tugela

​You are confusing those elements with the quality of the camera output, which is not the same thing. Most of those shots were dark scenes without a lot of detail, so you don't notice the IQ issues as much.

​A camera hasn't been properly tested until it has shot cats. Well known fact.

​That is because they are being sold almost as fast as Samsung can make them apparently.

​As long as you praise my camera and trash all the rest, you are on the right track. Otherwise you are a misguided fool

​Those sorts of conversions are usually done by hardware encoders, and if the camera processor doesn't have them it can't do it. The problem will go away when NLEs can edit H.265 natively.

​60 fps means 60 frames per second. You can't have a shutter speed faster than that, because at 1/60s the shutter is open permanently. If the shutter is open for longer than the exposure all that means is that it will close sometime during the next frame, and you don't want that. Your shutter speed always has to exceed the frame rate.

​That is maximum speed at burst. Actual speeds may be lower. If you just meet the maximum write speed on a card, chances are pretty good that you will have problems.

​In North America anything under 55 inches is in the bargain basement cheap category. The standard sizes for mid level panels is 55 - 65 inches.

Smartphones are not killing DSLR sales, they don't compete in the same market. The problem for DSLRs is that they are so good now that people don't really get significant gain from upgrading. Why bother buying a new camera when realistically you can't tell the difference from the old one by looking at the pictures? To motivate the average buyer to upgrade the next iteration in the product line has to be able to do something that the previous model could not. That is the dilemma for manufacturers because it is becoming harder and harder to do that.

​People all say this, and it might have been true years ago when the standard was 40 inches (and even then you could easily tell the difference between broadcast and BluRay), but now TV panels are much larger than that. If you have a large TV screen, and native output, 4K blows away HD. Get with the times, it isn't 2006 any more. Technology has moved on. Stop dredging up arguments that are no longer valid.

​However, this is a forum about video, so it is what we are going to talk about.

​If it has a Digic 6 processor inside a stills-centric body, it probably will not have 4k video.

​Since they are still using the Digic 6 processor, it will have HD 60p video at most. Probably it will shoot video similar to what you get from a 7D2 but without some of the more advanced codec features, in other words junk.

First camera records noticeably better video than the second one.

​You are forgetting that the footage is being watched on a monitor that refreshes at 60Hz. Something shot at 24Hz is not going to mesh well with that.

​In this clip the center of the screen is roughly at the border of those black and white stripes on his jersey. He is bobbing around slightly, so the center is metering off black or white alternately, I think that is what is causing the flickering. Just need to figure out what setting is doing it.

​ It looks like it is locking exposure of the whole image to the center point, so when you move the center over a bright spot, the entire image brightens. Something like this: The initial center exposure has a value (x), and some other point has a value (y) (varying depending on where exactly in the frame you are). Then when you move the center of the frame to a different point (the lamp for example) the center exposure is now (x + A), so the same correction is applied to the rest of the frame, which now becomes (y + A). That would create the effect you see in that clip. If some people have the problem and others not, there is probably a setting somewhere that toggles that sort of behaviour, or a combination of settings.

​I have a 1440p monitor. On my screen it looks blurry (as does all 1080 output).

​Actually, Karl Marx didn't draw up communism. He came up with a theory of social behaviour, other people applied that theory to politics and came up with communism. By the way, the "crime rate" in many totalitarian states is "close to zero" simply because they don't report it, not because it doesn't happen. That is one of the advantages for a totalitarian state - they control the message of their performance in governance.

​Dude....this is his house, you live by his rules. You are just a guest and in no position to make demands or have expectations. If you don't like what he says, then don't visit the site. Is this too obvious?

Too blurry. We have higher standards now. The C100 is a camera of the past.

Part of the reason Ivy Bridge runs hotter even though it has lower power consumption is due to a less thermally efficient packaging system used with those chips compared to Sandy Bridge. You only really need heavy cooling if you overclock your system (which you would probably be doing if you were building your own performance system).

Haswell has an approximately 5-8% increase in processing speed over Ivy Bridge IIRC. Certainly it is no where near enough to be worth upgrading to if you had Ivy Bridge (or even Sandy Bridge for that matter), but if you have a much older processor and are building a new system, it is usually a good idea to get the latest generation of processors and support chips. The price difference is minor in the grand scheme of things.

But the market is not how people used their cameras in the past, it is how they will use them in the future. And I think it is very obvious that the future is the integrated imaging system for all but high end professional cameras. Modern cameras will be expected by the average consumer to handle stills and video equally well. Companies who don't buy into that are going to find themselves restricted to the professional market, while more forward thinking competitors will own the consumer and prosumer markets.