tugela

Except that the A7s DOES record 4K, just not to internal storage, since processing is required for that. It isn't the sensor that is generating the heat, it is the processor. It obviously has nothing to do with the sensor. If the sensor was generating the heat then the camera would not be able to record 4K period.

Wifi control of the camera wont work?

It has nothing to do with the sensor size, something like the A7s does full sensor reads when shooting video. The heat issues come from the processor demands combined with the form factor for the camera. The A7s can shoot 4K quite comfortably, what it can't do is process that internally and stay cool, so you need to record it externally. Newer Sony processors are more power efficient, so they generate less heat, and that allows internal recording. If the A7s had a body style like a DSLR it probably would have had enough heat sink capability to record internally. Those other products are using IP that Canon doesn't have access to, and since the IP holders are competitors, they are not going to license it either. So Canon has to use old technology instead, and that old tech is not up to scratch when it come to video in general and 4K in particular.

I think the problem isn't that they lack the knowhow, but rather that they lack processors of sufficient sophistication to handle the workload. IMO this is the root of most if not all of Canon's perceived sluggishness in adopting the future. The big problem they have is that they lack the capability to develop such processors at the same rate their main competitors in the MILC arena can, so they are always on the back foot when it comes to things like video (unless they use the sledgehammer approach, but that is expensive). No, the XC10 footage looks like garbage. It isn't 4K, it is more like 2.4K. People aren't talking about it because they have given up and moved on if they are interested in shooting real 4K.

That is the theory. However, it is not the practice. At that distance the difference is obvious. I'm not talking about theory, but from personal experience. The problem with the theory is that it was made up by people who want to rationalize not having higher resolutions, not because there isn't a visible difference, but just because they don't want it. Sharpening isn't necessary with an oversampled sensor. It will deliver close to full 4K resolution without that.

Not if you are shooting natural history, lol. You want it to look realistic, as though the viewer is really there. And unless you have cataracts or something, human vision is NOT soft (in fact, it exceeds HD resolution in center view by a big margin). I got a 65" 4K panel over the weekend, and the old HD footage looks really sad on it. Especially BluRays of movies shot at regular resolution, they have far too much grain and noise, so they look like crap. Stuff shot at 4K and delivered as HD upscaled reasonably well, although no where near as nice as native 4K footage.

More hysteria. If you don't want to pay them, then deliver in H.264 or some other format. It will only affect people using the codec to deliver content to consumers at a price. A 0.5% royalty seems pretty reasonable to me. The content delivery people will just increase the price for whatever they are delivering by 5% and pass it on to the consumer, while taking the extra 4.5% as additional profit. Agreed. For video an EVF is superior. The problem with film is that it can see ultraviolet light eyes can't see, and that is what give that blue cast that you are trying to mimic with the 1DC. It is an artifact of the film days, it isn't realistic. The 1DC tries to mimic the colors of film, while the NX1 tries to mimic the colors of the human eye. IMO the problem is that people who shoot video are so ingrained with the artificial colors of film (since that is what they grew up studying) that they try to duplicate it even though technology has moved on to the point where more realistic colors are achievable.

If you are recording natural history, or real life, or interviews, it is supposed to look real, not surreal.

To my eye the NX1 color looks more natural. The 1DC color looks like the sort of photographs cameras in the 70s would take. I think that is where the color bias comes from, people are trying to mimic the color of old film rather than the color that really is there. It is also looks like the NX1 has somewhat better resolution than the 1DC as well.

Not just a fancy box, but an obsolete camera inside. My guess is that it is marketing razzle dazzle to get rid of old inventory otherwise gathering dust in the warehouse, and make a fat profit in the process. I think the folk who buy this are going to be a little disappointed that the quality of whatever they try to shoot doesn't come even remotely close to what they see other cameras do on YouTube.

The reason you see Canon lenses is because they are attached to Canon cameras....or am I missing something? It doesn't mean that L lenses are better, it just means that the people using them are invested in a brand.

​Um....most of them. You are not that familiar with Canon cameras apparently.

​I disagree with that. If you are forking out thousands of dollars on a body, you probably are not going to be skimping on lenses. Cheap lenses are really for the entry level cameras. They are an inappropriate match for something like the a7rM2 for example. It is like saying that 5DIII owners want and are buying the cheap 75-300mm zoom, because it is cheap. No, they are not.

​1. Saying that Panasonic and Sony are not out there is incorrect. Their products are stocked in most camera stores where I live. And even if you can't get a particular item off the shelf, they will all order it in for you without much delay. 2. Cameras like the GH4 are prosumer products. The people who buy them generally can't afford things like a C300M2, which is a hell of a lot more expensive. 3. What is the difference between "super cheap" and "cheap". If someone is paying $1500 for a camera body, they generally are not going to mind paying a few dollars more for a lens. And the Canon 50mm F1.8 isn't that great btw, I have one so I know. If you wanted to use a cheap Canon lens you are probably better off with the 40mm pancake, it is a better lens, although twice the price. 4. Transcoding isn't a problem. Some editors can't handle the newer codecs, but then again some can't handle Canon's newer codecs either. 5. The GH4 (and cameras like it) weren't designed to be competitors for full spec pro cameras, they were designed to be hybrids. If you want to compare the C cameras to the GH4, how good are their stills?

​It is market share as a percentage of units shipped. What would absolute numbers do to change the result? If you want absolute numbers, there are some in the figure that was presented in an earlier post.

​I don't think cell phones had anything to do with that, they don't and never have competed with ILCs, which is what that figure is about. Around 2009 or so was when IQ from digital cameras became good enough that the need to upgrade was not strong anymore. There was a lag period as the market caught up replacing older cameras with newer ones. Nowdays there is no imperative to get a new camera unless your old one breaks or the new one has some must have feature, such as advanced video functions. When I got my NX1, that was the driving force for me. My old T3i was good enough for stills (but horrible for video), so if it were only stills I was taking I would not have upgraded. Sales of DSLRs are going down because that replacement with "good enough" is largely done now. The sales which are going up still are mirrorless, and that is probably being driven by people interested in hybrid cameras rather than stills or video only. In the medium term that is where the growth potential in the industry lies.

​No, digital was allways the cheaper option for actually taking photographs. The problem in the early days is that digital cameras were very expensive for the most part, and the image quality in that price range did not compete with film. Once it did, film died overnight. The same thing is going to happen to DSLRs. Mirrorless have inherent advantages, and once they become equivalent to OVF cameras in certain areas, DSLRs will become extinct very quickly. I think that day is not too far off, and then Canon with become the next Kodak.

​That is not really the point. "Real" professionals use full professional equipment, but there is an army of lesser lower end pros who can't afford that stuff and make do with prosumer equipment. Typically those guys are shooting both stills and video. That is the market Canon and Nikon are losing. Those folk are not moving over to buy C300, because that is simply too expensive. DSLRs can't cut it in video any more, not because of something inherent in the mirror (although obviously it is inconvenient having it there) but because the companies that make DSLRs do not take video seriously. It is tacked on as an afterthought. Mirrorless centric manufacturers however DO take video seriously, and that is the reason the market share is shifting to them. Maybe Canon and Nikon sell DSLRs mostly to pure stills photographers, but they are still giving up a big chunk the market that wants to do both. Since the development costs of a camera are absorbed by the first X customers, this segment of the market they are losing represents pure profit they are giving up. In addition, by giving the mirrorless companies a solid following only they can satisfy, they allow those companies to cover THEIR development costs, something otherwise known as "getting your foot in the door". Canon and Nikon should be very concerned, and probably are. The fact that they are laggard in implementing video in their products means either (a) their management is incompetent and short sighted, or (b) There are IP issues and limitations imposed by cross licensing agreements that prevent them from progressing as fast as the mirrorless crowd.

​If you were shooting manually as routine wouldn't it make more sense to use a manual lens?

Those temperature differences are minor compared to how hot electronic components can get. Generally you don't want the internal components to exceed ~80C, and that fact will determine the operational thermal envelop of your camera. Your camera will still work at higher ambient temperatures, but it will result in higher operating temperatures and consequent increased risk of failure. If you are operating a large camera body cooling is more efficient so you can run for longer periods before encountering problems. With a small body containing high performance electronics, such as that with the RX100, it is a much bigger issue. Manufacturers will put in cut offs to prevent you from reaching excessive temperatures in order to protect the electronics, since they don't want service returns, especially during the warranty period. The overtemperature warning is just the manufacturer telling you that you are stressing your equipment. If you do it too much you shorten the lifespan and run the risk of your electronics frying.

​The warmest days in those places is only a few degrees warmer than the warmest days in NA and Europe. Computer components get way hotter than that, 80C+ is not unusual. The issue with warmer days is that the temperature differential between the camera and the air is lower, so the efficiency of cooling is reduced. This is particularly a problem with cameras that have small compact bodies. A large camera has greater cooling capacity so it can run longer before experiencing overheating issues.

So, some user feedback on DVInfo: http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/canon-xc-series-uhd-camcorders/529125-bye-bye-canon-xc10.html

​In the future Canon will have to work out their color science to be closer to Sony's, once the Pavlovian conditioning effect wears off as more and more move to Sony equipment. People think Canon color looks "organic" and "filmic" (and all those other ridiculous buzzwords) because they have seen it so much and therefore want to emulate it so that they can demonstrate to the other Pavlovian dogs that they are worthy of respect as well

​I would say that Sony is clearly the top dog in video at the moment, followed by Panasonic/Samsung. Nikon straggles behind them while Canon was left in the dust years ago and apparently has no clue how to catch up.

​Is that a no then?