Jump to content

David Bowgett

Members via Facebook
  • Content Count

    84
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About David Bowgett

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

1,446 profile views
  1. Weird how there seems to be this black hole when it comes to APS-C cameras and IBIS. Damn near every M4/3 and full-frame camera has it nowadays, but on the APS-C front there's only really the A6500 and A6600 that have it (plus some of Pentax's cameras).
  2. Actually, if you're going to make claims like that, the onus falls on you to prove that's how Canon are doing it. Otherwise, the default assumption should be that they're running the sensor at 60Hz and using pull-down to get 24p (or technically 23.976p), because that's how damn near every video-capable ILC has gotten 24p in the past.
  3. Canon almost never add new features to their cameras via firmware. The fact that they're doing this - and not offering up some lame excuse, such as bugs with the new DIGIC processors that needed ironing out, or that whole "licencing fee" thing - shows that they've finally realised they've made a screw-up of rare proportions.
  4. Shame the USB-C port on these new models seems to be a data-only port. Being able to run one off a power bank would be pretty handy.
  5. In fairness, how many sub-$1,000/£1,000 ILCs actually do offer 10-bit 4:2:2 HDMI output? The only one I can think of off the top of my head is the X-T30.
  6. You would need a separate clock circuit for true 24.00p. However, the 23.976p that's more commonly used in consumer cameras is derived from a 60Hz base clock - in 60Hz mode my FZ2000 gives the option of "24p", 30p or 60p, but in 50Hz mode it's 25p or 50p only - so if a camera can do 30/60p, there's no fundamental reason it shouldn't be able to do 23.976p.
  7. Even if the licencing fees argument were true, it would actually make Canon look worse, not better. Because if Pentax, who have a far smaller share of the market and whose video quality has consistently been an absolute joke since the day they added it, are willing to shell out the fees to enable their DSLRs to support 24p, what possible excuse could Canon have for not doing the same?
  8. Given the sensor resolution (6960x4649) they're most likely doing a 2:1 pixel bin, which would give a horizontal resolution of 3.48k.
  9. Okay, seriously, how is it that in the week when Sony and Canon are releasing new mirrorless APS-C mirrorless bodies, Canon is the one who (24p shenanigans aside) is offering more meaningful upgrades over its predecessor, and also has a more reasonable price point?
  10. Oh, yes, absolutely! Anyone who really needs 24p can probably afford to shell out for a second-hand 550D, maybe even a 60D if they really feel like splashing the cash. Or they could buy, you know, literally any camera from any of the other DSLR/mirrorless manufacturers out there.
  11. Normally I'd agree with this, but given the bizarrely arbitrary feature cuts that Canon seem to have been inflicting on their latest DSLRs, I can understand why people are so concerned. 24p is important because it's a universal frame rate. A large volume of stock footage on my and doubtless other producers' hard drives is encoded at that frame rate, and if I'm working with someone else who's shooting footage in a 60hz region, I can be reasonably sure that my footage (shot in a 50hz region) will match up with theirs. If a camera only operates at one of 25p/50p or 30p/60p, filming with it becomes harder at best, and downright impossible at worst.
  12. Looks like we might finally be getting a Canon DSLR without a 4K crop, since the smallprint mentions the field of view narrowing in 1080p120 mode, but not 4K. Guessing it'll be done via pixel binning though, as I can't imagine Canon of all people managing to produce a sensor that can reliably overscan an effective 7K image without melting.
  13. Nikon I can see being bought out by Sony and probably run as a sub-brand at some point, as they have strengths that would compliment each other quite nicely. Canon... well, you honestly have to wonder if they'd be better off dropping their camera line and becoming a third-party lens manufacturer, as the latter have honestly been a hell of a lot more impressive than the former.
  14. The main problem with this camera is the price - were it priced equivalently to Panasonic's 1" cameras it would absolutely blow the doors off them, and even if they priced it the same as the LX100 II, then the headphone jack, better AF, improved movie quality and lack of a 4K crop would still make it a very worthy competitor despite the smaller sensor. But making it the same price as a G9 and kit lens is just ridiculous. What's more, it smacks of one of Canon's less desirable traits - a sense that they consider themselves to be above actually competing on price, and that they don't need to acknowledge their competition.
  15. Just for perspective, for the same price as this camera you could buy three Panasonic LX15s, which have the same sensor size, the same stills resolution, very similar video capabilities, and a faster lens. And while I've never actually used an LX15, it wouldn't surprise me if it can record video for longer than the 5 minutes that the RX100vii is rated for.
×
×
  • Create New...