Mokara

If there is an actual agreement (as opposed to something YouTube just does to avoid liability) then yes, it does work like that. Otherwise, what would be the point of an agreement. The purpose of having one is to spell out the terms by which YouTube acts as a streaming service for the content producer. Producers have an incentive to do something like that since if they did not they would automatically get copyright strikes against their own promotional materials. The power does not lie solely with them, unless they have no interest in the promotional value YouTube provides. Problem is, you have no way of knowing who YouTube has agreements with.

Well, stills cameras do the same thing. The image to be encoded does not just magically appear.

Not all encoders are created equal. Some are better optimized than others, even if they are spitting out the same codec. Even Canon cameras produce vastly different results with what on paper is the same encoder. Their dedicated video cameras have far more robust cooling than stills cameras, which means that the processors inside can run faster and hotter. That increased computational power that results is what allows cameras like the Cxxx series to use the same encoder found in their stills cameras, but without all of the compromises that otherwise might be made to keep the thermal envelope in check. That translates into a better image. You will see that with many cameras from different manufacturers as well. Some can produce great results with what seems like a limited bit rate, while others generate relatively poor output with a high bit rate, even though all are H.264.

Resolution is pretty terrible, it looks like the image has been blurred out on purpose or shot at 720p. You can tell since the leaves are a blurry mess and most of the signs are barely legible. If it had been shot at 4K you should be able to read all of the signage, and you can barely read any of it, there is no detail at all. Why? They are doing to produce slow motion footage. It is shot at one frame rate but stored as another, so when it is played back it would appear slowed down.

If it is done properly the heatsinks would be the only thing exposed, so if that was the case it would not matter where the vents were

I don't think it would be illegal for employees/agents to be voicing their opinion, provided that they were not being paid or directed to do so, at least in the US. Any attempt to legislate against that would be a violation of 1st amendment rights. I don't know about the UK or Germany, they might not protect free speech there, I am not familiar with their laws.

Enthusiasts might want FF cameras, but most people who buy cameras are not enthusiasts and are driven by things such as appearance and size. You can't make a small reasonably complete camera with a FF body. It has to have a smaller sensor to meet those requirements. Most people are going to find an M5 far more appealing than 5D.

Depends on how they have designed theirs. What I do know is that the Sony subsidiary that manufactures sensors is not the same company as the one that makes cameras. They do manufacture generic sensors for off the shelf use, but those are used in dedicated applications such as security cameras and similar applications, or no-name brands making generic gear. Major clients design their own sensors and contract the manufacturing out to the Sony sensor subsidiary (which operates at arms length from the camera business). Included in those agreements will be an NDA and an exclusivity clause whereby the sensor manufactured can only be supplied to the client and no one else. Not even information about those sensors will be shared with third parties. Every tech company that outsources manufacturing does this, they DO NOT want their R&D dollars to subsidize a competitors products.

The Fuji sensor was designed by Fuji, it is not off the shelf, there is no way that they would allow their contract manufacturer to sell the sensor to a different client. Sony might use a sensor with a similar resolution, but the design would be different and match the specs that Sony Camera set.

Pretty much all of the Zeiss cameras look hideous IMO. They all look like someone slapped a few dials and buttons on a rectangular black box and that is it. Not a whole lot of thought went into the aesthetics.

If they run the company like every other company out there they are not going to be making deals that undermine their flagship products. I don't need to be in senior management to know that. No company does that. The A7SIII will release when it was always going to be released. In other words, as soon as it is ready. They are not going to redesign the camera from scratch just because someone else came out with some other product.

Zeiss...taking ugly to new heights!!

The Sony subsidiary that makes cameras has no connection with Panasonic at all, so why the hell would they reach an agreement to allow Panasonic to gain market share at their expense? No business works like that, at least no business that is still in business. And before you go on about Sony making Panasonic sensors, might I remind you that the sensor manufacturing company is independent of the camera subsidiary, it was set up like that specifically to avoid conflicts of interest. Sony might manufacture sensors for Panasonic, but it would be a Panasonic designed sensor they would be making. Just like Sony were manufacturing Samsung designed sensors to fill up the supply chain for the rollout of the S8. Same sensor, designed by Samsung, using some technology licensed in from Canon, some of which were made by Samsung and some of which were made by Sony under contract. Sony cameras would be using sensors designed by the Sony camera business. Both sensors would use proprietary manufacturing technology developed by the Sony sensor business, but beyond that the two sensors are not the same unless they were off the shelf designs, and I doubt either Sony Camera or Panasonic would be doing that. Neither company is a generic when it comes to their flagship products. So put your tin foil hat back on, there is NO agreement.

Unless the lens controls focus entirely by hardware, there is no particular reason why something like that could not be set as an option in firmware.

It is just a computational problem. Once cameras have sufficient power and lenses are fast and reactive enough, CDAF will be better. Ultimately it is more accurate and does not require calibration. CDAF can determine which way to go to find focus as well, is the processor is powerful enough to process the data. Going forward as processors become faster and more powerful they will be able to handle larger data sets and performance will improve, especially when you have lenses that are designed with this in mind. Panasonic are already leading the field in this regard. Cameras of the future will not be using the technology of the past. Behavior you saw in old cameras is not where technology is heading. You need to look where things are going, not where they have been. Who cares what old cameras were capable of, what matters is what new cameras are capable of.

Depends on the processing power and the responsiveness of lenses. There is no inherent reason why PDAF is better than CDAF, actually if you have enough processing power the reverse would be true since you are dealing with what actually appears on the image rather than a parallax difference. Consequently it is more accurate, provided you are gathering enough data. CDAF works better with a narrow depth of field, so putting it in a FF camera is not a disadvantage. PDAF works better with deeper depth of field, since it is essentially a crude rangefinder independent of what is in the image. This is why you will find both types in most MILCs, PDAF is used to get a rough range so the lens focus point is in about the right place, and then CDAF is used to get it set accurately. If your lens is responsive and fast enough however, you don't really need PDAF as much.

The Volvo of cameras.

What a tech company can and cannot do is dictated largely by it's IP position and the position of competitors. No doubt they are capable of implementing PDAF but they might not be able to because of blocking positions by their competitors.

They wont get it. Samsung licensed DPAF from Canon for use in their cell phones. That in turn was sublicensed to Sony in order for them to manufacture some sensors for Samsung's Galaxay line of cell phones. Licenses like that don't let you use the technology for anything else other than the agreed to use, so, you are not going to see it in sensors Samsung or Sony make for cameras.

This camera probably won't be used by most people here, but it does point at the sorts of capabilities we might expect in the next crop of Cx00 cameras. Most notably is the 160 mbps H.265 encoder.

Canon XF705 would probably be perfect, if he can afford it.

Canon's new XF705 has H.265 encoding at 160 mbps for 4K60 4:2:2 10 bit, so expect all new EOS-C cameras to be using H.265 as well. I think a lot of cameras are going to be using it going forward.

50-150mm S lens is better IMO.

People actually use movie mode on cameras? I believe there is, but they revert to lower resolutions on the fast motion parts, presumably because of rolling shutter issues.

They seem to like the number 9, lol. $99.99 for the adapter? Why not make it $100? Do they think we are that stupid that we would be swayed by a penny?