Mokara

The fact that the video specs are a significant jump from the 1DXIII does not give you a clue? Lets have this conversation again in a month or two and see who is right. I will be expecting some groveling from you

Assuming that 8K30p is the limit of what the camera can handle, then it is unlikely that 4K60p will just be an oversampled version of the same image since that would entail twice as much data. So that mode will almost certainly have significant compromises relative to 8K30p itself or 4K30p unless it is some sort of crop. 4K24p will probably not have RS issues. We can be pretty sure about that since the camera supposedly can handle 8K30p with DPAF, that means it should be a lot more capable than the 1DXIII in terms of processing power and bandwidth. My guess is that a7SIII will be 4K only, no 8K and probably not a big oversample either. High spec for that camera will likely be 4K60p.

No one will be shooting at 120 unless they are doing slow motion, and if that is the case you don't have a choice. Why would adding a crop mode increase the amount of light?

They probably only handed them out to folk who have a youtube presence for reviews, and to trusted pros for beta testing. Your lack of a youtube presence probably bites you the butt in that regard. If you had an active channel with significant view you might get included in new release marketing activities more.

Crop mode uses a lot less data though. It is the amount of data that needs to be processed that is the issue. You only have so much processing headroom and when it runs out some sort of compromise has to be made.

Let me repeat, "If you are shooting video IMO you would have to be pretty stupid to buy a 1DXIII over the R5." Even if you are shooting pro sports with a hybrid, the R5 is still going to be the better option, because it IS a dedicated hybrid whereas the 1DXIII is a stills camera with video functionality.

I agree. If you are doing this for a living or for earning a substantial portion of your income you need to be taking a holistic approach to reach your audience. Some media are better suited for some types of messaging, while something different may work for others.

It is not the result of a monopoly, but simply reflects that people are using video both for presenting stuff and researching material. It is much easier to get an impression of how something is done or what it looks like from video than from text. It is sort of like the transition from silent movies to talking ones. The old way simply can't compete with the added breadth that video can offer.

Because it has to focus as well, and it apparently can't do both at the same time. If you are shooting video IMO you would have to be pretty stupid to buy a 1DXIII over the R5.

They may be entertaining, but I have serious doubts that they are likeable, or at least what most people would consider to be likeable. Both of them come across as having a strong potential to be d*cks in person

That is just the mode they set the sensor at. If they wanted to read at higher fps they could make it do that. The limitations come from the ability to process the data generated while at the same time doing whatever else the camera needs to do. Obviously you don't create a spec for the sensor that your processor can't meet. The two are designed around each other, and if the sensor is repackaged to be sold to third parties, those third parties get whatever specs were imposed on the design by the processors Sony had available. The absolute speed the sensor can be read is kind of irrelevant if the processor has to do other things at the same time, which is what is happening with the 1DXIII. The sensor clearly can be read faster, since it does exactly that at 60fps, but not when the processor is doing AF at the same time (AF has a heavy computational load associated with it). AF processing has to be done constantly, with other data being read in-between, it can't just stop while the sensor is being read, if it did then AF response times would become much longer and you would get sluggish AF performance. So, a sensor frame read would go something like data...AF....data...AF.....data....AF etc, they are interleaved. Those spaces in-between during which AF functions are going on is why rolling shutter is 30+ ms. The frame read data is being spread out to allow AF functions to happen in timely matter instead of coming all at once. Basically AF gets priority over the sensor read. if you had fewer AF sites that needed to be polled and data processed, then you would have lower RS with the same sensor. The problem for Canon is that DPAF has a bucket load of AF sites that require attention, hence the RS, while other manufacturers are using conventional PD sites which are far fewer in number. Fewer PD sites = less AF processing overhead = less time needed to complete the frame read = lower RS. Not rocket science.

The limitations are not due to the sensors, it is a result of what the processors involved can handle. And that in part is affected by the form factor of different models due to the different thermal envelopes involved. I am pretty sure the R5 will outperform the 1DXIII when it comes to video. My expectation is that it will come close to C500M2 and C300M3 general performance, less the dynamic range those camera have.

RX100 IV? Are you sure you don't mean one of the later ones? Sony cameras poll fewer data points for AF, so that is probably why they can get away with less RS. DPAF in theory has millions of AF points, but in practice no processor is going to be able to cope with anything near that number. Canon don't normally say how many AF points they are actually using for most of their cameras, but iirc in the R series they did mention that those cameras are using around 5k points. Or was it one of the M cameras, I forget exactly which one. I would guess the quality of data coming from DPAF is less than that from dedicated PD points and that is why they need more. More does impose a larger processing demand though, and that is probably what is eating into the sensor read headroom (the processor has to stop reading/processing data during AF polling, hence the RS - the more polling you have to do, the less flexibility you have when it comes to reading image data).

Extrapolation. Remember, the image you see is a processed image, not what the sensor sees.

The way Canon have usually segmented the FF line is as follows: 1D cameras: 2 current processors to handle image processing and 1 older processor to handle DSLR focusing/metering (three processors in total) 5D cameras: 1 current processor to handle image processing and 1 older processor to handle DSLR focusing/metering (two processors in total) 6D cameras: 1 current processor to handle image processing as well as DSLR focusing/metering (one processor in total) The processing capability in the three models accounts for their relative capabilities. The 1D has more complex electronics so it costs the most, while the 6D is a cut down camera to reduce manufacturing cost, allowing it to be offered at a lower price. Along with all sorts of materials and mechanical compromises as well of course. They deviated from that formula with the 1DXIII by having a single processor (not clear if there is a separate processor for DSLR focusing/imaging since they don't usually mention that one in their promotional material). My guess is that the Digic X in it is basically two Digic 8 processing units with some additional encoding unit all mashed into a SoC.

Ok, don't let reality interfere with your fantasies then. Call me names if that makes you feel better but you are still wrong. Instead of listening to what other people tell you to think, why not go and look up the statistics yourself? It is all online if you care to look. To help you out, here are some sources: Arrests based on crime categories and demographics: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/tables/table-43 Deaths during arrests: https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ard0309st.pdf (keep in mind that 60% of arrest related deaths involve an underlying violent crime, so keep that in mind when looking at the first table and considering demographics) It is pretty clear from the arrest statistics that deaths during arrests closely track arrests overall for all racial groups, with some deviations that can be accounted for by disproportionate involvement in violent crime, where most deaths stem from. African Americans are disproportionately represented numerically overall because those global statistics don't account for socioeconomic differences. Most street arrests (these are the ones people get killed in) involve communities at the bottom rung of the socioeconomic ladder, and African Americans are twice as likely to be in that category (20% classified as living in poverty versus 10% for other groups). That is why arrests are 2X their share of the population, and, since deaths during arrests closely track arrests overall, why they appear to be being disproportionately being killed during these arrests. The reality is that the chance of this happening to them is no different than for anyone else being arrested. Btw, if you think that crime and arrests don't track socioeconomic status, just go to any prison and look at the sorts of people in there - you are not going to find a whole lot of professionals and white collar types in those places. The reason why you are wrong is that you are looking at the entire population rather than just the lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum where most arrests are actually happening. People getting killed during arrests reflects a socioeconomic problem, not a racial problem.

I am not defending anything, I am pointing out the reality of policing. It would appear that this guy had no business being a cop, but on that day and under the same circumstances I doubt the victim being white or black would have made any difference to the outcome. You want it to be have made a difference because that fits your narrative, but reality is different. If the victim had been white, and all else about the event had been the same, the outcome would have been most likely a wrongful death against the city, it would not have made the news and the cop would have been fired but not charged. All the rest of what is going on right now is because people are trying to fit the incident to a narrative that conforms to their world view.

Based on the public specs for the R5 I would guess that it has a new processor, I am guessing a Digic 9, and it must be capable of better performance than the 1DXIII. They claim that it can do 8K30p with AF, that means there is enough computational power to handle it, quite a bit more than the 1DXIII. Worst case scenario would be 8K with RS of about 33 ms. Lower resolutions than 8K should be able to do higher frame rates with less RS.

What it means is that the camera is operating at the very limits of it's processing capability. That is why you see AF going at 60p. DPAF is computationally heavy, so in order to process a 4K60p stream the camera has to give up something, which would be the AF headroom. At 24 fps the camera can process the feed and do AF, but because it is being stretched to the limits the rolling shutter is bad. AF polling has to be continuous and that means that frame reads also have to be stretched out to accommodate that, hence the rolling shutter.

There was nothing to suggest that this particular incident had anything to do with racism, other than the police officer being white and the victim black. That in itself is not enough. Keep in mind that these two guys had worked together providing security at a night club for about three years, so they must have known each other fairly well. So there is more likely a personal issue between them if anything. The video footage I have seen of the arrest doesn't suggest that the officers were doing anything unexpected initially, nor were they angry or anything like that. It came across as just another day in the office. I know someone who used to be married to a police officer, and she would tell us that her husband spent most of his time essentially being a baby sitter for drunk people, and after a while the officers would get cynical and blasé about it. You get to see the bad ugly side of people and you see it all the time and I think that changes you to be less empathetic in time. Looking at that footage of those guys, it seemed to me like they were in that mode. Then there is a gap in coverage until we see the footage of the officer kneeling on the victim. He looked very calm about it, it is not like he was out of control. He was just parked there with his hands in his pockets, gazing outwards, like nothing much was going on. My guess is that something happened in that gap that provoked the final situation, what exactly isn't clear, but I suppose it will come out in the trial. That said the racial demographics of people who die during arrest matches very closely with the number being arrested in total. Basically the people doing the crime or appear to be doing the crime and attract police attention in the process have a chance of being killed, and the color of your skin does not significantly affect those odds. Black males account for a disproportionate number of being arrested and/or dieing in the process compared to the overall population (~30% of arrests and of deaths), but when you consider that most street policing arrests happens in poorer areas and African Americans are twice as likely to be living in those areas compared to other groups, it is clear that neither arrests nor deaths are skewed significantly by race. It is more of a poverty thing than a race thing, and even then that is because there is more crime in impoverished areas. There are going to be individual cases that are driven by racism, but it is not the norm. The vast majority of police officers do not behave that way. If you look up the statistics males account for about 75% of all arrests, and 95% of deaths during arrests. So this is something that mostly affects men, primarily those between 18 and 44. Also, about 60% of the deaths happen during arrests for violent crime, even though such crimes account for ~14% of all arrests. This is also the arrest group that is dominated by young/middle aged black men, which probably accounts for the higher death rate in that demographic. Interestingly, since both black and white deaths correlate with overall arrest rates, it suggests that whites are more likely to be killed than african americans when being arrested for non violent crimes since they dominate that category (in some cases well in excess of their representation in the general population). They have to be dieing somewhere for the overall stats to balance out. But you don't hear about that because if you are white then these events go mostly unreported and certainly no one stages any protests about it. It doesn't fall into the narrative of conventional wisdom. I know this is going off-track a bit, but it is wise to take a lot of what is going on with a big pinch of salt. In stories like this you can be certain that some (and likely a lot) people are trying to manipulate you in the interests of their own agenda. I think most of the current protests are driven by frustration stemming from the lockdown due to covid-19, and this incident is acting as a surrogate to unleash those feelings.

The decision was made not on the basis of contributions, but because demand for images was falling while at the same time retained earnings was plummeting. That is just the nature of the business nowdays, as more and more competitors come in they have to reduce costs in order to remain viable, and the only way to do that is to decrease the royalty paid to contributors. If they don't do that then competition will drive image price down and that will hammer their margins since their slice of the pie after operational costs is quite small (you can see this effect in their quarterly report where a 1% reduction in gross revenue resulted in a 47% reduction in retained earnings). All the competing companies will have to do the same thing in the end as well, or they will eventually go out of business. Btw, they are attempting to limit contributions, it is being done by reducing the royalty to low sales contributors. That will drive them away. The contributors they want to keep are those whose images sell well, they don't want those who submit stuff that sells poorly.

It is a mark V with mark VII electronics and the latest firmware designs, but in a redesigned body. Some elements of the a6600 are included in the design. VI might not have active steadyshot, but the mark V does.

The ZV-1 uses the latest AF hardware though, so it should be more capable than the VA when it comes to focusing. Not that it is a big issue though, all of the RX100 models from mark V onward focus good enough. It is only the earlier marks that have problems. I guess the latest eye AF is good for a blogging camera though. Probably less useful for normal shooting.

Cell phones use variable frame rates, so in portions where a lot of work is needed to encode, they simply drop the frame rate. You can't do that with a fixed frame rate, the camera has to always be able to complete the frame no matter how fussy it is. The processors themselves could handle higher frame rates but they would overheat without external cooling of some sort, so there is a limit. That is determined by processor cooling, not by anything else. If a cell phone processor starts to overheat it just drops the number of frames being done. While that may be fine for cell phones, it doesn't cut it with regular video. A camera with a variable frame rate will always be capable of a higher frame rate than one with a fixed frame rate for that reason.

Did you see anything in the promotional material suggesting that Sony is expecting these cameras to be used to produce cinematic masterpieces? It seemed to me that they were promoting the camera as a blogger camera. I did not see anything about cinema production capability there. Or did I miss what you saw?