tugela

Because it would have been beyond the capabilities of the processor within what they consider an acceptable thermal envelope. They did it for technical reasons, not to screw you over.

Well, we have been told that DPAF is superfast at focusing and stays on target like glue. Apparently that is not the case, at least in the video above. The daylight shots were soft as well, not only the low light ones.

The HD encoder logic in the Digic 7 is probably the same as that in the Digic 6, so you would not expect to see a difference with HD. Using the G7XII video as a reference point will be misleading as a result.

Most of that video was out of focus though. The camera was really struggling to keep up. The footage looks relatively soft on a 1440p monitor as well, so it is not that great.

That is the reason why you think it looks "better". Watch on a 65" screen and the differences become obvious pretty quickly.

It is not technically easy. If it was they would have done it. The hardware can't do it without a fan in the camera or using bit rate heavy storage. About $300-350 is what it is worth. Yes as flexible as e mount, not as much as m4/3 obviously. But C-mount lenses, Pentax 110, a lot of options. As of now, I believe it's just your generic speedboosters, ef and Nikon F. I assume an FD is probably on the horizon as well. As far as 4K, IDK why they can't put in a 100mbps mjpeg version or MP4 version like Panasonic. I remember that interview from the guy from Canon saying they were having heat dissipation issues. But as I said in my previous comment. Their high bitrate 1080p looks as good as Panny's low bitrate 4K, so for me where's the benefit? I am downscaling to 1080p before the edit, so I am losing nothing and saving time. I also really like the new body too. It's nice to see them move to a power switch rather than the button. And I actually like tilt screens better than articulating screens, so again I am pleased with that. My questions are bitrate, IBIS, and how well the DPAF will translate through their ef to ef-m adapter. And price. Because they don't sell TVs. Or they were being honest last year when they said they were having issues solving heat dissipation for 4K. There is absolutely no reason to lie when your excuse is a flaw in technology. What are you talking about? Canon's HD bit rates in DSLRs is relatively low. And pretty much all of it looks worse than downsized 4K.

It is in development. Whether it will be released or not remains to be seen. However, the 7 series compete against the 5D, not the 1D, so you should make fair comparisons, not compare a particular model against a competitor's higher tier product. If the 9 series makes it to market it will almost certainly have much beefier processing capabilities than the 7s, and the larger body form will help greatly in maintaining a more useable heat envelope. Plus, the first mark III products in the 7 series will probably start to appear in 2017 as well, and they will be more advanced than current models. That is what Canon will be competing against.

The proper comparison for the 1DX2 would be the A9, when it is released. I suspect the later will be more than a match for the Canon.

By chromatic aberration do you mean real chromatic aberration or light scattering on the beyer filter? Both are commonly referred to as CA, even though only one is. The only cure of light scattering on the sensor is to use a larger sensor with a relatively low pixel density.

Never the less, his body language is very defensive, especially when he was talking about why mjpeg was used (he pretty clearly thinks that there is another reason that he doesn't want to say, lol). Which is odd for a marketing guy. Makes you wonder why.

The Canon guy's body language was very defensive.....I don't think he believed the spin he was giving, lol.

I think the problem is that most Canon DSLRs use 1080p of raw pixels, but after debeyering you end up with an effective color resolution of ~700-750p. Unless the sensor is oversampled you will not approach true 1080p resolution. My guess is that sampling is controlled through the hardware encoder in the processor, so if your camera still has one of the older processors (Digic 6 and earlier), you are going to get this soft relatively low res HD output. Maybe the Digic 7 will have the same problem, but it is too early to say since it is in only one camera for now. Sampling is much better in 4K mode however (in those models that offer it), so in those cases you are probably better off shooting in 4K and downsampling to HD in post yourself. There is no such thing as "color science". It is a made up buzz word (phrase) used in order to rationalize choices made.

No. All that is required is next generation silicon with lower power requirements. Panasonic apparently have one of the most advanced processors in any camera (except perhaps the one in the NX1) in the GH4, and that is two years older now. They likely have more modern components now with lower power requirements (which consequently can be pushed more and remain in an acceptable operating thermal envelope). The big heat source would be the processor, not the imager. I think that all of the manufacturers can shoot 4K60p with the sensors they have, they just can't do it without melting down their processors (unless they do a software solution like Canon).

Lol....so, $500 for a screw thread? Real professionals are not going to quibble over $30k. I am a scientist and the instruments we routinely use typically cost $50-$250k, so really $30k is relatively cheap if it is something you need to do you job.

So the thread title is incorrect and the cameras have not been announced as suggested?

Since the NX1 does a full sensor read and downconverts the result, it probably is capable of doing 6K. The output would likely not be too different from what we currently have however, since the effective resolution of that 6K output would still only be 4K. The full sensor read in the NX1 is the reason why it is the king of resolution currently. I get it fine. I just don't drink the cool aid.

Horizontal resolution does not need to match vertical resolution. Remember in the old days we used to have non square pixels that were converted on display. Something similar could be done in camera to account for aspect differences.

~18 mpixels would be the minimum for 6K, if you do fake resolution like Canon. With an oversampled sensor to account for debeyering, to reach true 6K resolution you would need about 36 mpixels. Accounting for extra pixels, a 20 mpixel sensor could produce a 6K image, with an effective color resolution of around 4K.

"Motion" is the new buzzword for that unquantifiable quality that makes a less sophisticated but more fashionable camera "superior". We have seen the same nonsense in the past about frame rates, bit depth, color, dynamic range, "filmic" (whatever the hell that means - it seems to change year by year). Basically it is a psychological tool to use when demonstrating one's own superiority over peers, they are lesser because they "just don't get it".

It looks like ~720p though.

But apparently not with the people renting equipment, if the OP is true.

BM announces products way before they can actually sell them, a year or more in some cases. Most other manufacturers announce them when they are about to start shipping shortly. The point of doing this is pretty obvious: so they can claim bragging rights of being first, when reality is maybe not so much. An example of the mad rush would be the 4K camera, which was rushed into market when it became clear the Panasonic were about to release the GH4 IIRC. Then there were a few others that were rushed onto the market so they could be sold before BM made their next "amazing" announcement at NAB, lol (presumably because no one would buy the "old" camera after the "new" one is announced). Such as all the other stuff they make, much of which has much higher margins than these cameras. People buy Resolve without buying a camera you know. If there were no cameras they probably would sell very few stand alone copies. By selling cameras it creates a buzz and market awareness of their other products, most of which likely have healthy margins. In essence it is a form of free advertising. If you buy one of their products (for example, a camera) you are much more likely to buy other related products they produce as well. This is what is called brand awareness and brand loyalty. The cameras serve the purpose of promoting the company as a serious player in the production field, something that would be WAY harder to do if they were just selling the sorts of things they originally sold. The cameras themselves on the other hand are priced low, which means that margins are low, which in turn means that in order to break even on manufacturing and R&D they need to sell a LOT of them. A small operation like BM is unlikely to be able to achieve the sots of volumes that would be required for that.

I think it is more probable that their camera division operates at a loss, but it's value comes in leveraging other sectors of the company.

The problem with them is that they announce and hype products long before they are ready, so that they can earn brownie points by being "first". But then there are delays, and finally a mad rush to push stuff out the door when it becomes clear that competitors who have more conventional development timelines are about to enter the market. In that kind of environment QC is not a super high priority unfortunately. Only when they are flimsy designs to start with. You expect a pro product to be built like a tank, particularly if it has a minimalist design.

More accurately, the improvement in video specs in 2016 came about BECAUSE Samsung left, lol. It prompted people to start hacking the cameras to improve performance It still remains a possibility that the camera technology was transferred to another company as a collaborative effort, and that the NX innards will be resurrected under another brand. Btw, rolling shutter is a function of number of pixels, not sensor size. A FF sensor with the same number of pixels and the same processor would have the same RS. Presumably two years on they would be using a faster processor however, and the read could be done more rapidly with less RS. A NX1 mark II would probably have improved performance in most areas, such as RS, noise, ISO etc. NX1s were selling out because there were not many distribution outlets and not many units were actually produced. The whole marketing aspect was very bizarre, almost as though they were not trying at all and had already decided to leave the market even before the camera was released.