Mokara

Your post is the first I had heard about it, so no.

Italy's legal system convicted scientists of manslaughter for failing to predict an earthquake. Does anything more need to be said?

Anything further developments along the lines of the XC body would depend on how well the 10/15 sold. I doubt they would do significant new development other than updating the electronics if sales were low. I have never actually seen an XC physically, so I suspect that they did not sell too many of them.

The 24p is probably an oversight, very few people shoot at that frame rate so it is the sort of thing that is easy to overlook in development. Why would they do that? They would choose the highest quality setting available, which typically 60p when shooting FHD.

Digic DV5 is basically the same processor as the Digic 7 and Digic DV6 is basically the same processor as the Digic 8, with parts of the chip enabled/disabled depending on the sort of camera it is being used in. You would not have both in the same camera (excluding support processors of course, which typically are older versions of the Digic family and are used for managing focusing in higher end systems) They are not doing it on purpose, there is a reason for it. Just because you don't understand the reason (even when it is explained) does not make it any less of a reason. If Canon could put out products at that price point that would blow the competition away, they would. They don't because they can't. At least, not if they want to make a profit. I say this as someone who is not enamored with Canon, but fair is fair and you need to be objective about it. The people who will buy this camera are unlikely to want to shoot at 24p. That is a very small and specialized niche demand which is irrelevant to most users, particularly in the target market for this camera. The only people who shoot at 24p are wannabe feature film producers, no one else. 99.9% of video shot with this camera in FHD is going to be 60p.

It is still pretty expensive taking the lens into account, this would be aimed more at the 80D/6D sort of folk, and they tend to be a bit more informed about the camera's they are using (but can't afford things like the 5D). Unless they are particularly invested in lenses I think many of them will gravitate to the a7III and Z6 instead. The RP is in an awkward position, too expensive to address the M50 market but too feature deficient to address the middle of the consumer market. The XC10 has a different processor, a DV5 (it is the video equivalent of the Digic 7, which has a pro grade hardware encoder built into it) and it has a cooling solution that allows it to run cool enough to do that codec without shutting down. Stills cameras however will overheat since they have no cooling, and that is why you do not get hardware encoding for 4K in those cameras. The Digic 8 family (This includes the DV6) has consumer grade hardware encoding, it can't do what the Digic 7 encoder can do. So you are not going to get the XC10 codec in a camera like this. They could do MJPEG as they do with older stills cameras, but that requires a lot of storage to be practical, plus some expertise in post handling, something that would not go down well in the consumer market.

That was pretty predictable based on the cost of the camera and what we know about the limitations of the Digic 8 processor. USB type C refers to the physical design specs of the interface, not it's speed (in other words the shape, wire hookup etc). That is determined by the USB spec itself, such as 2.0 or 3.1 etc. There is no such thing as a "USB C" chipset. In any case, USB speed in the specs refers to the maximum data rate. Individual devices may use anything less than that if they want. A power supply for example has a data rate of zero Probably because FHD uses the whole sensor while EFS lens are designed fom crop sensors and don't cover FF. But Captain Kirk was a dick though

Why no white ones?

Well, Canon would have been trying to reproduce colors from film, which are equally inaccurate but stem from the limitations of the chemistry involved. So they are just an earlier Pavlovian subject. The point is, these colors are not accurate, but are an affection stemming from people wanting to imitate earlier work on the assumption that is what it is "supposed" to look like. So it all becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. Sort of like people who want to imitate the work of a great director, so they imitate his/her work as hacks, rather than creating their own great work. The world is awash with those sorts, whose creativity is determined by someone else's creativity (in other words, they lack creativity). Which is fine, but they should at least admit it or otherwise be prepared to be laughed at. If you want footage that accurately reflects the real world you probably don't want to use a Canon (unless you plan to do extensive post processing of course, then it doesn't matter).

That is not the point. There are mechanisms to deal with that sort of situation, but the liability lies with the poster, not the service housing the content, provided that the service responds to infringement claims in the appropriate way. That is the law. If I understand the situation correctly, the Italian court has misinterpreted European rules and they will very likely be overruled when it gets appealed in Europe. The content owner has gone after Vimeo specifically to drive them out of business, at least in Italy and by consequence, Europe, so that their own service can benefit from the commercial hole it creates.

They prefer the Canon colors because they have been conditioned by the preceeding body of professional work, much of which has been shot on Canon cameras. So it becomes the "right" color, even if inaccurate. Basically it is a Pavlovian response.

No. Probably the M cameras will go forward as the consumer models simply because the M lenses are more compact in design and the R cameras as prosumer models. Stuff that uses the EF-S lenses is more likely to fade into the sunset along with EF systems (although those will take longer to poof). The R lenses are expensive and complete overkill in terms of glass for consumer cameras with smaller sensors. They will stop designing new EF lenses within a few years though, if it has not already happened. What is the point in developing new lenses for an obsolete system that is going to cease to be available on new camera designs going forward (excluding those bodies already designed and not yet released yet of course).

To a place with dodgy infrastructure that falls on it's face every time a hurricane comes over? No thanks.

Performance wise it is likely to be similar to the M50, just with a larger sensor and the new mount. The low price probably means that it lacks the dedicated processor that handles focusing in the prosumer models, so my guess is no DPAF in 4K mode. It is lighter than the A7 cameras, so probably it is built of less sturdy materials.

Dude, please don't tell us when you have an "accident". TMI

When I say "hunt" I am referring to the speed with which the lens can achieve focus and how it does that, not behaviour after it is there (which is probably what you are thinking about). The phase detect systems used in DSLRs are a lot more accurate than the ones used in MILCs, even DPAF, which is why they are faster in general historically (MILCs are catching up though as a result of the sheer number of detect points they can monitor at any one time - this allows them to overcome the accuracy deficit to some extent). They allow the lens to be sent directly to the focus point, with fine tuning of exact focus by the contrast detect points. A MILC has to hunt around a bit initially, even with PD, for that reason, and that imposes a different behaviour on the lens motors. The motors on lenses made for DSLRs are designed with an expected behaviour in mind, but a different more responsive behaviour is required for a MILC. Some of the more modern EF lenses do have suitable motors in them, but not all of the EF lenses do. And even those which are more suitable probably would perform better if they were designed specifically for a MILC system.

The NX cameras have noticeable aliasing in FHD mode though, which you rarely see in UHD mode. So you might solve one issue but add another in doing so.

The motors on older lenses are not designed for the rapid and dynamic response required for MILC focusing systems. DSLRs determine a range and send the lens to that point, whereas MILCs adjust the lens until a focus is found. The result is that most older Canon lenses which were designed for DSLR use are not ideal for MILC use. That is the main reason why the R system comes with new lenses. The old lenses can be used of course, but they are not ideal for the camera.

If other streaming services are not viable for original content as you claim, what makes you thing it will be any different for Apple? Short of running at a loss specifically to drive competition out of business, there is no reason to think they will be any more successful. Adding "*Produced by Apple" after titles is not going to magically make their content more appealing than content produced elsewhere.

Higher end Canon cameras have an additional older generation Digic processor (which is not mentioned in the specs) specifically for handling focusing, while the lower end models lack this. This is the main reason for the performance differential between something the 5D and 6D for example, or the 7D and 80D. My guess is that this EOS-RP will have M50 type performance when it comes to video for that reason. So, while it may shoot 4K, my guess is that DPAF will not be available when you do. The simpler electronics (and likely no touch bar) will permit the lower price. Don't be so sure about that. Things can change fast. There will still be a lot of legacy equipment around that will be used for a long time, but those cameras are not where the future is.

They are not going to disappear, there are lots in the wild, but most people are not going to be inclined to buy them new. Except perhaps at the very high levels of the pro market. ILC sales are going down, and almost all of that is due to decline in DSLR sales. MILCs are steady with a slight uptick. All that will change with the new R and Z camera series though, and it is hard to see who would buy DSLRs in any sort of numbers going forward. My prediction is that MILC sales numbers for 2018 will be stronger than previous years, and 2019 they will be the dominant form factor. I have been saying this for quite a while on the Canon Rumors site, that around 2019 would be the inflection point for the MILC/DSLR war, but all their "experts" were scoffing at that. We will see who was right soon enough Surveillance cameras have huge depth of field and lowish resolution, so AF is not critical for them. And in any case, other companies have simpler focus systems that are good enough, so something relatively expensive to implement like DPAF probably won't fly.

Those R&D dollars would have been spent years ago though. My guess is that they don't see that as a sustainable path going forward, at least for them. One consequence of that logic is that they will be cutting down on the number of models available. I think that not too many new (as in a complete redesign) DSLRs are going to be made. They might do minor electronic updates on older bodies but what is currently on the market are probably the last DSLR models that are going to be made (although some already designed may still be making their way through production). Anything new will likely be an R model. The DSLR era is over.

The reason for that is sales are steadily declining. It is not necessarily the case for other manufacturers though, especially those who are in the general sensor business since their sensor development is leveraged by their other businesses. It is much easier for a company like Sony or Panasonic to make a profit in the long run for this reason, while a company like Canon or Nikon are looking at a future where competitive development will consume all their profits and probably more. For Canon it is probably becoming prohibitively expensive to do enough development to stay on the cutting edge, so they know that in the long run over time they will gradually lose out to the companies with other semiconductor businesses. It is a war of attrition that they will lose, and they know it, so, to remain viable as a company going forward they have to diversify. You can see this happening now as they expand into other fields, presumably ones they see a competitive future in.

All sorts of crazy judgements are made in Italy, there are lots of examples. Most get overturned on appeal though. However, since this involves a European rule, it will be subject to appeal in Europe, and the judgement will almost certainly be overturned. I doubt the Vimeo will pay a cent.

Did they? I was not aware of that. Irrespective, Sandisk relied on third parties for their disk controllers, which always put them behind Samsung and Intel when it came to SSDs.