tugela

It isn't all that different from the chargers that came with my Canon cameras (other than the USB input of course).

Probably because stills are read completely into the buffer before being processed, whereas in video the raw data stream is read directly into the processor and processed on the fly - hence the rolling shutter. The sensor can be read fast enough to avoid rolling shutter (that is why we can take stills), but it is the processing that causes the lag. Remember that there is very little rolling shutter in FHD mode, where the processing requirements are much lower.

Normally I think it is a bad idea to add optical elements into the path between the lens and camera, but in this instance, if you never remove the adapter, it could be an effective method of keeping dust off the sensor. You do realize that I own Canon cameras right?

You were not referring to his XC10?

2 Looks the best. 1 is too soft, and 3 has pronounced aliasing. I would guess 1 is a Canon.

It isn't present in any of the other footage, so probably the IS briefly lost it's mind at that particular point. Keep in mind that the NX1 shoots HD at 80 mbps using a more efficient codec, so it will probably hold detail better.

A pan on any digital camera is going to cause issues either with image breakup or dropped frames if done too fast, if compression is being used. There are also a few other things that could cause the problem he has on panning, such as using stabilization of any sort on the camera. Both lens and body stabilization have to be off otherwise you will get judder from that as well.

Is it dropping frames perhaps? Maybe panning stresses the bandwidth available to the encoder. That would cause judder.

The entire party membership went to the leadership conference? Unions didn't get to send their own delegates? You are aware that to get nominated at all, you need the support of at least 15% of labour MPs right? Someone like Donald Trump would never have been a candidate in that sort of system, nor would any sort of outsider for that matter.

When a company says something like "We could do X, but when we asked our customers most weren't interested, so we didn't do it (although we could have)", what they really mean is that they couldn't do it but don't want to admit it. It is marketing spin to pretend that their product is capable of something it is not capable of. Or if it can just do it, it does it badly. It is complete nonsense for their camera to be capable of the latest thing, and they just decided not to activate it because 80% are not interested. That is a "W T F!! Fire someone!!" type of thing IMO.

You forget that these are consumer cameras, not production cameras. I imagine that virtually no one who buys these cameras shoot 24p. All 24p footage looks crappy on computer monitors because of frame mismatches, which is where most of the stuff shot on these cameras will be viewed. Somehow I doubt that any features or productions are going to be shot on cameras of this level, unless it is the type where you give a high school kid a camera to go and film their lives for a day. Likewise, the only editing most users will do with footage is to stich clips together. That is about it. So any correction or softness professionals might like will be a non-existent consideration for the engineers who built the cameras.

Unlikely. Organized parties generally have local branches who elect delegates, and those delegates elect the leader. It is not a popular vote, but rather a machine run by the elite within the party. The party leader that emerges from that process is not necessarily the person the rank and file want, it usually the person the elite want. The only country that I am aware of that nominates candidates by popular vote is the US, and the main parties there do not have a leader.

If you have scenes with lots of waving grass in high definition like that, you need lots of bandwidth, or bad things will happen, no matter what camera or codec you use.

By over sharpened you mean its under softened. Looking at it on my 1440p monitor I would say that the main issue is that there is a lot of detail in the images and the codec is having issues. Probably they need a higher bit rate.

"Sharpening" that happens during debeyering isn't real sharpening, it is just how the algorithm applies the surrounding information that is used to reconstitute the pixel color. You can have luma priority ("sharpened") or chroma priority ("unsharpened").

Not a zoo, judging from the grass. I would guess it was filmed on the same shoot as all the other animal scenes.

I would guess that the reason is that these cameras are marketed purely at consumers, who have zero interest in flat profiles. The people who buy these cameras will use footage the way it comes out of the camera without modification for the most part. It looks fine to me, viewing on my laptop. Perhaps you just don't like resolution and prefer Canon-Soft (R) images? Not judging, just commenting. Tastes differ.

That's ok. You can still shoot in 720p if you want If someone's primary concern is the "need to be cinematic", then they are probably a hack

Sony didn't lose 13% of their revenue during that period. Their's increased.

Not the high end point and shoots. That is where the money and the remaining market in the segment is. Not unless they modernize their processor line. With the current processors they have I am dubious that hardware enabled 4K will be available in mass market cameras from them for the foreseeable future. Something has to change, and their most recent processor appears to not be that change.

I think the optimal OIS for stills is different from that for video, and that is what sometimes causes problems. It seems like something that is very dependent on the particular lens being used. As I mentioned before, it was quite noticeable on some of the first lenses that came out with the GH4. The issue arises I think when the system tries to keep the background steady, and does, but in doing so creates slight perspective changes for objects in the foreground. That creates the wobble (and it can create some very strange effects if you subsequently apply something like a warp stabilizer to the footage). If the system tries to keep the foreground steady, then it might appear that the camera is moving a bit, but you don't get the foreground wobble. So it depends a lot on what part of the image the manufacturer thinks is going to be the most important. At least that is the explanation that made the most sense to me.

Lens IS can change perspective in the image slightly, which results in you at times seeing "behind" an object in the foreground. The net effect of it is to make the foreground object appear to be wobbling like jelly. Some of the early Panasonic lenses on the GH4 showed this quite badly.

No. If there was going to be any, we would have seen it in the 80D and especially in the G7X M2 (which has the new processor). The fact that the Digic 7 in the latter apparently has 4K disabled when you would have expected it to be capable of it means that Canon have not solved the issue of making a processor efficient enough to fit within the thermal confines of small to medium cameras. So don't hold your breath. Canon are not going to be competing in this area in the consumer market for quite some time. Possibly not even before 2018, unless they license in processors from one of the other competitors. The only way they are going to be able to do it is to use multiple processors and their MJPEG approach, and that is simply not practical in a consumer camera. You might see it in the 5d4, but not in anything lower. This is pretty fundamental. I'm sure that Canon would love to compete in the 4K space, but they just CAN"T, because they don't have the critical tech that the others have.

And all those people with those shiny new 4K TVs they just bought are going to want compact cameras that shoot 4K video so they can watch it on their TVs. Guess which brand they will buy (and it obviously is not going to be Canon). Remember, these are people with disposable income we are talking about, so they are the ones buying the high margin products and the people camera companies want to target. Canon makes cameras for the bargain basement types. The horse has already left for pastures beyond. Canon have not even figured out that the barn door is open yet.

When its really needed it will be too late, because their customer base would have already left. As they say, there is no point in closing the barn door after the horse has bolted