ND64

Again, even if true, its because of optical formula, not format advantage.

shocking statements. especially from experienced videographer. what actually changes the human face shape is Perspective Distortion. and perspective is only, and only, and only depended on your distance to object. period. NOT ANGLE OF VIEW! that's why a fixed position zoom lens doesn't change the perspective (a 200mm image has same perspective of 100mm image, its only 2x crop of same image). so photographer A with 35mm lens on his A7S with 5 meters distance to model girl, has same perspective of her that photographer B with 50mm lens on his MF camera in same distance, already has. and No, BIG NO! 50mm lens of a bigger format does not necessarily has lower optical distortion than its equivalent brother 35mm on smaller format. clear example: Fuji 16mm f/1.4 distortion: %1.39 Nikon FX 24mm f/1.8 distortion: %1.9 negative. Canon 24mm f/2.8: %1.8 (heck Fuji is sharper than both of them wide open). what you guys talking about here is mostly about optical design approaches, not format advantage. sometimes designers' goal is to achieve maximum resolving, sometimes they go for character. sometimes they care too much about astigmatism, sometimes they don't. sometimes they accept some trade-offs to make it smaller, sometimes they don't. look at these two monsters, both made for FF format, both have near identical FOV (43.7° vs. 40° 50'), both f/1.4. but one is 385 g and the other is 1030 g! Nikkor is much softer wide open, but people love its 3D look and focus transition. the thing is many of those designed-with-character-aim lenses are made for MF format in the past. it doesn't mean they cant do the same for FF. it doesn't mean they cant do the same for smaller than FF. Fuji did the same for DX format with its 56mm f/1.2 APD.

Samsung wants to put 1/1.7" sensor in its future smartphones. ISO performance gap is going to be less than we see today. So 1" format camera makers should differentiate with fast lenses. f/1.2 or at least 1.4. Imagine 13mm f/1 on this XC10.

While VR industry is going to be big, but TV is far from finished. with cheaper OLED tech we'll have wall sized flexible panels. or with new efficient laser projectors, any flat surface of your house can be used as gigantic screen. and I'm sure in those cases, our heavily compressed 2k and 4k files are going to look terrible!

When will we accept this reality that with hybrids you have to compromise many things for the sake of not carrying another cam? I don't understand all this obsession with "convenience"!

Seems outside of Japan, camera makers dont like established sensor size standards. what fab company on earth make 41mm wide CMOS sensor? Its meaninglessly bigger than 36 and pitifully smaller than photographic 54 and miserably far from cinematic 65.

please stop this "raw video color looks better because its 14 bit" notion. raw has no looks. you give it to that. in case of raw DNG file, probably Adobe gives it to that. Jpeg is 8 bit. all the fine art photographs you've ever seen in 500px.com are 4:2:2 or 4:2:0 8 bit (heck many of them are HDR). so even heavily subsampled heavily compressed files can contain the color magic you are looking for. blame the "looks making engine" inside the camera, not its internal bandwidth.

its not Internet anymore, its Celebritynet. %90 of the content in social media is made by %1 of the users. its tough to keep dedicating your time, money, and energy, and yet stay ignored. the "latest post" of many blogs I used to follow are dated 2014 or 2013! many of them are gone, without saying Bye to their readers (which sometimes make me thinking "maybe he is killed in a car accident and no relative inherited his passwords". lol). but EOSHD is different, or can be. its a brand right now, and Andrew is well known in video community.

This flagship DSLRs are mostly used by PJs and Jpeg is very important for these guys. Now look at Canon white balance in DPR night mode. D5 nailed it, but Canon seems took Sony color, and made it worse than their own 1DX :-)

This number includes their broadcast and cinema gears, and thats very big business. so we cant say A7 series are doing well just because Imaging department as a whole is doing well. of cours investors dont care, profit is profit, no matter came from where.

Canon and Nikon cant event deliver the file in decent modern codec, you expect them to give you raw? However why you need raw if you are not going to play with vfx? Yes, there will be more DR but you cant get more than what you have in still. Photographic dynamic range at ISO 25000 is less than 5 stop in even modern still cameras, so windows, light sources, will be clipped in low light inside shots. What we really need is dual read out, one with amplification, and one without, then camera processor combine these two data and give a HDR-like image.

Andrew, what's your height again? :-)

Unfortunately it has none of these. Nikon Picture Control had 6 profiles for years, they added Flat and it became 7. But in DL series page it says you can select only 6. Guess which one is unavailable? Yea.

I dont know why there is no 24. if it can do 30, it certainly can do 24. however UHD is 76Mbps. and just 5min. not bad for me but its low for many others. HDMI out is 4:2:2, 8 bit, 1080p only.

They're just telling their customers: we couldn't find a efficient enough processor to compress the data, so you do it with your super computers! Maybe they just wanted to say "We Are Not Behind Sony. Don't Repeat This in Internet Forums!" otherwise, for most of serious video shooters who gonna buy this for its video capabilities, HDMI-out uncompressed 4k would work better. at least they could have smaller ProRes HQ files with their external monitors. But now, its just a bragging right: 4k60p internally. Wow. Sony folks dont have that! :-)

Mother of God.. 2.6MB per frame, internally!

I don't think they don't know we need 10bit or peaking or full read out and things like that. heck I even say they read EOSHD. its cost cutting policies that shape these decisions. the sad thing is the one (Samsung) that wanted to do it with lower profit margin, couldn't survive.

It's easy to blame them, and I do, but Nikon is not sensor maker. I think nobody had the DX sensor they wanted (20mp, low noise, fast read out), or didn't sell to them. What they could do? Make their already tired of waiting for pro DX customers, wait another year? That would be worse.

1 inch format is the way to go. Nikon is already doing 18.4@60fps in their N1 series. It's 1104 mega pixel per second. UHD is 33.18MP, so it could deliver 33fps of 8k image! You might think near 40mp is too much for 1 inch sensor, but with emerging light absorbing materials (quantum dots) they will have same performance as today m4/3 sensors. so its not like "needs few more years of development". It's just here, technically. Why we have no 8k camera in our hand? Because some top managers in Japan with their parental strategy think the market is not ready yet!

All your solutions "may" help them stay in business a bit longer than estimated, but thats not enough, they need Growth

Damn.. I cant believe A is video! Well done Samsung

B is raw? NO WAY! .. B is video. a 4:2:0 video. A also has some halo effects at eadges, because of adobe resizing/sharpening algorithm.

Check this chart from Imaging Resources: ' alt='' class='ipsImage' > Highest detected range: 13.3 f-stop Where is that 14.4 number? and this one is even more realistic (also closer to my guess): http://home.comcast.net/~NikonD70/Charts/PDR.htm#D800E

you confused Ev with Stop. 14.4 Evs on D800 is equal to 13.5 stops. so 12.8 on GH4 is much lower. however, DxO measures the DR down to 1:1 signal to noise situation, that is not practical (an image which has same amount of noise as it has signal, is useless for you, no matter how much DR is there). I usually ignore 3 stops of the score, so 10.5 stops for D800 (still) image could be a safe bet.

I remember arguing with you Andrew about something in your site, couple of years ago (with another account, another name I think), I dunno it was about RED or something else. and I was literally impolite in our email conversation. I had a bizarre feeling, cause I'm not a impolite person, so why I said those unreasonable unacceptable words? in cyber space, we forget that we are dealing with humans. humans like ourselves. this post made a flashback in my mind, which was quite necessary I sincerely apologize