Mokara

That would be because in order to use the big fast native glass, you are pretty much limited to those giant bodies as well. It is not an endorsement of the body, it is a case of working with what you have to in order to use the glass you need no matter who impractical the body is. I am pretty sure that most of those photographers would prefer a smaller body more suited to their hand size, if Canikon actually made something like that, but they don't. All of their FF offerings are enormous, without exception. But, when Canikon eventually get into the FF MILC game, expect to see camera bodies designed around ergonomics more broadly suitable than what the convention is with their DSLR offerings. They will probably have bodies similar in general dimensions to the a7/a9 cameras. In any case, to be taken seriously as a photographer you still have to fit the conventions of what a photographer looks like (and that includes the equipment you are holding), no matter how inconvenient and unsuitable it might be. I am sure that people doing video experience the same sort of professional bias as well, as most of you have probably experienced at some point. Coming to a shoot with equipment that does not "look the part" tends to not always go down well with your clients.

I don't have bias towards women, I understand the sorts of issues they have with equipment like that since my hands are small as well. Fact is, that equipment in the picture is unsuited and ergonomically poorly designed for the person holding it. She would have a better, steadier hold on the system as a whole with a smaller camera body. Not to mention the camo on the lens, lol. Little doubt who that lens was made for, a certain type of individual.

Lol, that picture pretty much proves my point. That is equipment which clearly is designed for a different sort of person than the individual holding it.

The Zeis lenses are pretty good, albeit pricy.

Reality is not the issue, it is the image that drives the model. Reality rarely matches a glamorized image. The same could be said of many other industries where marketing is targeting members of the general public who aspire to emulate the image of that industry. For example, basketball superstars might be used to sell shoes, but most of the people who buy those shoes in response to that image will come no where even remotely close to matching that superstar because of their shoes, and in fact even most other professional basketball players won't either. With cameras, marketing targets the desire of Joe Blo to emulate the images taken by pros (which they are very unlikely to do, no matter how expensive their "shoes" are). And in turn the pro's which are used to promote that marketing will be glamorized individuals who match the perception of what a pro looks and sounds like (even though most real pros are nothing like that). In the photography world that means attractive rugged alpha males. What people think a photographer should look like. And the sort of camera such a person looks right with. That is the camera YOU need, because you want to be that guy and take amazing pictures like him (and, of course, get all the babes as a result). That is the sort of thinking that drives marketing in the industry, which in turn drives the physical appearance of the cameras we use. There is an image of what a photographer should look like, equipment is designed for that person, and to be like that person the masses must have the same equipment as him.

Well, I have small hands, and pretty much all of Canon's cameras larger than a Rebel are uncomfortable for me to hold, since I can't get a solid grip on them due to their size. A camera should be an extension of your primary arm, you should be able to do everything with it using one hand (short of whatever you might do with lens controls). Ergonomically the best camera I have used personally in terms of hand fit has been the NX1. Not saying that most MILCs are better, since they often have little or no grip at all, and that makes things equally awkward, just on the other end of the scale. Canon/Nikon's cameras appear to be designed with alpha males in mind. I don't think that is accurate representation of the overall population though. In the days when these design concepts originated it might well have been true that the ILC market was dominated by alpha males (in the old days ILCs were mockingly referred to as "male jewelry" due to the sorts of people who typically would carry them), but that is no longer the case and today in the modern egalitarian and equitable world the average hand size using cameras is smaller (all those pesky females are skewing the average down). Body size has to accommodate the average user, not just whatever happens to suit you in particular. Irrespective of what size a manufacturer chooses, it is probably going to be a good size for someone. Alpha males are probably going to gravitate to Canikon due to the bulky design paradigm they use, while females and average males will gravitate towards the smaller MILCs. The latter is the growth market in the industry, and my guess is that is the reason why cameras like the a7 are the size they are. They are the right size for market growth potential, all that remains for Sony to do is make tweaks to the more subtle aspects of shape.

OT, but most of the cash that "1%" take is re-invested into making more money, while most of the cash made by the other "99%" tends to be re-invested into "sex, drugs and rock and roll", with relatively little going into wealth generation. That is the big problem with modern society, it is all about the here and now, and not about the future. The fact that the 1% is getting richer is due to what they are doing with their money, not because they have it.

The bodies are identical (other than the logo), the only difference would be the sensor and possibly a new processor. They would not need a completely new supply line. All they would need to do is switch the sensor being fed into the assembly line. It is not that hard. Just use a different box to feed components from.

The a7S line is low light/video centric, so it will likely still be 12 megapixels. It is a camera with specific applications in mind. If you want a hybrid, use the a7 line, and if you want a stills orientated camera, then use the a7R line. I suspect that the a7S III will debut the next gen Sony processor which will enable more advanced video functions that is currently possible. So, 4K60p, higher bit depth, higher mbps, stuff like that. There will probably be a new sensor as well, using similar technology to what is in the a7 III, but at lower resolution to optimize ISO performance. Further down later in this year and into 2019 (assuming the a7S III gets a new processor) we will see that processor being incorporated into the next iteration of the RX10/100 lines, as well as the a6700 crop sensor camera, to produce these higher end video capabilities in consumer orientated cameras. Potentially lots of exciting stuff to come from Sony in a steady drumbeat of advancement.

Probably referring to rolling shutter in FF mode as opposed to crop mode. If you put a speedbooster on crop mode, you get a FF equivalent, but with the crop mode rolling shutter characteristics, hence better than in the proper FF mode.

The latest Sony AF system is as fast as DPAF already. If Samsung had stay in the field they probably would have something similar. The true advantage of DPAF however is that it effectively has a lot more focus points than the system Sony or Samsung use. As long as you have the computational power you can use that to do all sorts of creative things that might be less practical with the more limited sets of focus points conventional systems have. Things like really precise tracking and image recognition. I don't believe that Canon themselves have the processors to fully utilize the power of DPAF, but certainly Samsung do (at least to a greater degree). I think what would have motivated Samsung in something like this would be the edge it would give them in cell phones, where accurate automation of a lot of functions and features in the camera would be a decided competitive advantage.

24 fps, no DPAF, crop ..... all suggest that they were just barely able to get 4K out of the processor. I guess they still have issues with the thermal envelope, at least in an M style body. A little bit weaker than I thought it would be. I wonder what bit rate they are using? Also, having a crop probably means they are using nominal pixels, so the overall resolution is likely to be soft.

Canon consumer/prosumer HD was 24 mbps (which was determined by the AVCHD spec), then it upped to 35 mbps around 2012 IIRC. It seems like they are using 35 mbps in most consumer products still (so far anyway), so it is probable that the M50 will use the same. It is not necessarily bad if the sensor is being oversampled though, for consumer type use it is sufficient for most purposes if you are shooting FHD. 35 mpbs is enough to eliminate most of the more obvious macroblocking in FHD output. The problem with Canon in the past mostly is that they did not oversample, so the FHD looked like 720p footage.

Not in North America. If you go to Best Buy, most TVs on display are 4K and at least 55". There are usually some smaller ones off in a corner that have lower resolution, but there are not many 1080p sets available in the sizes most popular with buyers. Maybe things are different in Europe. Not really. It is just a frame grab from 4K footage, at whatever sensor coverage that is.

Not long afterwards they got Canon's DPAF in their cell phones, so shutting down the camera business was probably part of that transaction. They just did what they thought would generate more money for them in the end, and that was to give their cell phones an edge. Samsung never seemed to take marketing the NX1 very seriously, the whole thing may have been a tactic to scare Canon into coming to an agreement to license PDAF for use in cell phones. So, they did a tech dump into the NX1 to make a state of the art camera at a reasonable price that could potentially threaten Canon's imaging market to scare the crap out of them, and then said "if you license PDAF to us for our cell phones, we will get out of the camera business". The customers who bought the NX1 and S lenses were just cannon fodder (pardon the pun, lol) in that strategic exercise IMO. I don't think Samsung really cared about the camera market, it was just a tech test bed for their engineers and finally a weapon they could use to get what they really wanted.

Digic 8 is the stills version of the DV6, which is in the C200 and XF400/405/XG10. It will have the same hardware capabilities for video, so the M50 will shoot 4K as 8 bit 150 mbps H.264. Likely 30p (the cameras with the DV6 do 60p, but those have active cooling), and probably a crop. FHD will be full sensor 60p 35 mbps.