Mokara

The reason is that Sony are the biggest threat to whatever the fanboy's pet camera is. And it is that way for all of them, which is why it gets so much hate in spite of being largely a superior product compared to the rest. People form a relationship with their equipment and they need to rationalize their choice, which brings up negative emotions when the next guy on has a better option. A telltale sign that is going on when non-quantifiable qualities such as "color science", "cinematic" and "special sauce" start being bandied about as their rationale. As soon as you hear those sorts of things you know they are full of shit N-log just sounds inappropriate. I guess they were not thinking of the US market when they came up with their terminology and what it sounds like. Although, their insistence on calling it the "Zee" series when the rest of the English speaking world pronounces it as "Zed" might suggest otherwise.

Really? Two 11 bit values turns into 12 bits actually. It can't be more precise than that.

No it doesn't. Pixels are pixels, the processor doesn't care how big they are.

I am looking at this: Z7 footage starts just after about 6 minutes in. The camera is clearly having a tough time refocussing.

Battery life will depend a lot on how you have set up the camera. If you have CAF set up and running all the time for example, power drain is going to be much higher than if it is only active while shooting/focussing. The spec battery life will be for everything running all the time, basically a worst case scenario. We will have to see what it is like in actual user hands. The footage shot with the release event cameras that has appeared on the web does not look all that impressive to me. AF seems dodgy and most of it looks pretty soft.

The bit that overheats is the processor. When it does, it throttles, and no longer can do the compression, hence you stop recording. Battery has nothing to do with it.

Pretty unlikely that Sony will be using Nikon's processor. If they use the same processor for the A7SIII that they used in the A7III then it will not have 4K60p, but if they introduce a next gen processor then chances are it will. AF performance looks pretty crappy based on the video that has appeared so far. Unless they don't have the cameras set up properly (entirely possible) from what I could tell the camera seems slow to find new focus and often is not focusing on the proper point.

Because the processor would overheat and shut down if they tried. 4K60p and 10 bit are not there for a reason, and it has nothing to do with deliberate crippling.

In camera vibration reduction carries a asterisk noting that it is the first among their ILCs (but not first among non-ILCs by implication). The P1000 also has 5 stop "in camera vibration reduction" which AFAIK is software based. If that is true then the cameras do not have real IBIS. High speed frame rates are done at 12 bits. Focus points are not necessarily all PD, some are CD (I am guessing most). Also, not all of them may be available outside of single point focusing.

That is what they said about the 1 series, lol, and look where those are now.

Does it have the 4GB limit on individual clips as well? Other Nikon products have 30 minutes or 4GB, whichever comes first.

They should change their name to Zikon to avoid being boycotted by the creative community!!

Were the cops closing in or something? Why would you flush money down the toilet?

Stop confusing small children please.

I would guess that it will have similar capabilities to the D850. Video performance is going to be dictated by the processor, so unless they debut a new processor it probably will not be too different from the D850 in live view mode. Probably there will be a new second processor handling AF, so performance there should be better than the D850 in live view.

True 4K or true 8K would blow you away in cinemas though. Just because you are used to something and don't know any better does not mean that it can't be improved.

Cell phone sales were sustained by the rapid developing pace of the tech that went into them. Once phones become good enough for most people's needs there is less incentive to replace them and the usage cycle becomes longer. The same sort of thing happened in the PC industry. It used to be that you had to replace hardware every few years to catch up with software demands, but at a certain point software stopped benefiting significantly (from the average users point of view) from hardware advances, so there was less of a need to replace PCs as frequently. That resulted in the much hyped "death" of PCs. But actually, people still used PC's, they just were not replacing them as often, resulting in no growth and some decline in sales. Marketing idiots interpreted that as "people don't want PCs anymore", which was not true at all. Sales growth flattened, but people are still using PCs just as much as before, perhaps even more so. They are just not replacing them every few years like they once did. The same thing is happening to cell phones now. And we will see the same "death of cell phones" nonsense from business types who only look at sales growth rather than sales themselves. Basically it has happened to the ILC market as well, hence all the doom and gloom you often see when sales figures come out.

It will be faster than that. Even for stills MILCs have some pretty significant advantages over DSLRs. DMF comes to mind for example. Precise tracking is another. Or any sort of critical manual focusing if you want to use the viewfinder. The main argument for DSLRs has basically been that you get a more responsive viewfinder, which in some cases you need but mostly you don't. Refresh rates on the latest MILC viewfinders is very fast, so the only real advantage of the DSLR is not really there any more. When you reach the point where DSLRs have no advantages, why would anyone in their right mind buy one? I think that 5 years from now, no new DSLRs will be coming to the market at all. Everything will be MILCs.

Canon and Nikon don't make FF cameras? Not mine they don't. They are far too big and feel like I am going to drop them at any moment, which is why I would never buy them. For me probably the best camera I have held in terms or ergonomics is the NX1, that is the perfect size and feels like an extension of my arm. All of the pro/prosumer Canon and Nikon cameras appear to have been designed for people with much larger hands.

Storage is cheap. Even if you take thousands of shots, high res sensors are not going to be a problem. If a pro can't afford a 256 GB or 512 GB card then frankly they are not a pro, even if they are selling some pictures.

It is unreasonable to expect something "new" every year. The 8 is great, it is hard to see how it can be improved much, so it should be no surprise that the 9 is similar. They should make it look different why? Just so it looks different? Sorry, that is not "innovation" in spite of what Apple would like us all to believe. What they should be doing in the annual update cycle is incrementally improving what is inside the phone and what it is made of. If it is necessary to change the form for some reason, or if it makes sense from an ergonomic reason then great, but changing it just so it looks "different" is stupid. Take the RX100 for example, it looks pretty much the same each iteration (in many cases exactly the same). But what is inside gets better each year. That is what I want in a product I use. It it looks good and is ergonomically functional, then keep what works and improve the internals.

So, given a choice between a C200 or similar and this thing at the same price, you would choose the BM camera?

Lol....the reason they don't "over charge" is because really low price is the only reason people would buy these systems.

Viewing 24p on a 60p device will stutter on pans since it is it is creating a series of duplicates 2 or 3 frames long. Every time you get that 3 frame sequence it will stutter. TV sets have better ways of dealing with that by adjusting frames rates or extrapolating motion, but monitors do not, they run at 60 fps and throw duplicate frames in to make the difference. So if you are watching the footage on a normal consumer viewing device and have not transcoded it into a format suitable for that device it is going to look horrible. The other issue he will have doing a pan, depending on how fast it is, is lateral distance between objects in individual frames being large enough to see visually, and the only way around that is to shoot at a higher frame rate (which is why 4K60p is so desirable).

Why would you be shooting at 24p? That is just asking for trouble. Unless you are shooting clips for insertion into an analog timeline there is no reason, because it will be mismatched against the frame rate of the viewing devices your customers are likely using. As a general rule of thumb you should shoot for the medium your customer is probably going to be using.