Robert Collins

Yes to a,certain degree. Ram sticks are available up to 16gb. A motherboard will typically have 4 to 8 slots. Ram is dual channel which basically means if you only want 16gb you should buy 2x 8 rather than 1x 16. You still eventually get bitten into upgrading your ram sticks when new motherboards come out that don't support your dram generation.

It seems to me the price of getting bigger sensors into cameras is falling faster than the cost of getting bigger faster lenses to make up for the smaller sensors.

Even more idiotic is that the cameras reset the clip names (back to 0001) with each SD card (and this cant be changed unlike with stills where the number can be sequential.)

I wouldnt be very optimistic about the long term income prospects for stock video Take this site... https://www.shutterstock.com/ Look at the stock video rates - typically US$79 for a 1080p clip and US$199 for 4k - sounds like a good business right? Then take a look at the stock photo rates on the same site. A US$29 monthly fee gets you 10 images or US$2.9 an image. And if you want a lot of images a month, you can get them for as little as 27cents an image. Essentially stock photo prices have fallen by over 95% in the past 15 years (with the democratisation of photography). I know of 3 photographers who 15 years ago were working full time on stock photography (for Getty) and say they were making a very good living. Now they make almost nothing. My guess is that video is probably half way through that democratisation process (which basically ends with everyone having decent video, video af, stabilisation on their cameras.) And it is pretty likely stock video prices will fall pretty rapidly.

Picture Profile settings?

Yes, I can see what you mean. When I posted I hadn’t given it much thought and really meant it was something that I personally wasn’t looking for. Certainly for more ‘professional’ type work I can see why people would want/need this.

I don’t really see a huge advantage to interchangeable lenses but the design where the lenses can be changed without rebalancing makes sense. The design looks pretty conservative -retractable legs? Same battery? Anyway, I am really looking for a Magic Pro 2 where the rumors have got a bit hazy over the past couple of months.

To be honest, I think this is a slightly different issue. I do think that Sony has auto white balance issues which result in funky/unattractive colors in some instances. And it is difficult to get consistent colors out of Sony’s.

Honestly your arguments are not substantive For Instance you claim that Canon colors have more ‘dimensionality’ but you don’t explain how and why. I could equally claim Sony colors look more 3D rather than the 2D of Canon colors. Are these substantive arguments or two people BSing each other?

I am certainly not talking semantics here and I know ‘color science’ is a standard industry term. But it’s a bit like another industry term - ethical banking - I just don’t see much evidence that exists. And let’s look at this logically - when Yurolov says ‘that you don’t understand color science if you can’t recognize Canon colors are superior’ - it implies he understands color science and I do not - which is obviously pretty reasonable. But, as a corollary it also implies that he understands ‘color science’ but Sony does not. Now essentially that has to be heroically optimistic. I mean Sony seems to have a good grasp of BSI tech, stacked sensors, on sensor adc, that back of the sensor ram stuff - gee they can even build a sensor for security companies that they can sell to video camera manufacturers as the greatest thing since sliced bread - but still apparently they can’t get a grip of color science.

Certainly no posts here. This is a video site. I dont think anyone here is interested in the advantages of using luminosity masks in Photoshop or why you should use curves instead of levels. And in terms of composition - the geometry in dynamic symmetry and why it matters.(And I dont think these subjects adapt well to the internet in any case.)

Hi Salim, I am in a vaguely similar position in that I am debating whether to buy a second A7r3 or an A7iii as back up for my existing a7R3, (Actually I would like an A9 with picture profiles but that doesnt sound very likely.) If you happen to be addicted to high resolution sensors (like me) I wouldnt hesitate a minute in buying the A7r3. The video autofocus is really good. I dont know if the A7iii is better (because I havent tried it) but it doesnt seem noticeably better. Obviously the biggest loss by buying an A7riii over an A7iii is the money

Well arguably I am both. I happen to teach (or give workshops) on composition theory and Photoshop techniques because I am basically a photographer. I am 'learning' video (or trying to). There is obviously overlap between the two (but less than I imagined).

Yes, I agree it is a 'bit funny' but I was trying to make a serious point. You literally make a video 'better' by one metric by making it 'worse' by another. This is why it is easy to find people saying on this site that think Sigma Art lenses are 'brilliant' because they are super sharp and have little distortion and someone says they like say an FD lens from the 1960s because of the 'character' and 'rendering'. When Yurolov says above that the Canon skin 'appears smooth and uniform' all he actually means to someone else 'that it lacks detail' or is 'out of focus'. And BTW I have heard people argue that Canon has ' more subtle, detailed skin tones'. So where are we here? And when Yurolov says 'Effective use of this science yields results that have the effects that I mentioned previously: 1) subject isolation 2) dimensionality.' I would like to know exactly 'what science' he is referring to. Because I believe there has been a fundamental difference that goes back at least 300 years between say Newton and Goethe about the difference between the science and the perception of color. 'Color science' looks like Gatsby's green light to me. (BTW bonus point for getting Newton, Goethe and Fitzgerald in one post.)

Well lets start by getting this one out of the way. 'Color science' is an oxymoron. Because science deals with facts and color is a perception. Exactly the same rose will 'look' a different red to anyone against a blue background than a green background. And I just feel there is a whole less 'science' and a whole lot more 'subjectivity'than people imagine. And let me explain something very basic. I havent been doing video very long (I am a photographer) - about 6 months. But I have been studying hard and trying to learn. I have learnt that pretty much everyone goes for or likes a 'filmic' look. But however you analyse the 'filmic look' (so somewhere near to science) it is 'achieved' by actually 'degrading' in an 'objective' sense the underlying image. Nearly all the characteristics of the filmic look is about making the underlying image crappier. That goes for 'low contrast', 'less sharpness', 'adding grain', 'less accurate colors', even the '180 degree rule'. The very phrase 'filmic' smacks not of 'science' but 'subjectivity'. When people talk of film cameras, ancient lenses etc and the results they produce they are 'definitely' talking aesthetics and not science. In an artistic sense imperfections are very important - the Mona Lisa wouldnt be the Mona Lisa without the crooked smile. And even the smartphone image we love to hate is largely a case of it being too good rather than too bad.

Honestly, I am not trolling but I just disagree the 'results speak for themselves'. Lets take a very specific example where the commentators are 'drooling' over the Canon cameras. So look I understand that people see better Canon color here but I dont. I actually dont like either very much but the Canon is definitely too green for me. But more obviously, the Canon is less sharp/softer which makes it look more 'cinematic'. Softness tends to be a 'character' of 5D mkiv images in general but I dont see it as much of an advantage because you can always make images less detailed but you cant add detail. And along the same lines people tend to like Canon video because they 'crush the blacks' and again I dont see that as an advantage on the basis that I can crush the blacks in post but it is more problematic to uncrush them. So, as I see it, there is much more 'subjectivity' in this whole subject than people imagine. I am sure that people who shoot Canon love the colors (most probably because they are used to them) and I would guess that they see any other camera that shoots different colors as 'not so good' because they judge colors against a Canon color standard. And as the majority of pros probably shoot Canon they are all in a cosy information bubble.

Sony is in a fairly unique position in that it is 'the' sensor manufacturer which essentially means it can say breakeven on the camera and make money on the sensor or breakeven on the sensor and make money on the camera. They get even more flexibility because the 'marginal cost' of a sensor is low but the price (based on the 'average cost') is high. And honestly when you have a 20 page thread on EOSHD about 'the battle of 3 M43 cameras' when the obvious winner is Sony who is providing the same sensor (apparently designed for security cameras) I dont think we have to worry that Sony is 'giving away' their cameras because my guess is that they are making decent money one or another. Blackmagic, on the other hand, I am not sure about. They seem to be promising an awful lot for very little to me. To see what I mean, take Olympus as an example. Olympus has lost money in digital cameras in every one of the last 10 years except one (2011 from memory). Its gross margin in this business is extremely high (over 50% when Apple's is around 38%) but they still lose money. And it seems to me that Olympus cameras basically offer a whole lot less than BM for a whole lot more.

I really understand the point you are making but sadly in the business world the 'exact opposite' is true. Samsung has already shown that the opinions of those who consider the NX1 the 'best ever' hybrid dont 'count' because there are 'not enough of them' to keep the camera in production. And honestly if 'only' opinions of people who have bought and used the system arent worth anything you are rather heroically ruling out 99.9% of the demographic which rather explains the problem. The biggest problem that Samsung faces is 'NOT' that it produced crappy cameras that nobody wanted to buy, it is that it produced 'best in class' (by several more independent sources) cameras that 'nobody wanted to buy'.

But really 'the problem' is much more complicated than this. For instance it may not 'aggregate' - while he may 'trust' you, can he trust everyone? And the problem of excessive smartphone use is that it is an 'addiction' - which inherently means that they dont understand or have control over using the smartphone in a manner that is always in their 'best interests'. Look there are main board directors of Facebook who you can see on youtube saying they will never buy their children a smartphone (their children can buy one for themselves when they get a job). When I go out to dinner with my GF, we leave out mobile phones at home. I know it sounds a bit pathetic and we are only trying to enhance a personal relationship but I see many reasons why banning smartphones from a set will enhance productivity. And I see whining about it as really a symptom more akin to an alcoholic complaint the bar is closed.

Unfortunately this thread is about whether Samsung is going to re-enter the market which is really about 'whether if Samsung introduce a groundbreaking new camera/hybrid' it will sell well or not. I remember the NX1 - it got some insanely good reviews (Dpreview and I think the Camerastoretv). I never bought it - lack of lenses (which other mirrorless had at the time and dont have now), it being 'ugly' (obviously not a good reason but we are all tarts at heart) and being 'too big' for an apsc mirrorless were all factors that jump to mind.) It's like Pentax - excellent cameras that nobody buys. Or Canon for that matter - pretty rubbish cameras that everyone buys (sorry for the offence). I am pretty dubious about the whole concept that Samsung actually has 'groundbreaking tech' in this space just because it had it 5 years ago. But I am infinitely more dubious about the fact - that even if they do - anyone will care.

I have been shooting Sony full frame for 4 years and the colors never really bothered me. I have been taking photos and shooting raw and nearly always change the colors anyway so no problem. But I started shooting video a couple of months and you simply cant do that - you need to get it right in camera and I am finding the colors a bit of a struggle. My personal feeling (which maybe bullshit because I dont have much experience) is that Sony doesnt have a 'color' issue so much as a 'white balance' issue. Which makes it horribly difficult to get decent colors with a single set of settings.. I posted this video yesterday from a reviewer yesterday and for the most part the colors look pretty good to me but there are time when they simply go off in the video....

My son's (he is 4) school has a no phone policy for both the students and the teachers. Seems like a very good policy to me. However, I was discussing this with a CEO of an international brand a year ago. He simply said it was impractical. If they implemented such a policy then word would get around (presumably by smartphone) and noone would work for them (as they would be seen as a bad employer.)

I dont know what your problem is BUT he is a 1Dx ii user who had the A7iii 'for about a week'. It is almost certainly littered with 'new toy' exaggerations although he did at least vlog with the camera.. But the Op here asked for opinions. And I dont know who is better to give opinions than someone who has used both cameras. Admittedly a week isnt a long time but it is fairly long in terms of the A7iii when the camera was only released in the US two weeks ago. If you happen to be better qualified to give your opinions go ahead....