tugela

They didn't. That is the "creative accounting" figure that they came up with to write off against profits so they minimize or eliminate tax. What is wrong with 18 year old interns? Jealous? I bet he thought he lucked out as well, but not because he was sitting next to you.

Is that so?

Glad you think so. IMO IQ still has quite a way to go on pretty much every camera available to today. General home viewing devices are on an upward tick in terms of size, something that is going to continue going forward, and your "good enough" today is going to look pretty crappy when the average home rocks 80"+ retina screens. The future of general viewing is going to be a more immersive experience, that means much bigger higher resolution screens (so that it covers more of the field of view) but also VR (which will have resolution and precision requirements way higher than what we have today). The cameras we have today are inadequate for that, their IQ is too crude. We are not done equipment wise by a long shot. If you think that you are being short sighted and don't get where the industry is heading. Contemporary equipment is all you need for the past, but not enough for the future. We don't live in the past and are heading for the future, so the answer is that todays cameras will NOT be the end camera for anyone.

Actually, they do Most camcorders and compacts are consumer products, and the "ND" used is actually an electronic filter, which is a lot easier and cheaper to implement than a mechanical filter. The a7S series is a lowlight camera, it is not only intended for video, there are stills applications as well. Putting some sort of moving filter close to the sensor would have unacceptable consequences for IQ, so it is not going to happen. And that is ignoring the spatial implications of doing something like that in front of a FF sensor in a a7 body. You would have to completely redesign the body into something like the EOS-C cameras to do it, only larger. There is no particular reason why a a7III series camera would not get 10 bit. The main restriction preventing it is the available processor bandwidth, and if the new cameras come with a new processor they may very well be capable of doing that.

It depends what the subject matter is. But, if you are making money off it, you want it to run as long as possible without losing the viewer. It depends on what you are shooting of course and how entertaining you are. And you need to produce real content, not the same thing going on forever. Probably not two hours, but certainly 30 minutes a week is entirely doable if you are doing this full time and should be a minimum target.

No. Correct. Unless you have very frequent updates you will never get enough volume to generate enough adds to make sufficient income to make it worthwhile. Either very frequent updates, or very long ones (since those generate multiple adds). The long ones are ideal because presumably your audience is watching and consequently can't avoid the adds. You do need to be entertaining enough to make that happen though, just adding length for the sake of length won't work.

Why would you want an internal ND if you didn't need to have one? The closer these things get to the sensor, the more likely they are to create distortions and interfere with IQ. Maybe that is OK for something like video, but not for stills. Aside from the fact that an internal mechanical ND (as opposed to the electronic "ND" that most camcorders and compacts have) would have to be large to cover a FF sensor, and that would add a LOT to the size of the camera.

Modern AF lenses with geared focus typically have very short throw distances since they are not designed with manual focus in mind, so if you are trying to get critical focus (as would be the case if you were using manual focus) they can be very tricky to use. A wired lens should allow for massive throw distances if you do it slowly and evenly. Obviously there is technique involved and some element of skill on the part of the operator - you can't just twist the focus ring without thought if you want it to be consistent. For getting critical focus a wired lens is far superior to any modern geared lens. For geared lenses if you want decent throw distances you pretty much have to use pre-AF old glass. Modern geared glass is crap for that.

Just curious, were you at Van Dusen gardens a few weeks back? I bumped into another photographer there and we were talking about the NX1.

On my NX1 I attach the extra grip when using the 16-50mm S lens, since the lens protrudes below the body and it does not have a tripod collar like it's longer sibling. It lifts the camera clear of the bridge. Otherwise you have to mount the camera far forward on the slider and it unbalances the head. If there is any sort of attachment like that for your camera, you could use that. Even a grip for a completely different body might work, since they all use the tripod screw at the base of the camera to attach anyway. It would look a little odd, but it should do what you need.

At least two hours per episode. Minimum.

Even if the underlying story is ridiculous. If dogs were carrying some disease, they would be put down, not banished to some island.

Broadway camera did offer to do a special order if I wanted it, but apparently stuff done that way is non-returnable. I didn't try Lens&Shutter or Kerrisdale, but I imagine they would have done a similar thing if asked. At that point London Drugs did not have the NX1 or S lenses on their web site, although they did list them later. Whenever I looked they were always special order though, with no stock at local stores. Since there was apparently extremely limited (and possibly no) stock in Canada who knew when or if the camera would arrive, so I opted not to do a special order and instead just waited and monitored web sites until someone had physical stock. As I said, The Camera Store had them in stock, so I ordered from them. I did the same for my 50-150mm lens, basically waited for it to show up on their web site as in stock, then ordered it immediately. Even with The Camera Store, they were frequently out of stock in the first 6 months or so (later they usually had bodies or kits available). I'm not sure if it was due to high popularity or them only have one or two units and not being able to restock them readily once sold. There can't be many copies of the NX1 in Canada however.

They had it on the web site as a special order, they did not actually stock it as far as I could tell. The only camera from the final generation that they physically had was the NX500, there were the odd store that had one of those on site. They did physically have the non-S lenses to some extent, as did some Best Buy stores (who also sold older generation Samsung cameras, but not the NX1). I got mine from The Camera Store, which, as far as I could determine, was the only place in Canada that physically stocked them. But they were not listed as an official distributor, I don't know where they got their cameras. When I tried registering my NX1 with Samsung Canada the serial number came up as non-existent, although it did have a Canadian part number, which was a bit unsettling. Some other camera stores across the country did have Samsung cameras (and were listed as distributors by Samsung), but they were in the process of discontinuing Samsung equipment when the NX1 was announced. Samsung marketing apparently was unaware of this, or simply didn't care, lol. One of the places that Samsung listed as a source of the NX1 was a sound store about 20 meters from where I live, and I know for a fact that store has never sold cameras at all, only audio equipment. So go figure. From what I could see and in retrospect it seems clear that Samsung were in the process of discontinuing their photography business even when they announced and released the NX1. I think the limited marketing that they were doing in some markets was purely an exercise to sell off units that they had already manufactured, but they didn't publically say that because then no one would buy the stock.

Because the encoding is done in hardware and frame rates determined by the sensor read rate. The speed of the processor does not mean a whole lot of those two parameters are the same. People seem to think that it is all software, but most of these limitations that so many fret about are in the hardware, not the firmware.