tugela

Of course it isn't a fair comparison. A 3X zoom will have better performance than a 10X zoom. To get around that use a lens that is native to neither camera, with adapters. That would provide a control for the variables introduced by the lenses themselves and provide a more accurate comparison.

I think the problem is that you have lots of fine detail in that image and it is all moving very rapidly due to the stiff breeze. That is overloading the bandwidth and compromises happen in areas of relatively uniform color with low contrast. That ends up with macroblocking. Any camera with the resolution that the NX1 has is going to have issues with a scene like that I think. You do see that from time to time in the NX1, but I would see it in my G30 from similar shots as well, so I don't think it is a camera issue so much as a bandwidth issue.

That Leica isn't going to threaten anything other than the doorstop industry. Not really. By allowing the line to stagnate they have opened the door to competition. Shortsighted is a more accurate description. More likely because that is the equipment they have and see no reason to buy new stuff every year as technology evolves. I think professionals see cameras as tools, and for them familiarity is very important. It allows them to record an image without spending a lot of time figuring out equipment specific nuances because they already know them like the back of their hand. Keeping up with the latest technology is more the realm of enthusiasts. Those are the people who have the time to fiddle around because for them time is not money. I don't really see the choices pros make as being indicative of inherent quality, because the things that are important to them being able to do their job may have nothing to do with that. Whenever I see someone coming along and saying that oh the pros do this therefore we should too, what I see is an idiot. Just my personal opinion of course

There is no science. It is simply a case that there are more Canon cameras out there than other brands and consequently more output from them. You get conditioned through Pavlovian responses to what you commonly see and perceive that as "normal". So when another camera produces a slightly different color, you think that it is "not quite right" but you cant really say why exactly, except to use some nonsense meaningless term like "color science". It is always amusing to see Pavlov's dogs think they are making a choice when in fact the choice has been made for them

Whether the 5D4 has 4K or not depends on what processors it has inside. If it has Digic 6 processors, it will be HD video, if it has Digic 7 processors it will be 4K. Most likely it will not have the same quality as a C300M2 however, since the Digic 7 will not have the same video optimizations that the DV5 has. In other words it will be a step down from the XC10, probably with line skipping and all that entails. I believe that the 5D4 will have 4K video, but it will not be competitive with 4K from flagship hybrids made by the MILC companies. The issues for Canon I think are two fold. Firstly (IMO) the processors they have available to them are more primitive than those in Panasonic/Sony/Samsung hybrids (that is why they have 2-3 processors in their high end cameras, while the others have only one). Secondly, I suspect that all of the manufacturers have cross licensing deals going on so as to avoid IP infringement lawsuits. Those sorts of deals typically have all sorts of conditions attached in order to protect the respective party's niches. So, Canon might be able to use most of the full extent of technology in their DSLRs, but not be able to use the same stuff in their EOS-M line, which would explain why those cameras so backward from a tech point of view. They may also be limited with respect to the software implementations of video functions as well, again for IP reasons. That would explain why Magic Lantern can do things that seem obvious things to do, but Canon themselves don't. All those things combined make their flagship products good stills cameras but mediocre video cameras.

I would suggest selling it all right now while it still has resale value, and holing up in a cave for the next year. I mean, resale value is what it is all about right, using a tool to shoot your video is just a minor side benefit.

You were obviously referring to my early comment regarding what grandpa does out of context. I think that entitles me to respond. You don't like to be challenged, that is unfortunate.

On most cameras I've used that have peaking, it doesn't work that great if you use whole scene due to the way peaking works. But, with focusing magnification engaged it is pretty accurate. There is demographics with that? Of course not, as you well know. I'm guessing that it is a pretty safe bet to say that most of the Canon and Nikon buyers are older, and most of the Sony buyers are younger. Also, it is worth pointing out that the vast majority of people who buy Rebel type cameras know very little about cameras, and buy those because it is a brand they recognize, no other reason. A decade ago pretty much the only brands that a presence in the popular mind were Canon and Nikon, but that is changing now. People who buy traditional technologies tend to be older, those who buy cutting edge technologies tend to be younger. That is how it works with everything else, not sure why you think cameras are different. Brand loyalty will go the same way. Older brands will feature strongly in the older demographic, because that is what they grew up with. The younger demographic will be more brand neutral, because they have no preconceived ideas and go with what is best rather than what has the traditional logo.

You cant get peaking with an OVF. DSLRs are substandard tools if you use manual focus frequently and demand critical focus. On the NX1 DMF is a game changer when it comes to critical focus. I can't imagine ever going back to a DSLR because of that. That particular tool is incredibly useful for the sorts of photography I do. Its the new generation that don't own legacy glass and are not conditioned into product loyalty that they should be concerned about. Those folk have no incentive to stick with Canon in the face of more advanced competitors. Grandpa may always buy Canon because that's what he has always done, but the young turks have no such baggage. What Canon does (or does not) do today will have repercussions for them for decades to come, so it is not an insignificant thing.

That sounds like pretension to me. Who says the sensor comes from Panasonic? They may just have licensed software from Panasonic, it doesn't mean the sensor comes from them as well.

So why is he talking about the Leica lens being on the camera "right now" at 14:08 if the camera being used was something else?

Incorrect. The slow motion and gradeability tests are clearly being shot in daylight, in addition at 14:08 (during the daylight interview clips) he talks about adapters and a Leica lens being on the camera "right now", meaning those clips were shot with the A7S2, not the A7S. If that is what the output really looks like, and it isn't a problem with the camera operator, then I would say the camera video IQ is pretty bad. It looks more like the sort of stuff you would get from a Canon DSLR in native video mode.

"Color science" is a made up term, no one really knows what it means. It certainly has nothing to do with science. Art in the eyes of the beholder maybe, but science, no.

While looking through the EFV, (1) press "left" to exit video preview (if in it); (2) press "OK" to magnify (this will show peaking, if activated); (3) press "left" to reenter video preview mode once focus has been set. Requires some fingerwork, but not too difficult with a bit of practice since the two keys are right next each other.

I have one. It fits fine on the NX mount, but is super tight on the EF side. One of my lenses won't even lock properly on it because of the extremely tight fit. Getting stuck on the lens is easy to imagine with it, at least the one I have. The problem with those is that you have an iris outside of the appropriate position in the optical path, and that can result in viginetting and other optical issues. If the iris is in the correct place in the lens assembly it will adjust the amount of light falling on the sensor, but if it is too close it will cut off the edges of the image circle - not what you want!

{Please ignore the "quote" form NX1user - the board reply function is bugged and wont let me get rid of it for a few hours no matter who I reply to} For manual focusing enter photo mode to use peaking along with X5 or X8 magnification. If you try to use peaking in video mode you don't get magnification, you get the entire screen. And since it is using contrast boundaries at a crude level when doing that, a lot of things show up as focused when they are not. My RX100M3 has the same problem...if you want accurate manual focusing for video you have to do it in photo mode and simple start recording when you are ready (without going into video mode). The workflow is (1) shutter press to enter photo mode; (2) use X5/X8 magnification with peaking to get the lens focused; (3) enter video preview mode if you need to reformat; (4) start recording. You can skip (3) and just start recording if you know your subject is framed.

I imagine that they make far more money from things like printers and photocopiers, than from cameras.

(Excuse the bit on the top, but the scripts that run the response box for this board are seriously bugged) The EBU assessment is misleading because it overlooks the effects of debeyering. It refers to greyscale resolution only, which is different from color. An oversampled sensor will significantly outperform a nominal resolution sensor when it comes to color. That is the reason the XC10 is so soft in 4K (its lens likely doesn't help in that department either). If you want something that fully resolves at 4K you need lenses that are capable of delivering that and you need an oversampled sensor, otherwise you are going to get a lot less effective resolution. The poster you were responding to was asking about softness, and softness discussions are in the context of 4K, not HD (which no one disputes that the XC10 is capable of). Pretty much all posted clips from the XC10 are excessively soft compared to other current 4K cameras. If someone was to argue otherwise, they should post video to demonstrate that, otherwise we can only go on what is already out there, and that is all soft. Incidentally, a 3 chip system will show aliasing just as easily as any other sensor design if it is resolving edges at the pixel level. Perfect registration of the sensors is impossible however, so your effective resolution will be some number less than the pixel resolution. You can only get full HD if the sensor is significantly oversampled, and in that instance it doesn't make any difference if you have a beyer sensor or a 3 chip sensor.

So, as someone who owns the camera, you are saying that it is as sharp as a 1080p camera? Interesting, because that is what some of us have been saying all along, that it is soft and only marginally better than HD.

Are you sure that they are real cards and not counterfeits? There are a lot of those being sold. The C100 uses a lower bit rate, so if your card is bogus (a lower specced card with a high end label stuck on it) it may work fine on the C100 but not in a more demanding camera such as the RX100M2.

That is pretty much what happens when the card fails. Same thing happens with SSDs when they die. There are no warning signs, just one day it will suddenly stop working or become unusably erratic. When you see that sort of behaviour, never trust the card again, even if you can use it some times.

Whatever minimum wage is where you live. ;)

They already have the Hue in their stores, although that is made by Phillips.

Pretty much all of the camera manufacturers could put 4k60p into their cameras if they wanted to, but it would run into issues with the thermal envelope. I don't think we will see 60p in most DSLR forms until lower power processors are developed, and that may be quite a way off. You would probably see it first in manufacturers that have the ability to develop their own silicon rather than buy it from a third party. That pretty much rules Canon and Nikon out IMO (as well as the smaller manufacturers). Sony, Panasonic or Samsung would most likely be the first to do that. The sensor can be read at that speed, but the problem is processing all that data and the heat it generates. I think you will find that most sensors currently on the market in high end cameras are capable of being read at that speed. Being read and being able to use what can be read are too completely different things however.

Because the people who use it have it and have never used anything else, so they don't know what the modern cameras can do. It is sort of like someone out driving an old model T who still swears by its virtues. But for the rest of us it is just a really old car that saw its day a long time ago. For someone new coming along, the recommendation to buy the model T by these folks is just plain bad advice Color and quality looks like film shot in the 60s. Don't like that retro stuff.