tugela

Almost all modern Nikon lenses will outresolve the 4K Nikon cameras shoot, so don't worry about the lens resolution.

Make compelling content for youtube and make it often enough to generate sustainable income. Depending on people to pay you individually for specific content without some sort of marketing service doing the selling for you is not going to fly.

Even pros carried small pocketable cameras when not working, so nothing has changed in that respect. All that has happened is those small pocketable cameras can now be used as cell phones. That is what has really happened, not the other way around. People like to say that cell phones have taken over the camera market, but you could equally well say the reverse, that cameras have taken over the cell phone market. Just because the cameras in question are being made by companies other than the traditional manufacturers does not make it less true. This is the problem when people put blinkers on, they get so stuck in conventional wisdom that they don't see what is really going on. In reality not a whole lot has changed, except that many more people take pictures now than in the old days, and to those who wear blinkers it seems to them that demographics have changed and/or that something has been "lost", when nothing is further from the truth.

The people who use cell phones today previously used small compacts to take pictures, that has nothing to do with higher end cameras, which are largely unaffected by cellphones. What does affect higher end cameras however is the overall maturation of camera ability. Cameras today are for the most part close to optimal performance, so new iterations offer minimal improvement over models a few years old. As a result the replacement cycle has become (and is becoming even more so) longer. Longer replacement cycles = fewer annual sales = harder for retailers to make net revenue selling them = placing cameras in less optimal locations or shuttering the operation altogether. As the trend continues the chilling effect on sales will become deeper and deeper. Computers are in much the same boat. With every generation the improvements are less and less compelling, which means the effective life of the hardware you own is extended.

Not if you stick a telecompressor between the lens and the smaller sensor, then the smaller sensor receives exactly the same amount of light as the larger sensor would with the same lens.

Do you? Apparently not.

Not in Vancouver....the Best Buys here you are lucky to find the latest model of ANY high end camera. Even the a7 models they have on display are the original generation. It takes them ages to get current models on the floor, even with many consumer cameras.

If something was warping space so that it was inbetween reality it would not be visible since it would occupy effectively an infinitesimal point in real space. If it did occupy real space and worked by forcing matter that existed already apart, the extreme pressures generated outside the object as it did so would result in a fireball and sonic boom in the sorts of velocities commonly shown in extreme UFO video. So whatever is shown in those videos, they are not "warping space". You might be able to get away with that in a vacuum with minimal consequences, but in a planetary atmosphere there absolutely would be consequences. Videos of objects apparently at some far distance showing extreme movement are fake. They are actually much closer and much smaller than that, but are presented as something else. Alternatively, you could get the same apparent behavior by projecting a narrow beam of light on to some sort of reflective surface to fool people who otherwise might think it was a real object at distance. And then there is the logical question, what would be the point of a "craft" making maneuvers like that in the first place? It would serve no purpose and would require extreme engineering that otherwise is not required.

Most of those "UFOs" feature movement that is not going to happen physically due to the tremendous forces involved. If there really were extraterrestrials they would be subject to the same limitations as us and there is no reason to fly with such extreme movement changes in any case. The rest of your musing are nonsense. Even if there was some special technology to protect the occupants from the consequences of such extreme maneuvers, the effects outside due to displacement would still be there.

It doesn't matter how big the sensor is, the amount of light received will be determined by the lens arrangement in front of the sensor. If you stick a speedbooster inbetween a crop sensor and a FF lens for example, both crop and FF sensors will receive the same amount of light even though the sensor sizes are different.

Chances are the store won't have any in stock and not on the display shelves if they do. Best buy tend to sell older models mostly (at least the stores around where I live).

That was taken on the first week I had the camera, and was shot handheld because I just happened to be passing and thought it was interesting. The lighting was what it was. It is not a house btw, it is an office block. The video is also YouTubed after transcoding, not native video. There was no editing other than stitching, so correction for lighting. The original footage is much better than that. Video after the hack is even better. None of my HD cameras come even vaguely close, including all of the Canons I have. As soon as you show any of that stuff on a big screen 4K TV the differences become pretty obvious. The videos I posted on Youtube were for specific people to see for specific reasons. None of them have been taken down by me. So you were flat out lying.

I suggest going to Best Buy and look at what is being sold in the 60-65" range (the current goto screen size for average buyers). Pretty much all models in that segment are 4K, except for a few old open boxes and refurbished sets. And the reason they are all 4K is because that is what is selling, not the HD sets. To see significant HD sales you need to go down to the old standard size (40"). For those sets there are still a lot of HD models, but that size is being replaced by the larger screens as best affordable option to average buyers. Looking at what happened in 2016 is misleading, because the market is currently in the process of change. When people with disposable income go out to buy a new set they are going to be mostly looking at something better than the old set they already have (which would be 32-40"). That "better" will be a larger screen, which is where the $2k sweet spot currently is, namely 60-65". Those are all 4K. So, when you start looking at the 2018 numbers for example, you are going to see a very different sales profile compared to even a few years back.

I don't recall you ever coming around to my house. And what has been removed? Or you making stuff up again?

Lots of people have Netflix, and there is plenty of content there in 4K. Most mid to high end TVs currently being sold are 4K sets. Whenever someone needs to replace their current TV, or are in the market to get a new set, they will very likely buy a 4K set. Which, coincidently, also happens to be the right resolution to display any home video they might shoot, which again will probably be 4K (because that is what most mid to high end cell phones and cameras shoot). So there is convergence of what is being shot and the display devices for what is being shot. Also, don't underestimate viewing devices. Most of the high volume "common man" viewing devices are cell phones, and for the most part those are already higher resolution than HD. If someone has a camera that shoots 4K, and also has a TV that shows 4K, why the hell would they decide to shoot HD instead, just because you think it looks "good enough"? Get real dude. Most people with modern cell phones already have 4K cameras. What do you think they are shooting with those cameras? It is already happening The reason Canon don't have 4K on their consumer cameras is because the processors they have can't shoot it without using codecs that require very high bit rates. Consumer cameras need to record to media that consumers would be willing to buy, and that is SD. Hence no 4K. That is not going to change until such time as Canon gets processors that are thermally efficient enough to record to consumer media. They are not making some kind of strategic choice because everyone "wants HD only", they are FORCED to do it because of the limitations of the technology available to them.

Why would someone need to flush $120 down the toilet after buying a new keyboard? I use a Corsair K95 Platinum, which I am pretty sure kicks the crap out of any keyboard Apple makes.

No. I am a research scientist. The chance of a robot taking my job is roughly zero.

How do you know that no one else really cared? You are assuming that those in awe are camera geeks because they were in awe. Maybe they are not. When I first got my 4K TV set and had friends come around, and showed them stuff I had shot on my NX1 which I already had at the time, they were all going "OMG! It is so clear!" without exception. This idea that ordinary people don't care about 4K is BS. They main reason they "don't care" is because they have not really been exposed to it in a normal home situation. And those are the sorts of people who don't spend any time at all looking at store displays of TVs either (until they need to buy a new one for some reason), so they really don't know for the most part. What bugs me the most about forums like this is certain individuals conflating that ignorance with indifference. They are not the same things. Canon relies on indifference, but the level of ignorance is slowly changing and when that happens the hammer is going to come down hard on them.

A bunch of old guys who like film because that is what they grew up with. Just like most old people who are not comfortable with the modern world "it was better in the old days". That is what I see. And I am saying that as someone who is approaching 60 himself. Until that generation dies off we are going to be stuck with this outdated paradigm. And even after they are dead, the wannabe acolytes of these guys will still be pushing the last century as the way to go for some time to come. But eventually digital will leave them in the dust. People like that group around the table hold us back. Don't know about Panasonic, but Sony's camera division makes money, considering that Sonys are among the top three you see people carrying around. I'm pretty sure that Canon has lots of lemon cameras in terms of revenue. Most of their profit comes from divisions outside of cameras. I imagine that most of Canon's profit in the camera market comes from the pro cameras, with the lower end products not being competitive or losing money. Which would explain why they put relatively little investment in tech on those products, and why the specs on them are always behind the competition. The profit in those markets is being made by other companies.

I doubt that too many people are going to be shooting video with this thing.

The HDR footage in the side by side non-HDR/HDR footage posted by Canon on YouTube shows horrible blotching. They are going to need to patch that I think, or the HDR mode will be of minimal use. The 6D2 is not weather sealed. It is intended to appeal to people who want to look like they have a 5D4, but can't afford one, and are willing to give up the bells and whistles for that appearance. A lot of pro photographers shoot video as well as stills, so this camera will be a fail for them. Not that any pro would choose a 6D over a 5D anyway, it is pretty much a camera for amateurs. The Sony engineers developing the a7III series must be high fiving over the champers bottles right now!! Just doesn't cut it.

The higher bit rates do seem to help with macroblocking, especially in portions of images trailing objects in motion where you would typically see image breakup with the native bit rates.. It doesn't remove all of it of course, but the more bandwidth you have the better it should be since fewer compromises have to be made to fit the image into the available data.

No, it will be using SD slots apparently, and those won't be able to handle the bandwidth required for the software implementation used in the 5D4. The 6D2 will apparently use the digic 7 processor, which should have a 4K encoder on board, but without a fan to cool it it would get too hot. So no 4K hardware encoding either. There is no 4K in the 6D2 because the hardware in the camera can't cope with the demands necessary to implement it.

H.264 would be using dedicate processor logic, but the RAW encoding would just be using the generic computational ability of the processor. RAW (and anything similar, such as MJPEG) are implemented through software. Efficient compression formats, such as H.264 and H.265, are implemented using hardware encoders, and once you have those you are pretty much limited to whatever the encoder is set up to handle. The "middle" codecs would have to use the dedicate encoder in the processor, and if that has been optimized for thermal efficiency so it can be used in product applications such as consumer cameras, then the processor would not necessarily have the hardware inside to do what the DV5 cameras can do. That can't be corrected by firmware, either the encoder can do it or it can't. If the DV6 had the same encoder inside as the DV5, then those middle codecs would already be in the camera spec and you would not need to wait for anything - they would be there from the start. The fact that they are not implies that the encoder is different and suggests that it has been designed primarily for consumer applications. But, the computational power of the DV6 enables RAW recording, and that is likely the reason they used them rather than the DV5s, event though it results in the loss of the middle codecs. From Canon's point of view that would be convenient since it would allow legitimate product differentiation that is based on the hardware compromises made, not as a result of some arbitrary "crippling". In that scenario the C500, C300, C200 and C100 families would each have their own niche based on the type of footage they are capable of producing. So, depending on what exactly your needs were, you would select one camera or the other. All of that means while they might be able to implement higher bit rates later on, you are probably not going to get H.264 encoded 10 bit 4:2:2.

They still make memory for oem users, they are just not going to bother with the retail market any more. Probably the margins are too small to be worth while.