tugela

For the money you will need to spend you will probably be better off getting something like the GH5 or one of the true hybrid systems (of which there are quite a few in both the ILC and fixed lens camps).

The main problem Nikon have (one that is shared by Canon and a few of the other minor players) is that they do not have access to state of the art processors like Sony and Panasonic do. As a result they will not be able to compete effectively when it comes to cutting edge mirrorless designs. They have to rely on older technology used in DSLR systems to have advanced products, and those are pretty mature where game changer improvements are unlikely.

Sony and Panasonic have the basic tools at their disposal that allows them to take big steps forward with every iteration, whereas the tool set available to Nikon only allows them to take small steps forward. At some point those small steps are going to leave them so far behind that people will abandon the mark and move to something else, and that something else will very likely have the word "Sony" or "Panasonic" on the faceplate.

In the long run Nikon may end up being a lens manufacturer, but even there they face stiff competition from more forward thinking companies.

On ‎2017‎-‎02‎-‎23 at 4:33 AM, Andrew Reid said:

It's definitely possible, so where is it?

Read the full post here

I doubt that these are much faster than cards such as Lexar's 2000x cards (which have sustained writes speeds of 260 MB/s), and those have been around since 2014.

From my reading of their marketing materials the "improved" speed appears to relate primarily to burst data writes, not sustained data writes. It is apparently accomplished by jiggering around with algorithms involved in the write process. So they may not be all that different from cards already on the market when it comes to video. The main advantage is probably going to be a slightly improved write rate when shooting burst stills.

On ‎2017‎-‎02‎-‎23 at 1:28 PM, Phil A said:

Raw is probably easier for the camera than H.264 when it comes to heat. For raw the bottle neck is just how quick you can write it to the card, for compressed formats you need a processor that hardware decodes. I'm quite sure a faster memory interface uses less power (and therefore generates less heat) than the hardware decoder.

That would be correct. Raw footage should not generate much heat at all, since the heat is coming from the processor. If there is only a minimal amount of processing going on, you wont get a lot of heat. This is why Canon DSLRs use the mjpeg codec rather than H.264 for 4K output btw. Canon would like to use H.264 for 4K in the DSLRs, but their processors would melt if they tried, so they have to use a less stressful and simpler codec, such as mjpeg for it too be feasible.

The main bottleneck for RAW is going to be how fast the camera can write the data.

At some point better cameras will come along and then people will lose interest in the NX1. 2017 might be that year, the GH5 looks promising and with the a7 mark 3 family due to come this year, the NX1 will finally be eclipsed.

I don't think Canon or Nikon will bring anything better, and most of the other manufacturers are not really in the game. It will be Panasonic and/or Sony - those are the two big players right now.

2 hours ago, Parker said:

Personally, I can't stand OS X. I've never understood why most creatives seem to prefer it as an operating system. Why?! Granted, I grew up using Windows and worked in IT for a couple years, so I'd venture to guess I'm probably more of a power-user than the average, everyday person, but still, just in things like ease-of-use, customization, more advanced program management and multi-tasking, I'd take windows every time, hands down. In fact, the only reason I can possibly think of using an apple computer or their OS -- ever -- is if you're a fcpx user, since hackintosh is such a pain to get reliably running. 

Maybe there is some special secret to loving OS X, but if there is, I certainly haven't discovered it yet. 

 

I think the reason has more to do with psychology than anything else. A long time ago Mac products really were more advanced, while windows products were cheap but basic. So pros used the Apple products, and it became a mark of quality for them. If you used a Windows machine in their eyes it meant that you were not professional.

But now things have changed. Windows products are still cheaper, but they are far from basic and in many respects are superior to the Apple products. Plus they have built up a massive user/application base from the days when they were readily obtainable for the masses. To survive Apple have had to adapt to live in the Windows universe, not the other way around. But that old bias still remains. To prove that you are a "pro" to your peers you have to differentiate yourself from the common people, and that means that you use the exclusive expensive product rather than the cheaper mass produced one. It ceases to be a matter of objectivity and becomes a matter of faith, even when faced with pretty undeniable evidence that things are not what they once were.

8 hours ago, jonpais said:

That and the mystery why I can no longer watch videos on YouTube in 4K with Safari. But I don't have a 4K monitor anyway. Correction: I know why, how long till Apple fixes it?

Apple knows what is good for you better than you do. They probably don't plan to fix it

7 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

Trouble with 4k monitors is the text is small as hell. I am old LoL, so I went with a 30" 2k IPS screen and am happy I did.

You can scale the display if the text is too small. Certainly with windows 10. That way you get larger text but also more detail available in your bitmapped images.

On ‎2015‎-‎12‎-‎31 at 11:50 PM, Mattias Burling said:

Youtube gives about 10mbit to HD and 30mbit to 4K.

So the upscale gives you a 30mbit HD file. Which is why today, 4K vs HD is pretty though to tell apart on youtube.

The source footage is effectively 700 lines of resolution, so it is going to stay 700 lines of resolution, upscaling or no upscaling. The only reason for doing what the OP did is to minimize the damage YouTube's compression does. And the approach only works if the viewer decides to view the 4K file on their HD screen rather than the HD version, otherwise you get the same heavy compression as before.

Real 4K footage however will retain most of the original resolution. Even at 30 mbps.

Upscaled HD out of a 3Ti is never going to match footage from a true 4K camera when viewed on a 4K device. It can only be equivalent when viewed on a lower resolution display, or when the angle of view is small. If your angle of view on your display is large and you have a 4K screen, you will see the difference immediately.

On ‎2‎/‎14‎/‎2017 at 6:51 AM, Mattias Burling said:

You didn't even read the post you quoted or you didn't try to understand it. Take your pick.

The best selling cameras currently are film cameras. But that debate has no place in this thread. Please try not to make this one of your recurring rants and bashings of things you for one reason or another dont like. 

I read the post and understood it just fine thanks.

The best selling "cameras" are cell phones, and last time I looked they don't shoot with film. Perhaps the ones you use in Sweden do, I don't know. You probably know that better than me, but certainly out here in North America digital cameras overwhelmingly dominate.

By "film" I think you are referring to those polaroid type ultra cheap cameras you can get from places like Amazon which are essentially disposable, Personally I have never seen one or any photo taken by one. Suggesting that those are "best selling" is absurd and you know it.

On ‎2‎/‎14‎/‎2017 at 9:25 AM, Mattias Burling said:

There you go! They live!

I also agree with you that the DL had alot on paper. And I dont believe for a second that the "sensor and processor" has anything to do with sales. Im pretty sure 99 out of 100 that buys a camera doesn't even know they have processors. Let alone if its the latest model or not.

The market those particular models were aimed at is dominated by enthusiasts, and they certainly understand the role of the electronics. That is not to say that brand loyalty does not play a part, but it is less pronounced in cameras that are closed systems such as these.

6 hours ago, Mattias Burling said:

Im sure the GH5 will sell well to video shooters. But then they will go down for sure. They need to capture the still shooters. Thats where the money and volume is. 

The market in that segment is moving towards hybrid cameras however, and in that role the GH5 will be fine. The only serious competition in the long run will come from Sony. Panasonic have the most advanced processors, which means that the computational power (which translates to performance) of their cameras is going to put them at the front of the pack.

The main issue for Panasonic is brand loyalty, and it takes time to erode other manufacturers brand loyalty to increase market share. Eventually, if they stay on the cutting edge, they will win out however. It is just a matter of how long it will take, not if it will happen. The only other major manufacturer with the resources to compete and who understands this is Sony.

21 hours ago, Kisaha said:

 

The DL series didn't seem very competitive as it was, they need a better (more retro-modern design as well) compact line, better make it full frame, and they have to up their video game. Newer generations need exceptional video on a compact camera, and when I say newer gen, I mean everyone under 50!

 

The problem with the DL series was that there were already well established cameras dominating that niche, with excellent optics, superior sensors and superior processors. There was never any real chance that they were going to compete effectively, the Sony equivalents just too much market presence. Nikon were always going to be a day late and a dollar short. The delays just sealed the coffin, that is all.

17 hours ago, Mattias Burling said:

Canons mirrorless is imho so underrated its almost not funny. The pictures I get from the original and super cheap EOS M + 22mm are just lovley. With ML its a great street shooter/pocket camera.

Its gm1 size with APS-C and a 35mm equivalent and 19mp. Panasony cant touch that. Samsung almost could, but we know how that went.

The M3 was also very capable and the M5 seems very legit according to some reviewers who's opinions I trust. Again, talking about stills.

No 4K but I could care less about that in a stills camera, image is king for me, not resolution.

It is because they are crap. Their mirrorless offerings have always been underwhelming, the only reason they sell them is because they are cheap in the bargain bin when they get there.

14 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

Kodak went out of business.

Big name!

That is because they manufactured a dead technology.

1 hour ago, Mattias Burling said:

Alot of electronics is made in Germany. Just look at the iphone. Its designed in the US and assembled in china.

But the majority of the iphones components and profit comes and goes from Germany, Japan and South Korea.

That is misleading because while modules might be sold be a particular company they might actually be made in part or in full somewhere else. For example, if an iPhone was used as component in a larger machine, it would be listed as a "US" product simply because Apple is a US company, even though almost all of it is made somewhere else.

9 hours ago, Eno said:

Some corrections @Andrew Reid,

The SL1 EVF is NOT 4,4 MP but 4,4 million dots or 1,46 MP and it's made by Epson (not in Germany that's for sure).

"How does the 4K do vs the 1D X Mark II? It’s very good. However just like the 1D X II this is approximately a 1.4x crop of the full frame sensor." The crop factor is NOT 1,4x as you said but something like 1,56x in 4K UHD and 1,46x in 4K DCI.

And by the way, the whole camera is made by Panasonic in Japan not physically in Germany by Leica.

How do you arrive at 1.46MP from 4.4 million pixels? It is an LCD, not a CRT.

7 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

Also the sensor and image processor are custom designs which Leica had a heavy input into.

 

I doubt Leica designed anything about those chips, it is not their field of expertise. They may have provided specs, or chosen from a list of available specs, but the design would have been purely from the vendor. That is how it works with those sorts of business arrangements.

7 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

7 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

 

I have had this lens in my hands. It says Made in Germany on the body.

 

 

I have had this lens in my hands. It says Made in Germany on the body.

 

All that means is that it was assembled in Germany. Who knows where the components were made, likely it was not Germany because it is cheaper to have those manufactured in other places.

22 hours ago, hijodeibn said:

I also think ML is not going to be what it was in the past ever again, there are so many good solutions around for much less money than a 5DmkIV, but anyway if the price drop by a miracle in the next 2-3 years, it could be a solution for many people….canon colors still the best!!!

Not with RAW. RAW is supposed to be unprocessed data off the sensor.

16 hours ago, SlanderShot said:

Totally agree with zerocool22. 

I will wait a new port of ML on the 5DIV before to know if i have to buy the GH5 or not. 

When i see how fast the ML devs are active these lasts mounths, i prefer take my time and stay with my 5D2/5D3 ML RAW. 

Something say me the port should be done in the end of 2017, in the middle with luck. 

@Cassius McGowan the hack is now very stable, and should be as well on the 5DIV. 

The 5D4 is a different system, so presuming that ML on it would be stable is a big presumption.

Well, for a start, no professional should be paying attention to reviews written on public boards, since they will probably be written by fanboys or amateurs, who might not notice things that are important to you

I work at a research lab. Before we buy any equipment we always get a demo unit in to test and evaluate first. This is pretty standard and manufacturers marketing groups do this routinely. Obviously in your line of work the manufacturer is not going to do that for you because of the low value of prosumer cameras (they likely will for real pro products however), so in that case rent or borrow one to test for yourself before buying. But never buy something cold because it may not be suitable for your needs.

If you are a professional you are probably best advised not to get the latest products until their flaws are well known and understood. And every camera will have flaws and weaknesses, the severity of which will vary depending on how you use them. If you have a tight budget then rent/borrow any particular camera before you buy one, so you can see if it will work for you and fit your needs.

Yes. For Sony the big products are their a7 cameras and the RX 10/100 cameras. Those are the lines that will move their numbers, the a6xxx cameras are filler products.

The problem with trying to draw conclusions from sales figures like these is that sales tend to be strongly weighted to the first few months after release. In Sony's case their major releases were in 2015, while 2016 was a slow year with minor releases. So lower unit sales is not surprising. We can expect their a7 mark 3 versions to be released in 2017, so they will likely have much higher unit sales this year compared to 2016.

3 hours ago, jcs said:

You need to sample 2x for each dimension, 2x for X and 2x for Y.

Although a beyer array is comprised of 4 pixel groups, you are reconstituting color information from 3 channels, which means that optimal resolution will be essentially achieved with ~1.7x pixels in each dimension. More than that will yield trivial returns, less than that will have a real impact on resolution.

Just now, jcs said:

Nyquist sampling theory shows us we need to oversample the signal 2x in order to fully reconstruct the signal without artifacts. Shooting test charts will show the difference between 6K and 8K for 4K output. You're right in the real world it might not make much difference in most cases to the average viewer.

Yes, but sampling is in two dimensions for the reconstituted image, not one. So 6K is 2.25x image sampling. A 8K sensor would have 4x sampling, which is more than you need. The optimal sensor size would be closer to 7K, so a bit larger than the one used in the NX1.

On ‎1‎/‎11‎/‎2017 at 3:47 AM, Marco Tecno said:

The NX1 downsamples from 6.5k (full sensor readout) hence I wouldn't call it "over sharp". It's simply as sharp as it should be coming from that high res. It's the only hybrid camera doing this from such a high res, AFAIK.

IIRC the a6500 does as well, so does the GH5 (when it is released). Most new cameras (other than Canikon for 2017/18 at least) will likely be oversampled since the latest processors can handle it. Going forward resolution should not be an issue outside of the Canikon world.

On ‎1‎/‎11‎/‎2017 at 0:28 AM, jcs said:

Hey Shawn, the 1DX II 4K is soft. It's ok, it looks great! Even the GH4 4K has more detail, however the 1DX II has much better color control and the image looks more organic. To get full detail 4K we need an 8K sensor and good downsampling to prevent aliasing (Nyquist)...

An oversampled 6K sensor should be enough to get sufficiently close to true 4K that any further increases would have negligible effects. Most improvement above that will come from things like bit rate and color compression, parameters which are independent of the sensor.

Differences in scores between two cameras with the same sensor probably relate to performance differences between individual cameras. When it comes to silicon, performance is not necessarily the same across the entire batch, some chips will perform better than others.

Because the tests use a variety of parameters, the firmware and supporting hardware used in different models may have an impact as well, so even though two cameras may use the same sensor, they might not get the same score.

I have to say that the footage you shot, and a few other clips that have been released so far from pre-release users, look very nice. The GH5 is going to be a very impressive video camera for the enthusiast by the looks of it.

It isn't really 12 cores, it is two processors, each with 6 cores. They may not be being fully/efficiently utilized. His modern build has a current single processor with 10 cores. The microcode likely runs more efficiently in that than the 2010 processors.

On ‎12‎/‎8‎/‎2016 at 11:09 AM, dahlfors said:

I'm currently waiting for a new 15" mbp to be shipped. Hopefully this glitch is possible to fix with a software fix. It could also be GPU issues due to overheating, and if that's the case this will be much more difficult to fix.

Ya, it does look like an overheating GPU based on the picture.

On ‎12‎/‎27‎/‎2016 at 1:40 AM, Xavier Plágaro Mussard said:

Apple hates pro users. It's the only explanation. The new Macbook Pro is a joke. We don't need thinner, we need more power. It's true that FCP X is so well written it compensates a lot. But they should think about power users, every once in a while. 

Form before function is the Apple way dude!