of poor marketing, no other reason. If a company makes no effort to sell their products, they are not going to sell a whole lot no matter how good they are. To be accurate, Samsung failed because management chose to market the cameras in the same way that they marketed their cell phones, not understanding that it can't be done that way. If Samsung had remained in the business and continued developing their camera line they would have remained at the leading edge and sooner or later that fact would have had an impact on the market. The market for cameras going forward is going to be largely in the consumer ICL and high end fixed lens models. Low end products will become obsolete as they are replaced by cell phones. This is where the bulk of camera revenue is going to come from. Mom and pop photographing their kids/holidays etc and wanting better quality than what a cell phone can produce. And recording video at the same time. These are the people who are going to be wowed by the footage that hybrids can produce. And no, they don't give a shit about 10 bit 4:2:2 and all those other things you guys salivate over. But they do understand why they want 4K when they see it. Any manufacturer who does not get this is going to fail in this critical sector of the market, where most of the revenue from cameras is going to come from. Right now Canon and Nikon are falling way behind. Their cameras are physically too big for this market segment and they underspecced compared to the competing mirrorless brands. Sure, they sell a lot of product right now, but this is entirely due to brand recognition. That won't last forever. We see this even now, as companies like Sony continue to ship more product, while the likes of Canon see reduction. At some point the market is going to encounter a break point, when that brand recognition advantage, the common perception of inherent quality, is going to shift to the likes of Sony, and when that happens you are going to see Canon, and especially Nikon, vanish almost overnight in this segment. And this WILL happen, unless the senior management at both companies develop vision and can come to understand where the market is heading. It is quite clear: in the consumer market (which is where the revenue is) the hybrid is going to be king, while specialist still or video cameras will be purely the domain of professionals.

The point is the fact that BM were able to do it at all means that it is doable, and you would expect a large specialist company like Nikon to be more capable. But apparently they are not. We know that they have the technical expertise, which means the lacking element is in the decision making process, specifically in senior management who call the shots.

All products from large companies, especially complex products like cameras, are designed by committee. It is more likely that someone senior in the company and in a decision making position has an archaic conservative view of the imaging world, and that is why they have so much trouble keeping up with the way the market is going. Canon have the same problem, while most of the other camera companies appear to have more progressive leadership. But an "on" button will confuse stills photographers, it is too much for them to grasp conceptually! Consequently you can't have such a button or their heads will explode. Of course it is bullshit. It is marketing spin to explain away their inability to produce a competitive product. To hide that fact they cripple the functionality. It is better to have a crippled implementation than a "best effort" implementation that clearly falls short of competitors performance. Their approach is "if you can't win the race then don't run in the race", and they blow it off by saying that the race is not important and that people "don't want them to run in it". It is better to appear bloody minded than it is to appear inadequate. That is what IBM said. And where are they now? If Black Magic could do it, a small operation on the far side of the world, you would think that a large company like Nikon could as well. Their inability to do it is purely a senior management issue.

Unfortunately that is what they tend to do with products that have rapid turnover cycles. The issue is fixed, but only in next year's camera.

It can't have anything to do with autofocus. The doubled image is the result of two exposures in the same frame. So it has to be something that the camera is doing to combine different frames. Since it is apparently ISO related I would guess that they are combining data from adjacent frames to "bump" up apparent sensitivity. That would work for a static image, but anything that moved between frames would appear doubled, hence your ghosting.

The only way to get that effect is to have a composite of multiple exposures, so it has to be something like that. This is digital media, not analog. There can't be ghosting unless the frame is a composite. Interpolation can happen if the camera has a native frame rate and everything else is generated from that. The early HD models from Canon operated in that way, for example. The footage was shot at 60 fps as interleaved frames. All other frame rates and modes were resynthesized from that native shooting mode. If the HDMI output is 60i, it just makes me wonder if the camera's native mode is like that as well. If that is the case, then the resynthesized image recorded internally may have that ghosting effect as a result.

It looks like it is doing multiple exposures on each frame. Are you sure you don't have a setting somewhere activated which might do that? These in camera HDR modes some cameras have might generate an effect like that I would think, if the XC10 has that capability. Any HDR mode would be bad if there is significant motion in the shot. Maybe something like the camera is recording natively at 60 fps, but regenerating it at some different frame rate by trying to combine frames?

jpegs from the RX100 are 24 bit.

what perks does HD raw (with 1/4 the data of the 4K image) have over 1/3rd compressed 4K from jpegs? the Jpegs have more data. There is more information in them, compression or no compression.

So, more frames if just jpeg then? 20 mpixel frames at ~8 MB each with 24 bits is still better than HD raw, compression or not.

If it is actual 20 mpixel images in fine jpeg at 24 fps, that is better than bmmcc raw is it not?

It is disabled on the CPU die. You can't see it. The design of the processors is exactly the same, but not everything on the chips is working. All of the bits are there, they are just not all available to the CPU during operation. All processor families are like this. All of the components are there on the chip, but in some of them various parts are disabled. For example, the CPU in my laptop is a dual core i7. It is exactly the same design as a desktop i7, but two of the cores are disabled on the chip itself so that it stays within the laptop's thermal envelope during normal operation. If all 4 cores were operating it would fry in the compact form factor of the laptop if you ran a multi-thread app. You can get 4 core versions, but those have their clock speeds fixed at lower specs. The two core processor handles single thread apps very well because it runs at a high clock rate, but multi thread apps struggle. The reason for doing that is to force constraints on the CPU so that it will fit within a particular thermal envelope. Otherwise the processor would just heat up and fail. The NX500 has a much tighter thermal envelope than the NX1, so they can't have the processor operating at the same rate. To ensure that it does not, some parts of the processor in the Vs are disabled on chip. That is why Samsung used the V in the NX1 and the Vs in the NX500. Same chip die, but not everything is working in the junior version. As I said before, all the major CPU/GPU manufacturers do this. Within a particular generation of chip, they all have the same design, but various things on the chip are locked out so that the individual members of the family can fit different machine specs for different applications. Computation is not just encoding. The same hardware encoder is used in both chips, so obviously the actual encoding would happen at the same rate. The limitation is in other parts of processing, such as debeyering, downsizing, noise reduction, etc. The more limited capabilities of the Vs means that it can't handle as much data as the V, and that is why you have the crop.