Mokara

Is "weather sealing" actually weather sealing or is it just weather resistance? There is a difference and some companies are more fast and loose with the term than others. You usually don't see sensor dust at wider apertures. Mostly when you do see it in stills/footage it is because the photographer/videographer chose to deal with too much light by using small apertures rather than putting a ND filter on the lens. Actually, focus breathing is small changes in the field of view as the lens elements move when the camera is trying to find focus (your focal length changes slightly when this happens). It creates a visual effect that looks like breathing, hence the term. It can be quite disconcerting once you notice it, so you need to try and avoid having it happen in your footage. If you have a wide depth of field the image might look like everything is in focus but you know that the lens is still hunting in spite of that because of these field of view changes. Some lenses will do it more than others due to their particular design, so you might not see it your personal equipment setup.

New drugs are not as ineffective as older ones. If they were they would not be approved. There is constant improvement happening. Just because you are ignorant about changes that have happened over the decades does not mean they have not happened. You may not be aware of this but right now there is a pharmaceutical revolution underway, and it is being driven by rapid advances in the understanding of biochemistry that have largely happened in this millennium. Much of that advance is a consequence of the advent of desktop computing that is powerful enough to deal with vast amounts of data. These things sort of go together, and it those same computing advances that make all our fancy modern photography toys possible. Decoding the code of life and understanding how it all works, then developing very specific tailored drugs to intervene when things go wrong (this is actually very difficult, but it is happening now). Pharmaceutical development not all that long ago metaphorically was like using a shotgun and hoping you hit something, now it is like using a sniper rifle. We are not shooting in the dark any more like they did in the old days.

The Fascinators. No. What is paying off is making better products.

Soccer mom is not going to go and buy it either. That market is much more likely to buy a Rebel/M camera. Because they do the same job and are considerably smaller and easier on the hands of that demographic. Soccer mom wants more dof, not less, so is likely to think that FF cameras are kind of crappy when they look at the results it produces. Soccer mom will have no clue what DPAF is btw, nor will he/she care. It will not be a real marketing point. It is something that is important to YOU, but Soccer mom won't give a shit about that or understand what it is. The people who buy FF cameras that are "entry level" generally are people who DO care about specs, but can't otherwise afford to spend the money that the high end products cost.

The next camera to arrive after the S will be the a7R4. The 8 bit limitation in current cameras is probably due to the LSI, that is hardware so it can't be enabled by firmware. The next generation LSI almost certainly will not have that restriction though. The current LSI is 2016 technology, so we could expect the next generation to arrive in late 2019, which would be in time for the a7R4 (although it will likely first appear in one of the RX cameras). I think you will see 10 bit 4:2:2 60p as standard at that point, possibly not internally if the processor is putting out too much heat, but definitely through the HDMI.

If you are shooting stills or 1080p, pretty much all of the current cameras from leading manufacturers are good enough. What you choose in the end comes down more to what physically feels good for you personally. It is only when you get to more demanding applications that differences are important.

In other industries it is called hooking. There is little noble about it.

The sorts of people who buy FF cameras are exactly those who DO give a crap about those things. It is part of the marketing budget. Essentially it is low cost advertising. You get some guy (or girl) to market for you and in return they get a dinner and a hotel room for a few days. If you had to actually pay them to perform this service for you it would cost 10 times as much. You spend $2,000 or so to get a large chunk of marketing done by someone who has credibility with consumers. Or you can spend $20,000 to get a similar marketing package done by someone the consumer has never heard of and has no credibility. From Canon's point of view this is awesome because these people will work for them for peanuts and be super happy about it. Nikon seem to do a pretty crappy job at it though. The prime offenders appear to be Canon and Sony, both of them exploit the free labor to the max.

The 4k resolution in the "4K" videos that have appeared so far appears pretty terrible. Most of looks like HD, some even 720p. I suspect that a lot of the footage has been shot at HD then upscaled to 4K for the marketing videos in order to minimize rolling shutter on all of the pans and action shots they are doing. Lots of really bad banding in the sky too, which suggests that it has been heavily modified in post and then kicked in the nuts on conversion to Youtube. I am pretty sure that if what they show is typical of EOS-R 4K output I would be disappointed compared to my NX1.

Cropping is due to limitations of the processor, not the sensor. In any case, Samsung did it before Sony IIRC. Sensor size has nothing to do with frame rates, bit depth or bit rates. The only things that affect those parameters are pixel numbers and processing power.

Those DSLRs are not designed with video in mind, although they can do it. Not a whole lot of people shoot stills in live view mode with a DSLR, hence peaking is not there. One other thing you guys keep forgetting is that these sorts of things are almost certainly covered by patents and what you can and can't use will be determined by whatever licence you have and when the patent expires. I work in the tech industry making cutting edge products, and we can only do a fraction of what we want to do because there is a huge minefield of IP owned by competitors out there. Just because something is possible does not mean you can use it. And even if you can use it in one product it does not mean you can use it in another for a different application. Not unless you don't mind being sued for retail proceeds of course. It always surprises me how people who have no experience in the business world and how it works view things simplistically. Real life is not that straightforward and not everyone is out to screw you over. I can guarantee you that every single camera company out there, bar none, can't make the product they want to make because of all the related IP owned by the competition. What we as consumers get is the best compromise with what is possible without being sued.

High end video cameras can do more because they are physically bigger and have better cooling solutions than stills cameras. It is not deliberate market segmentation, it is segmentation that happens because of the physical nature of the body. They are pushing the a7 cameras as far as they can. If you want significantly better performance you will need a significantly bigger body. For that reason high end pro video equipment will always outperform small consumer cameras. You trade off power for convenience.

Peaking is done in software, not hardware. Canon consumer video cameras have had it for most of the last decade. It just has not been implemented in DSLRs, probably because the are useless in a reflex camera and few people use the live view part.

All this talk about menus is nonsense. Every Canon I have owned has similar list menus to every other camera I have, including Sony, Samsung, Nikon and Toshibas. Other manufacturers arrange their menus differently, but they are all similarly difficult to navigate. Using a touch screen or a cursor wheel involves equal amounts of effort. Just because it is different does not mean one is better than the other in terms of functionality. I have to meet anyone who based their buying decision on the menu structure of a camera. Of all things, who the hell would find that important? The most important characteristic for people who buy M50 level cameras is the brand name on the face plate, provided that the camera itself looks good and not too weird. That is what they base their buying decision on for the most part. But when the price point goes up, cameras are being marketed to more sophisticated buyers and they will be more inclined to pay attention to the actual capabilities of the camera. Actually, if you are shooting RAW and use PDAF, it slows down to 2.2 fps. Not only that, but things like flicker reduction and "Digital Lens Optimizer" (whatever the hell that is, probably lens correction) are disabled according to the specs. When I shoot stills I always record RAW, even if JPEG is being shot as well. I use the JPEG files for preliminary assessment of the image on a tablet, then use the RAW file to produce the actual image. 2.2 fps sounds freaking slow to me, and is a huge red flag that there are going to be a lot of compromises with anything that is computationally demanding with this camera. And that is going to be most evident when it comes to shooting high data rate video.

There is a big difference in quality based on how a codec is implemented. If the encoding is sub-optimal and inefficient (something you might have to do to keep heat under control for example) then you might well need more bits to get similar quality, so don't read too much into the bit rate. I think there will be a crop, based on the limitations in the stills burst modes which suggest that the processor is having some issues handling all the tasks it needs to do. When you go to video the easiest way to address that is to reduce the amount of data that needs to be processed, and the way to do that is to only use a portion of the available sensor in one way or another. So either cropping or line skipping is likely. It will be more than the M50, but less than the 5D4.

ML do more by making the camera perform beyond it's safe specs. You can do that with literally ALL cameras, but the manufacturers do not do it for very sound reasons that have nothing to do with crippling. A manufacturer has to consider liability issues for a start, particularly when delivering a product that cannot always meet it's spec. The operating mode they set up has to work ALL of the time and not fail/glitch out, which is something that can easily happen when the hardware is pushed beyond it's stable limits. They also have to consider the effect of returns as a result of unreliability or premature failure and what that costs them. One return will cost you the profit on some larger number of sales. Returns have a negative effect on the bottom line, and any manufacturer that produces a product where that happens excessively is probably not going to be in business very long even if they sell lots of product. I think it possible there may some compromises with AF in 4K as well. Based on the stills specs there is a significant impact on burst frame rate when using DPAF, presumably because the processor is having a big chunk of it's time occupied by AF tracking. Not all of those AF points may be useable at any one point in time though. Specs often give numbers of AF points, what they don't say is how many are actually being polled at any given point.

It has nothing to do with protecting anything. They do what the hardware will allow them to do. If you don't mind a pair of leafblowers attached to the side of the camera I am sure that they would happy to provide you with a higher spec product. I am guessing that this camera will have a Digic 8 and consequently will have the same limitations that all other Digic 8/DV6 cameras have. The M50 is probably a reasonable approximation for the sort of video this camera will produce, the main difference is that this one will be able to take FF stills.

Which explains why my P900 creaks when you turn your wrists. The "good QC" released it like that. Because they really care.

If you compare it to rappers imagining cameras they have never seen, then it stacks up pretty well as well.

They can't. Sony is taking more and more of the new photographer/videographer market, and once those people are invested in the Sony ecosystem, most will be there for life. Canon sitting back and doing nothing has the effect of permanently ceding market to Sony (for the most part, but also some of the others).

They should be, unless you are talking about RAW feed. Regular HDMI video would simple be an uncompressed form of what is normally recorded in camera. With RAW you would need to apply those corrections yourself since all you are getting is data directly off the sensor without any processing applied to it.

The Z cameras likely are being made at the same facility as the D850, and is probably the reason why they can't supply the D850 in sufficient numbers at the moment. Some of their capacity is being used to make Z6 and Z7s, which means that D850 production is reduced to make room, which in turn explains why they are always out of stock at the retail level. Not being able to meet pre-orders does not mean that pre-orders are wildly exceeding expectations, it probably just means that their production capacity is limited and maxed out.

It is guys with attitudes like that who have been holding back the MILC revolution. I bet he was one of those who were down on the utility of MILCs without ever actually having used one. You mean a Vietnam vet who loved the culture and stayed in the region? I would guess that there are quite a few of those. Not necessarily true. A lens has an inherent resolution, and if you are only using part of it you may be getting less sensor resolution than you otherwise would with a lens that was designed specifically for that smaller format. The new lens mount will be proprietary, so no one will be making lenses or adapters unless Nikon gives them a license, which is unlikely considering that Nikon is in the lens market themselves. Don't count on any native mount lenses from other manufacturers anytime soon. You will need to use older mount lenses together with the Nikon adapter if you want to use off-brand lenses.

Don't you know that most movies are edited in the back seat of a car between scenes?

An open format does not mean it is free, all it means is that licences are granted automatically rather than through negotiation. You still need to pay royalties if you use it In your product. Can he run FCPX on his custom tower? Probably not. The performance that counts is the performance you get on optimized hardware. FCPX has probably been written specifically to best utilize the features on specific computers, whereas the Adobe product has not. But that is probably going to change when you get to make custom hardware that Adobe CAN run on, but FCPX cant.