Robert Collins

Just a guess. But as it is a 'Hasselblad' camera there is a fair chance it will come with a 'leaf shutter'

Noone denies that Nikon designs their own chips as does Fuji for that matter but Sony is the one producing them. If you take the stacked cmos sensor in the Sony A9, it is clearly far more advanced than any other camera manufacturer - camera sensor. I am sure Nikon can design a FF sensor with a stacked sensor but who else can manufacture it? Samsung maybe but they dont seem interested in this space. If you want an idea of how the technology is likely to progress, look into Pixim (seawolf security sensors) which Sony acquired in 2015. In that technology every individual pixel has its own exposure (as opposed to single or dual exposure over the whole sensor) allowing ultra wide dynamic range. Currently it is restricted to 1mp but in a few years.... BTW I dont see Sony's stranglehold on the camera sensor business as a positive thing, it is the sort of monopoly that will ultimately be to the detriment of consumers in terms of both price and innovation.....

The Batis 18 2..8 is also great for a gimbal - and with Sony's clear zoom is pretty flexible.

I think Panasonic and Olympus have far more fundamental problems. Video af is pretty much unacceptable - they need pdaf. And their pricing (for both bodies and high end lenses) is simply too high when you have FF at US$2k with the Sony A7iii and Canon and Nikon are likely to be aggressive in the budget end of mirrorless APSC.

I think the 'zoom camera' will have some 'auto modes' that will be pretty fancy and appeal to people who dont want to do a lot of editing. For instance, they mention 'dolly zoom' in the specs which is pretty fancy on the basis that you have to move the drone while zooming. Still I would think the 1 inch is the one to go for. Based on the shape of the lens, I am guessing that the 'zoom' doesnt have aperture control while the 'pro' does.

It really comes down to this doesnt it? But you have to ask why? Nikon uses Sony sensors Olympus uses Sony sensors Panasonic uses Sony sensors Fuji uses Sony Sensors Pentax uses Sony sensors Hasselblad uses Sony sensors Phase One uses Sony sensors Blackmagic uses Sony sensors And even Samsung, Apple and Canon use Sony sensors in many of their products. It isnt because CMOS sensor manufacturers are ten a penny but camera manufacturers......

You are making 2 arguments here.... 1) That Nikon is better at 'designing' sensors than say 'Sony' Although I dont necessarily agree, I will let you have that one. 2) That the 'design' of sensors is more important than the 'manufacturing'. I think this is totally wrong. Let's face it. Is Canon crap at 'designing' sensors or is their manufacturing capacity 'out of date'? Does Canon not have 'stacked cmos' or 'BSI' because they cant 'design' it or cant 'manufacture' it? Do we know that D850 is a Sony manufactured sensor because it behaves like one or is designed like one? In the past couldnt you tell whether a Panasonic camera had a 'Sony sensor' or a 'Panasonic sensor' from the performance? There is a rule of thumb in sensor manufacture that basically says 'each generational leap' requires '2x the capital' which results in 'half the number of players' which resulted in Panasonic selling its ancient manufacturing plants to Tower Jazz, Toshiba to Sony and the fact that Canon cannot afford to move their plants to the latest tech.... So talking about history is dodgy here - perhaps 10 years ago Canon had the best sensors, it doesnt now.

Honestly, I dont think it does.... When you 'design' a sensor your have to make trade offs. If you choose a 'low base iso' you will score 'higher' than a sensor in 'dynamic range' than a sensor with a 'higher base iso'. But you will score 'lower' in terms of 'high iso capability'. So take the D850 v A7riii https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-A7R-III-versus-Nikon-D850___1187_1177 The D850 scores better for DR (because its base iso is 64), the A7riii higher for iso performance. The fact that the Nikon sensor 'outperforms' Sony in dynamic range doesnt really mean it outperforms it as a sensor. But even if you argument is that Nikon is 'better at designing sensors' than 'Sony', it doesnt get around the fact that 'Sony' is better at manufacturing sensors than anyone else!!

You can be sure that if Nikon makes their own sensors for the upcoming FX Z-mount mirrorless cameras, they will be true Nikon custom silicon and not just a “greatest hits” of other people’s technology. Indeed it might not even matter if they are manufactured in facilities owned by Sony, Toshiba or TowerJazz – it is the design process which is key to defining the performance, both for stills and video. Quote... Honestly, this is missing the whole point. Pretty much anyone with say well less than US$100m investment can 'design' an incredibly fancy sensor with 'adc', 'BSI', 'stacked sensor technology' '10nm'. Now go out there and find yourself a 'foundry' to manufacture it for you and you will find there is exactly 'one' manufacturer who can do it - and that is 'Sony'. (Well possibly Samsung can do it but doesnt seem interested.) I read about an estimate for say Canon to upgrade their silicon manufacture to Sony's and it was something like US$16bn..... (PS. Incidentally Sony bought out Toshiba a year ago.) I am unsure whether it is Sony's tech (such as stacked cmos sensors) or the incredible 'capital investment' (which in Sony's case is supported by its smartphone sensors) which is the key to defining your sensor performance - but it certainly isnt the 'design'. Designers are 10 a penny.

Dual pixel af is mirrorless (live view) surely? However, one of his main points is that mirrorless has an 'always on' sensor while 'normally' a DSLR only exposes the sensor when taking the photograph. With the sensor always being on and collecting data, the 'game' has changed to 'how quickly you can get the data off the sensor' and how well you can 'process' it. Sony's continuous eye-af is a good example of that. But going forward we will see computational photography that we already see in smartphones - to reduce noise, increase DR etc...

Yes, I saw that but dont forget that DJI is now the majority of owner of Hasselblad, so some tie up was inevitable.

Seems legit. Apparently page 552 of the latest Argos catalogue...

I dont quite understand what particular video features people are looking for 'medium format' to add. * Medium format is usually associated with very high mega-pixel cameras which are not the greatest starting point for video * The Sony sensors (and they are pretty much all Sony sensors) have slow readout speeds meaning jello * ...and they are not yet BSI so despite the larger sensor, low light isnt much improved... * Medium format lenses do not tend to be very fast so you cant really get shallower DOF than FF I can definitely understand why someone who owns a medium format camera for stills would like to see better video but I dont really see how it would end up generating better video than what we can expect to see in FF.

The link with Panasonic is pretty tenuous in my view. The Uozo factory used to be 100% owned by Panasonic until they sold it (in 2013) to Towerjazz leaving themselves with a minority 49% stake. So in effect they have exited the business. I still think the Nikon rumor makes most sense for Towerjazz. Nikon is about to go head to head with Sony in mirrorless FF and they are bound to be disadvantaged if they remain dependent on Sony for their sensors. It is only prudent to find an alternative supplier especially as Toshiba wafer fab was gobbled up by Sony. I wish Samsung would show an interest in this business.

I am surprised Sony never put a FF sensor in an A6xxx body.

It will be interesting to see how successful this approach will be. Personally, I have my doubts. Afterall, the problem 'with ergonomics that NX1 users liked' was that there simply wasnt enough NX1 users. The Leica SL - with its even larger than a DSLR approach - has not been a much of a success either. And even the Fuji X-H1 doesnt seem to have caught on with the digital stills crowd. I tend to think that the 'superior ergonomics' crowd tend to really mean 'its mirrorless but feels like a DSLR'. I guess that is fine to appeal to Nikon core 'existing' customer base but I think it will have less appeal to the faster growing demographics which is women and under 40s. Still it is probably the right approach for Nikon - it doesnt make a lot of sense for them to 'copycat' Sony and there is clearly demand out there for a mirrorless with a 'more pro body' (and hopefully it will be the end of demands for Sony to make their A7 bodies bigger.)

Until watching this video, it hadnt really occurred to me that ProRes Raw might not actually be raw at all..... Chart Apple, arrows me.....

Still you can take an A7riii which is FF 42mp, stick on a 100-400 and then 2x crop it to 800mm and still have 11mp from an M43 sized portion of the sensor!!

My personal feeling is that I dont think things are going to pan out like this. The reason being, I dont think mirrorless is a 'zero sum game' - Canikon providing strong mirrorless offerings will probably raise awareness and sales for the whole mirrorless market and might even result in quite a boost for the whole ILC market. It isnt difficult to imagine that mirrorless will make up 75% of the market in 5 years and that probably wont be bad news for Sony sales. A strong showing by Canikon should lead to a wealth of new mirrorless lenses at affordable prices from the likes of Tamron and Sigma. And strong competition should lead to even more aggressive pricing of mirrorless bodies.

One thing I do feel quite strongly about this 'mess' is that Disney holds a lot of responsibility for it. (And it is a 'mess' because noone comes out looking good in this episode.) Let's take a look at their statement.... "The offensive attitudes and statements discovered on James’ Twitter feed are indefensible and inconsistent with our studio’s values, and we have severed our business relationship with him," said Disney chairman Alan Horn in a statement obtained by USA TODAY. The key word here is 'discovered'. It makes it sound as though these statements were hidden in a black box underneath his mattress and 'discovered' in some police raid. In reality his 'tweets' were in 'plain sight' and 'public record'. So Disney doesnt have a leg to stand on..... Either... 1. Really Disney doesnt care much about what views/jokes/insults etc their employees have historically posted on their twitter feed (in which case they are hypocritical for claiming they are 'indefensible and inconsistent' with their values...) 2. Or, and this is much worse in my opinion, they claim the moral high ground but are so incompetent that they havent bothered checking (due diligence) his social media accounts before appointing him to spend US$100m+ of shareholder funds directing their movies.

From today's Guardian 'One 4Chan user justified sharing the video created by Harmon – who has been a vocal critic of the US president, Donald Trump – as retribution for the downfall of Roseanne Barr: “If they get to take scalps for someone making racist jokes, we get to take scalps for them making paedophilia joke.” Most of this has nothing to do with PC culture, it is more to do with the internet giving every keyboard warrior access to a loudspeaker. When I grew up, Morally Outraged from Essex would write a letter to the BBC where it would be politely put in the waste paper bin...

Still the Cinebench number is not great even compared to a Dell XPS 15. And the 'fix' seems to have received limited enthusiasm.

But let's face it, in an age where everything is fighting for attention, 'hysteria' is totally counter-productive. We are all now going to tune into 'skinny girl turns into a psychopath' simply because lots of people say we shouldnt. And I bet it is total crap. And noone was really interested in watching 'who is America' until Sarah Palin said that Sacha Baron Cohen was evil. And we all tune into Trump hoping to see his latest car wreck...

WOW. Really? Can you state a single instance in the past 100 years where a combination of 3% growth with a 5% fiscal deficit has ever turned out 'well' for the US economy???? (Or the Greek economy for that matter.) (admittedly getting seriously off topic)