tugela

They are just holding the cameras for the photographers. Sort of like surgeons and nurses....I'll have the 300mm stat! Camera company marketing departments are not stupid. They direct their adds to push the buttons of people who buy the products. You can generally get a good idea of the demographics buying any particular item from the advertising campaigns marketing them. Marketing people are not interested in social engineering, they are interested in selling and will do whatever they think it takes to achieve that.

Maybe people don't like judder?

It doesn't have that special Canon "indefinable" (= faceplate) so it is crap.

You don't understand. Until Apple does it, "Innovation" has not happened and it does not exist.

The 50-150mm S lens is better than the 16-50mm

I think that Samsung had already decided to leave the camera market when they released the NX1. It was basically a last gasp experiment that was actively marketed in only a few markets as a test. In many places even though it was "officially" released, actually finding someone who sold them was extremely hard. In Canada they issued a press release, but pretty much the only outlet that sold them was not an official distributor. The listed "official distributors" stopped selling Samsung cameras when the NX1 was released, or didn't even sell cameras in the first place. Even Samsung's own stores did not sell them, and the people who worked there had never heard about the NX1, which I found bizarre to say the least. It was pretty obvious that Samsung was not taking the NX1 seriously right from the very start. I suspect that was the case in many parts of the world. They appeared to be actively marketing in Korea and Germany, but not a whole lot elsewhere. As they say, if you don't try you can't win. Actually, they are. To get deep color accuracy you need stronger beyer filters, but that comes at the cost of ISO performance.

This is basically updating the RX10 line to the technology currently in the RX100 line, which should not be surprising. The RX line undergoes frequent iterative updates (well, not the RX1, which presumably does not sell well), and that is good since it keeps the line competitive. Sony probably sells enough of these things that they can afford to do that. I have not used a RX100M4, but own both the M3 and M5. Focusing is hugely improved in the M5 over the M3 (which focused painfully slowly and often you needed to use manual focus to get the thing to focus properly at all, especially in video). It certainly took a lot of the frustration out of using the RX100.

Personally I wouldn't update my phone until it starts chugging when trying to run apps (which will happen eventually as bloat follows the latest increases in processor speed). At that point upgrade to whatever is current. None of these phones introduce "must have" features nowdays, the product space is pretty mature IMO.

Buffer runs out at that point, so the frame rate goes down since there is no space any more. 10 seconds is a long time for a lot of stuff. Putting the camera on a tripod and triggering the sequence using your cell phone will eliminate any shake.

Fastest until the next manufacturer releases their latest and greatest. Why? Honestly, IMO the S8 is a better looking phone.

Because these do hardware encoding, so they don't need to use MJPEG. It isn't clear if they have fans or not, if they don't then the new processor family will be able to record 4K60p in most of the larger cameras they use it in. So, it will be interesting to see. Canon may have competitive hybrids soon. As I expected, these new camcorders will be smaller fixed lens siblings of the C200.

Some previews: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcesjYF0agU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Mk-kO0ylJ0 4K is 8 bit 4:2:0 up to 60 fps recorded at 150 mbps in mp4. XF to come in 2018. Dual Digic DV6 processors. On the XF versions anyway, but the XG consumer one apparently only differs by the absence of the handle. This is the same arrangement they had with the G30/XA20/25 when they came out. Touchscreen (seems similar to the one on the G30, which I have). Dual pixel AF. 5 Axis stabilization HD can record at up to 120 fps.

So there appear to be leaked screenshots of some new camcorders from Canon, as per Canon Rumors and CanonWatch. The GX10 and XF405 both do 4K. These probably have the Digic DV6 processor we saw in the C200, and can shoot 4K without a fan. That will be promising in that it means that the Digic 8 will be able to do the same thing, and when that processor gets released in new cameras, hardware encoded 4K will finally arrive in consumer Canon products. My guess is that the 7D3 and/or the next Rebel will be the first DSLRs with that functionality, but we will probably see it in a Powershot first though.

I don't need to. The fact that that they had to make a separate camera to do video should be proof enough. If you think that is otherwise, the onus of proof is on you, not me. It would have been more cost effective to simply have added the feature to their existing professional camera and expanded the market for that.

Not really. The early video efforts were aimed at people who shot video for a living, and the Cxxx series did that quite well. It did not address the consumer market needs, where a hybrid was favored, but the problem Canon had and still have is the hardware aspect of those cameras and the limitations of the technology available to them. You don't know what is inside the 1D C or how it is implemented. Those cameras were pushing the envelope of capability at the time, and they would have had dedicated hardware logic inside to make that possible. For example, the hardware controlling the focusing system in the 1D C may have been rigged up more like the 5D cameras, with third focusing processor being rerouted to handle video focusing. Something like that would make the focusing parts of the firmware radically different between the 1D X and 1D C, a simple port between the two would not be feasible in that sort of situation, even though the hardware might superficially look similar.

You don't need stabilization since a camera like this is going to be attached to something anyway. Stabilization can be done in post. Does the RX100 have real ND filters? I thought it used electronic ND. The camera is likely to be used shooting at 60 fps or higher (quality is maintained up to 240 fps), so using shutter speed to control exposure is ok in most situations. You have the option to attach filters to the lens if you need additional reduction of light.

They probably ended it because sales were too poor to justify continuing to make it. The people who might buy a camera like that were likely buying proper dedicated video cameras, so the whole concept of the 1D C was poorly thought out. Canon management probably thought that people wanted DSLRs to record video after the 5D2 experiment, and then found out that the market the 1D C was aimed at was not into that - DSLR video was primarily the domain of prosumers (amateurs and impoverished "professionals"), who could not afford the 1D C. So they ended it. As for firmware 2.0, the 1D C and X models are not the same, and have different hardware. It is not the same camera with a "C" tacked on. That would mean that separate firmware would have to be written, and if they had discontinued the model then there would be no payback for committing resources to do that. Hence no firmware. After they ended the 1D C, they started making the Cxxx cameras, which are also EOS. The 1D C was an intermediate form, an experiment, the Cxxx cameras were the true successors to DSLR video. Saying that Canon got out of the market is not true, they just took it in a different direction. And if the success of the Cxxx cameras is anything to go by, that decision was probably the right one at the time (which is not to say that it is working out for them now - it is not, since competition is turning MILC into a real alternative).

The 1D C has dual processors, the 5D3 has a single processor, so quite a bit more processing power. Maybe more, IIRC the 1D cameras have a third processor as well which is dedicated to helping with focusing. The 1D C almost certainly has additional hardware logic included specifically to help with video as well, which is what provides it with capabilities that the 1D X does not have.

Every camera with enough resolution on the sensor is capable of 4K video. What limits it is the processing requirements and interface data transfer rates. MJPEG may not be an efficient compression but it is still compression and requires processor overhead (which raw does not). So putting mjpeg into a 5D3 is not as simple as you seem to think, even if it can be hacked to record raw. Sustained operation at very high bit rates on equipment not designed for that may also reduce the service life of components within the camera, which is a huge issue if you have to cover the product with a warranty. Users may not worry about stuff like that, but manufacturers sure as hell do. One other thing that people tend to forget is that manufacturers have to sell products that deliver their specs. Dropping frames, even occasional frames, means that mode will likely not make it into the product. Whatever is included has to be reliable, and reliable in all cameras produced in that model, not just the copy you have. Otherwise you will get returns, warranty services requests and all sorts of crap that eats away any profit you make. For example, you might be able to make your car go really fast by removing all sorts of safety features and adding nitro, but no manufacturer would sell the car like that because of the liability and reliability issues that go along with doing that.

What is the dof at F0.9? 2mm?

As I said before, it is determined by the encoder in the processor. The C200 has a new processor, which is different from that in the XC10. The encoder in it is probably optimized for consumer shooting, and is intended to be used in consumer P&S/DSLR models using the Digic 8 family. The processor in the XC10 is the earlier model which is in the Digic 7 family. As we all know, the thermal envelope for that encoder was such that it could not be used in DSLRs and P&S cameras for 4K. That is why DSLRs such as the 5D4 used MJPEG to do 4K in software. The Digic 8 family has been created to address a problem, namely the market share being lost to competition who can delivery 4K video in their products. For some peculiar reason, Canon don't like losing market share in the consumer camera market to other manufacturers because of the lack of 4K video. I know, weird isn't it, but there it is. So they needed an encoder that was optimized and scaled back enough so that 4K could fit within the thermal envelope of a DSLR/P&S camera since the Digic 7 family can't do it without a fan. That will probably go into the Digic 8. A scaled down encoder that generates less heat, something that is achieved by cutting back on the codec specs. The Digic DV6 (which belongs to the same family as the Digic 8, and has the same encoder) has other goodies as well however. As the next gen DV processor it is also set up to produce RAW video, which the DV5 is not. So, because the C200 is intended to be a camera for shooting RAW, it gets the DV6 rather than the DV5. With the DV6 comes that consumer encoder built into the hardware as part of the new generation logic. So, if you are not shooting RAW, that is what you get. If you want a middle codec, then get the C300M2. But, from Canon's point of view, if you are buying a camera to shoot RAW, you probably don't give a rats ass about any codec the camera may or may not have. If you needed one of those codecs, well, there is a different camera that is more suited for your use. So, for them, the compromise was reasonable. You can't do both in one camera, because the TWO PROCESSORS ARE SET UP DIFFERENTLY AND DO DIFFERENT THINGS. It is not some plot, Canon are not out to screw their customers. They are making compromises constrained by the technology available to them to deliver usable equipment for a variety of applications and customers. They can't do everything in one product, so they do parts of it in some products and other parts on other products. That is it.

The main source of power consumption on the RX100 is likely powering the motors for the lens and the display. This RX0 does not have a zoom lens, and the lens it does have is much smaller (= lower power requirement). And during remote operation the rear display likely powers off. So you will not require as large a battery. In terms of power requirements it is closer to the small point and shoot cameras than the RX100 series, even if it has the same size sensor. F4 is OK, because unless you want a small DOF for some reason there is rarely any reason to shoot faster than that. For an action camera that needs to be small and at the same time have enough operational leeway to function without operator input, some compromises need to be made, and limiting the aperture to F4 or smaller is entirely reasonable. Otherwise your action camera would be less than small and that would defeat the whole purpose. The RX0 Mark II with the specs you seem to want is already here. It is called the RX100 Mark V.

Why do you think it has no aperture? Looks to me that it has a fixed focal length lens with a minimum aperture at F4. It looks to me like a camera that is meant to be attached to something, or work in multiple camera setups. A fixed focal length is perfectly fine for those applications. It focuses the same way as every other camera. Which should be obvious since it has both manual focus and autofocus modes. What makes you think it can't focus?

Not even the waterproof thing? Or a 1" sensor? The camera should be able to shoot normal looking footage without the wideangle distortions you usually get with things like a Gopro. According to the data page for the camera, it records HD internally at 60p with a data rate of 50 mbps. In HFR modes quality starts to fall off after 240 fps, which means that the camera can manage internal data flow rates of about 200 mbps before compromises have to be made. Apparently it is oversampling so the HD image should be pretty good. It is not a camera for everyone, but it seems pretty solid for it's intended use.

Based on the specs, most of the internal recording modes have very high frame rates. Since it is an action camera it has probably been designed for action, not for shooting cinematic productions. They do not provide any specs for video outside of HFR as far as I could tell. Presumably it can shoot at normal frame rates, and those are just missing from the spec page at the moment.