Mokara

The sensors made by Sony for Nikon are not the same as the ones Sony uses, although they may seem so superficially. The way it works is that the client would design architecture that is compatible with the manufacturers processes and essentially send them the spec. The manufacturer would then make it based on their own technology and what is permissible to use. Significant changes are routine at this point. So, the sensor may include features normally seen in Sony sensors because, well, that is what Sony makes and how they make them. They will NOT include features that are outside of Sony's manufacturing processes. In a contract situation like this the client will set general specifications but exactly how those specifications are achieved is left to the manufacturer to do (and usually those specific manufacturing processes are proprietary to the manufacturer). Nikon would not have designed BSI for example, that part would have been done by Sony. Likewise the sensors would include focusing points that are allowed by licenses Nikon holds. For example, Sony can make DPAF sensors (they have for Samsung, who hold a license from Canon), but they can't do that for Nikon since they DON'T have a license from Canon (and never will). All that Nikon design does in this is come up with a workable spec that is compatible with Sony's processes and allowable under licences/patents held by Nikon. They talk to engineers at Sony's manufacturing facilities and figure out what can be done in general. Then they will come up with small scale prototypes made in the R&D labs and send those over to Sony along with the design they used. The engineers at Sony then modify that to be compatible with their processes (likely significantly changing aspects of the design in the process) and practical to make. If Nikon is OK with the final prototypes that come out of that process, it goes into production, with all of the sensors resulting from that going to Nikon (Sony will be contractually barred from selling them to anyone else). This is how everything else is made in the tech industry, so no doubt the same holds true for Nikon/Sony sensors.

That does not necessarily mean there is huge demand, it could simply be that manufacturing is lagging. Unless you know the actual sales numbers you can't say which is which because the manifestation of both scenarios is the same.

Sure they will say that because that is the only way to get around the fact that Clinton was the clear favorite among Democrats for THEIR candidate. The caucus system is the biggest rigged and most corrupt system of them all. It heavily favors candidates supported by activists on the left (and the right, for the Republican contests), which skews the results away from the popular choice. The Washington results made that VERY clear, since we got vastly different results with the two methods of selecting delegates. If the caucus states had proper primaries Clinton would likely have won most of them. Instead Sanders got the majority of the delegates from those states, simply because he had the support of left wing activists. Clinton was the heavy favorite among rank and file registered democrats, while Sanders base was activists and independents who usually vote Republican although registered as such. Pretty much the only primaries he did well in were the open primaries, Clinton dominated the ones restricted to registered Democrats. And it should be obvious why THOSE people were supporting him - they did not want a centrist Democratic candidate in the general. The problem with open primaries is that you get a bunch of people who are not going to vote for your party in the general election, their objective is simply to get someone in who their guy can beat, and to stoke up dissent in the opposing party. They WANT to nominate some on the far wing of the opposing party so that in the general their guy would stand a better chance. Many of those independents and republicans who voted in the open primaries for Sanders would NOT vote for him in the general because he is a socialist while they are center/center right. The Republican operatives WANTED Sanders to win because it would guarantee them the presidency. And if he didn't win they were going to stir up as much resentment as possible in the left wing activists so they would stay home and not vote for Clinton in the general election.

The reasons Sanders did reasonably well is because of the caucus system in some states that favor activists and because other states had open primaries (ie not restricted to Democrats only). A clear example of that was Washington State, where Sanders won the caucuses easily, getting 74 delegates to Clinton's 27. But due to state law, later on there was a non binding primary held run by the state itself, and Clinton won 54% of the vote then. Clinton had the support of Democrats but because of the rigged system Sanders got the delegates. It was like that in may other caucus states as well (incidentally, that was the main reason Obama got the nomination 8 years earlier). In open primaries Clinton usually won convincingly among registered democrats but Sanders won big among independents and republicans who participated in the primary. If the Democratic primary contest was only closed primaries Sanders would have trailed Clinton badly and there would have been no contest. The only reason he came close to Clinton was because of support from activists and independents/republicans. The damage done to Clinton's campaign as a result of having to have a bitter fight with someone who was not even a Democrat for the nomination probably cost her the national race. If you want to point fingers, point them at Sanders, he singlehandedly has more to do with Trump being president than anyone else.

Compared to the equivalent Panasonic camera, it does have more tech included. For it's form factor the RX100 series without question are technologically the class leader.

Depends on if they have the processor to handle it or not. It is unlikely that the specs will dramatically exceed the current DSLR cameras for that reason, so that is what you are looking at in a best case scenario.

The problem is the computer. Laptops in my experience struggle editing the H.265 output from the NX1. I have a similar Inspirion and it is barely useable editing NX1 footage, but my desktop (a 8700K system with a 1080Ti graphics card) has no issues. There is a huge difference between the capabilities of a laptop and a desktop. If he wants to use the laptop he is probably going to need to transcode his clips first. It will take a long time, but if he can batch convert them he could have it run overnight.

No, it added nothing. They were reacting to the story, not the medium.

Real life does not have grain, so why would high quality imaging have it? Grain is an artifact of inadequate technology, both now and in days gone by. Eventually it will be gone. The presence of grain does not make footage "superior". Specifically, we need to wait for the generation who grew up with analog as the primary viewing medium to die off. Only then will modern media seem "normal". Off course, by then the deficiencies of current digital media will be seen as "filmic" and "superior" to whatever replaces it Specifically, minimum fps is dependent on the actual motion in the footage. If you have objects whizzing by, or you do rapid pans, you HAVE to have high frame rates or it will look complete crap. Shooting at 24 fps actually imposes a lot of limitations of what and how you can shoot, limitations that increasingly disappear at higher frame rates.

Bridge cameras have nothing to do with zooms. They are fixed lens cameras with advanced controls similar to what you find on SLRs. It may be that most of them have zoom lenses, but that is not a requirement for the type.

Never the less, it is still a FF bridge camera. "The term "bridge camera" was originally used to refer to film cameras which "bridged the gap" between point-and-shoot cameras and SLRs" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridge_camera

Because it is primarily a consumer stills camera, and 4K shot on it is likely to be short clips? That is because it has the same processor, and compression is done in hardware by the processor. Magic is not involved and wishful thinking carries no weight, so it will use the same compression the processor has always done. Ditto for the overheating as well.

They will have newer versions of the RX10. But the improvements will be incremental, similar to what is done with the RX100. Development costs will be contained by keeping the body/mechanicals largely the same and just updating the internal electronics as silicon is improved. There is a market for high end small sensor extreme lens cameras. Sony already have a FF bridge camera. It is called the RX1.

The reason for them doing it would be the same reason Mercedes has a formula 1 team. It is advertising for their bread and butter products, it shows off their technological prowess and it provides a test bed for innovative engineers to try out new technological ideas. There can be other reasons for a company to do a particular thing beyond the bottom line. For Samsung I think that the camera division was largely not doing this prior to the NX1 and that is why they got canned. The NX1 was probably a last gasp effort by the engineers on the project to convince management that they could produce a flagship like that, they threw everything except the kitchen sink into it, but by the time they delivered there was a power change at the senior management level and the new guys saw things differently. The decision had already been made and it was too late no matter what the NX team did. It would not be difficult at all. They have done the same thing with computers before. The biggest issue of course would be lenses, but if they could get Sigma or one of the lens companies to support their mount then that problem would go away. Samsung could return to the market relatively easily if they had a collaboration with a leading lens manufacturer put in place.

Depends on how stable the tripod is under the conditions you are shooting. If there is strong wind or if there is vibration in the ground you will still need stabilization even when on a tripod, otherwise you will see the vibration in your shots.

It would be more than twice as much. The license fees would be such that it would not compete with existing Canon products. It would cost at least as much as the C200, and likely more.

Don't hold your breath. The operating parameters will likely be similar to the M50 if it has the same processor, so it will probably be 4K without DPAF. Unless they are planning to put a Digic 9 in the camera.

You mean we are about to see a frenzy of cat videos?

Don't most cell phones use variable frame rates in video?

They can say what they like, but they announced them, showed prototypes with great fanfare, then failed to deliver. They would not go through with all of that if they thought it was not going to be profitable. There have been a number of other indications that Nikon have been having manufacturing issues, such as the delays in delivery of the D850, the extreme shortage (along with shoddy construction of many) of the P900, the failure to update the P900 even though it was probably the most in demand of all of their P&S models, the shuttering of manufacturing facilities in China which were supposed to be making the DL cameras at the same time they were having problems meeting supply demands of other products. All of that is indicative of serious supply chain issues within Nikon. I hope they get their act together, because they do make interesting cameras, but pretending that there is not a serious problem within Nikon when there clearly is IMO is foolish. Processor capabilities are the bottleneck for all cameras. The sensor of every single model for every manufacturer currently on the market is more than capable of overwhelming the processor in them. Marketing is going to be doing analysis on their products and how they are used based on information in the public domain, and guiding development of new products to meet those consumer needs. Why on earth do you guys think they would not do that? They are in business to sell products, and a big part of being successful is understanding what your customers want, how they are using your product, and satisfying that demand as best you can. Exif data is a gold mine of useful public user information and only an idiot would not mine that.

The phone CPU manufacturers have a decided advantage due to economy of scale. They can afford to invest in cutting edge development of their processors because they sell so many of them. Most camera manufacturers sell far fewer so they cannot afford that sort of investment. Cell phone processors are always going to be more advanced as a result. Samsung was able to make a cutting edge camera that was more advanced than anyone else at the time purely because they could leverage the processor development through their cell phone business. Most other manufacturers can't do that, with the exceptions of Panasonic and to a lesser extent Sony, who can use other products to leverage processor development.

Overheating in cameras is due to the processor, not the sensor. That is the limiting factor. Doing processing on a 4K workflow, particularly compression, is much more taxing on a processor than a FHD workflow. The sensor doesn't care, it is doing the same work for both 4K and FHD workflows (more in the case of FHD, since that usually has higher refresh rates). If the sensor does not overheat when doing FHD, it won't overheat during 4K since it is doing exactly the same thing or less. The thermal bottleneck is the processor. They cancelled the DL series because they were having manufacturing difficulties and the delays meant that it would have been effectively obsolete relative to the competition by the time it arrived. They probably did an analysis of the exif data on publicly posted images and concluded that almost no one uses the wide apertures anyway, while longer focal lengths predominate, so it was an acceptable compromise for the camera to optimize it in a way that would be more useful to the majority of users.

You need to consider what these cameras are primarily used for, and that is as a travel camera. For that application the longer zoom is certainly more useful than aperture, since most of your shots will be in good light anyway and you will be stopped down, meaning a large aperture is a waste.

There will be more. Performance enhancements will come from processor improvements, not sensors.

They will still be selling the mark 5, if you need a camera with a larger aperture. The mark 5 is a very capable little camera, especially since it has vastly better AF capabilities compared to earlier models. The mark 6 is less of an improvement outside of the zoom for most applications a camera like this would be used in IMO. Processors.