Matins 2

And a screen worth more than 10 dollars that you can see in daylight.

Nikon today launched the Z Fc. Formerly the Df retro plastic camera, Nikon has improved the concept with even more plastic and a smaller sensor. You can feel the retro authenticity during each buzz of the power zoom and the flappy plastic concealing a port used for live streaming. It's every film camera shooter's dream Minox Nikon! --- What did Df stand for anyway? What does Fc mean? Fruit cake? Football club? Are you OK Nikon??

Manual focus.
Then there's the build quality, the rolling shutter, the unfixable red dots/focus pixels or stripes using certain settings. I wouldn't say those are deal-breakers compared to its secondhand price.
There's also the fact that it's 2021. It is not a discreet camera.

Everybody loves Mr Undone. The YouTube bros line up around the block to circle jerk with handsome Gerald, but I for the life of me cannot find any of the great guru's shoots!

Hey guys,
Since the middle / end of last summer I've been making a feature length documentary. I have 3 more shoots to do, and then it can be finished. However I wanted to share a small teaser I've made in anticipation of sending it out to festivals etc.
I'd love to hear all feedback, comments, criticism etc. Please don't be shy!
Shot entirely handheld (apart from one shot) with BMPCC4k, Viltrox speed booster and Sigma 18-35.

Kind of reminds me of this advertisement, directed by Frank Budgen:
 

Canon 5D Mark III with Magic Lantern.

Canon 5D Mark III with Magic Lantern.

Canon 5D Mark III with Magic Lantern.

Canon 5D Mark III with Magic Lantern.

Canon 5D Mark III with Magic Lantern.

Yes.
Had me fooled for a moment too 🙂

Is this a wax figure?

 

I remember when the first 1" sensor smartphone came out (Panasonic CM1) was around the same time the Samsung NX1 arrived.
It's still worth keeping an eye out for on eBay if you want a smart compact camera...
https://www.eoshd.com/review/panasonic-cm1-review-part-1-smartphone-first-impressions/
Takes some great shots in RAW mode.
In many ways it's still the best sensor in any smartphone for RAW at least.
I recently re-bought one for 100 euros.

Is it just me? I feel like this photo of the face looks pretty great, am I missing something?

1/1.12" is not exactly 1" yet, though wasn't there an actual 1" Sony sensor for smartphone rumored?

Unfortunately, the low and mid-tier camera market is stuck in the mud.
Quality wise, Sony is the McDonald's of the camera industry.

I suspect that the two primary reasons the image sensor market is dominated by Sony is because of: (1) shady business deals between Japanese tech companies and (2) a lack of competition from outsiders.

And thus, ironically, making those cameras no longer cheap!

Too many people having too much time on their hands to look for the best and cheapest camera.

Nope.  Color depth is the number of different colors that can be produced in a given area.  A given area has to be considered, because imaging necessarily involves area... which area necessarily involves resolution.
 
Obviously, if a 1-bit imaging system produces more differing colors as the resolution is increased, then resolution is an important factor to color depth -- it is not just bit depth that determines color depth.
 
The above example of a common screen printing is just such an imaging system that produces a greater number of differing colors as the resolution increases, while the bit depth remains at 1-bit.
 
 
The Wikipedia definition of color depth is severely flawed in at least two ways:
it doesn't account for resolution; and it doesn't account for color depth in analog imaging systems -- which possess absolutely no bit depth nor pixels.  
Now, let us consider the wording of the Wikipedia definition of color depth that you quoted.   This definition actually gives two image areas for consideration
"a single pixel" -- meaning an RGB pixel group; and "the number of bits used for each color component of a single pixel" -- meaning a single pixel site of one of the color channels.  
For simplicity's sake, let's just work with Wikipedia's area #2 -- a single channel pixel site of a given bit depth of "N."  We will call the area of that pixel site "A."
 
If we double the resolution, the number of pixel sites in "A" increases to two.  Suddenly, we can produce more tones inside "A."  In fact, area "A" can now produce "N²" number of tones -- much more than "N" tones.
 
Likewise, if we quadruple the resolution, "A" suddenly contains four times the pixel sites that it did originally, with the number of possible tones within "A" now increasing to "N⁴."
 
Now, one might say, "that's not how it actually works in digital images -- two or four adjacent pixels are not designed to render a single tone."  Well, the fact is that there are some sensors and monitors that use more pixels within a pixel group than those found within the typical Bayer pixel group or found withing a striped RGB pixel group.  Furthermore (and probably most importantly), image detail can feather off within one or two or three pixel groups, and such tiny transitions might be where higher tone/color depth is most utilized.
 
By the way, I didn't come up with the idea that resolution is "half" of color depth.  It is a fact that I learned when I studied color depth in analog photography in school -- back when there was no such thing as bit depth in imaging.
 
In addition, experts have more recently shown that higher resolutions give more color information (color depth), allowing for conversions from 4k, 4:2:0, 8-bit to Full HD, 4:4:4, 10-bit -- using the full, true 10-bit gamut of tones.  Here is Andrew Ried's article on the conversion and here is the corresponding EOSHD thread.

No.  Colour depth is bit-depth.
The wikipedia entry begins with:
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_depth

Well, this scenario is somewhat problematic because one is using the same camera with the same sensor.  So, automatically there is a binning and/or line-skipping variable.
 
However, barring such issues and given that all other variables are identical in both instances, it is very possible that the 8K camera will exhibit a banding/posterization artifact just like the SD camera.
 
Nevertheless, the 8K camera will have a ton more color depth than the SD camera, and, likewise, the 8K camera will have a lot more color depth than a 10-bit, 800x600 camera that doesn't exhibit the banding artifact.
 
 
Of course, it is not practical to have 1-bit camera sensors (but it certainly is possible).
 
Nonetheless, resolution and bit depth are equally weighted factors in regards to color depth in digital imaging, and, again, a 4k sensor has 4 times the color depth of an otherwise equivalent Full HD sensor.

4K has 4 times the color depth (and 4 times the bit rate) of full HD, all other variables being equal and barring compression or any artificial effects.

I think regardless of this particular model, the sales of traditional DSLR type cameras are going to wane so much that the market will be niche in the immediate future.
Speaking for myself, a handful of what I'm already filming now is done with a phone.  And the other camera I do use and find perfectly acceptable for my doc work is a very modest cheap m43 camera.  And I'm a quote/unquote professional. 
As phone tech advances and offers computational imagery with video, I don't see how the consumer market could be anything but dominated by mobile devices leaving camera enthusiast with slim pickins'.