Mokara

The fact that the video specs are a significant jump from the 1DXIII does not give you a clue? Lets have this conversation again in a month or two and see who is right. I will be expecting some groveling from you

Assuming that 8K30p is the limit of what the camera can handle, then it is unlikely that 4K60p will just be an oversampled version of the same image since that would entail twice as much data. So that mode will almost certainly have significant compromises relative to 8K30p itself or 4K30p unless it is some sort of crop. 4K24p will probably not have RS issues. We can be pretty sure about that since the camera supposedly can handle 8K30p with DPAF, that means it should be a lot more capable than the 1DXIII in terms of processing power and bandwidth. My guess is that a7SIII will be 4K only, no 8K and probably not a big oversample either. High spec for that camera will likely be 4K60p.

No one will be shooting at 120 unless they are doing slow motion, and if that is the case you don't have a choice. Why would adding a crop mode increase the amount of light?

They probably only handed them out to folk who have a youtube presence for reviews, and to trusted pros for beta testing. Your lack of a youtube presence probably bites you the butt in that regard. If you had an active channel with significant view you might get included in new release marketing activities more.

Crop mode uses a lot less data though. It is the amount of data that needs to be processed that is the issue. You only have so much processing headroom and when it runs out some sort of compromise has to be made.

Let me repeat, "If you are shooting video IMO you would have to be pretty stupid to buy a 1DXIII over the R5." Even if you are shooting pro sports with a hybrid, the R5 is still going to be the better option, because it IS a dedicated hybrid whereas the 1DXIII is a stills camera with video functionality.

I agree. If you are doing this for a living or for earning a substantial portion of your income you need to be taking a holistic approach to reach your audience. Some media are better suited for some types of messaging, while something different may work for others.

It is not the result of a monopoly, but simply reflects that people are using video both for presenting stuff and researching material. It is much easier to get an impression of how something is done or what it looks like from video than from text. It is sort of like the transition from silent movies to talking ones. The old way simply can't compete with the added breadth that video can offer.

Because it has to focus as well, and it apparently can't do both at the same time. If you are shooting video IMO you would have to be pretty stupid to buy a 1DXIII over the R5.

They may be entertaining, but I have serious doubts that they are likeable, or at least what most people would consider to be likeable. Both of them come across as having a strong potential to be d*cks in person

That is just the mode they set the sensor at. If they wanted to read at higher fps they could make it do that. The limitations come from the ability to process the data generated while at the same time doing whatever else the camera needs to do. Obviously you don't create a spec for the sensor that your processor can't meet. The two are designed around each other, and if the sensor is repackaged to be sold to third parties, those third parties get whatever specs were imposed on the design by the processors Sony had available. The absolute speed the sensor can be read is kind of irrelevant if the processor has to do other things at the same time, which is what is happening with the 1DXIII. The sensor clearly can be read faster, since it does exactly that at 60fps, but not when the processor is doing AF at the same time (AF has a heavy computational load associated with it). AF processing has to be done constantly, with other data being read in-between, it can't just stop while the sensor is being read, if it did then AF response times would become much longer and you would get sluggish AF performance. So, a sensor frame read would go something like data...AF....data...AF.....data....AF etc, they are interleaved. Those spaces in-between during which AF functions are going on is why rolling shutter is 30+ ms. The frame read data is being spread out to allow AF functions to happen in timely matter instead of coming all at once. Basically AF gets priority over the sensor read. if you had fewer AF sites that needed to be polled and data processed, then you would have lower RS with the same sensor. The problem for Canon is that DPAF has a bucket load of AF sites that require attention, hence the RS, while other manufacturers are using conventional PD sites which are far fewer in number. Fewer PD sites = less AF processing overhead = less time needed to complete the frame read = lower RS. Not rocket science.

The limitations are not due to the sensors, it is a result of what the processors involved can handle. And that in part is affected by the form factor of different models due to the different thermal envelopes involved. I am pretty sure the R5 will outperform the 1DXIII when it comes to video. My expectation is that it will come close to C500M2 and C300M3 general performance, less the dynamic range those camera have.

RX100 IV? Are you sure you don't mean one of the later ones? Sony cameras poll fewer data points for AF, so that is probably why they can get away with less RS. DPAF in theory has millions of AF points, but in practice no processor is going to be able to cope with anything near that number. Canon don't normally say how many AF points they are actually using for most of their cameras, but iirc in the R series they did mention that those cameras are using around 5k points. Or was it one of the M cameras, I forget exactly which one. I would guess the quality of data coming from DPAF is less than that from dedicated PD points and that is why they need more. More does impose a larger processing demand though, and that is probably what is eating into the sensor read headroom (the processor has to stop reading/processing data during AF polling, hence the RS - the more polling you have to do, the less flexibility you have when it comes to reading image data).

Extrapolation. Remember, the image you see is a processed image, not what the sensor sees.

The way Canon have usually segmented the FF line is as follows: 1D cameras: 2 current processors to handle image processing and 1 older processor to handle DSLR focusing/metering (three processors in total) 5D cameras: 1 current processor to handle image processing and 1 older processor to handle DSLR focusing/metering (two processors in total) 6D cameras: 1 current processor to handle image processing as well as DSLR focusing/metering (one processor in total) The processing capability in the three models accounts for their relative capabilities. The 1D has more complex electronics so it costs the most, while the 6D is a cut down camera to reduce manufacturing cost, allowing it to be offered at a lower price. Along with all sorts of materials and mechanical compromises as well of course. They deviated from that formula with the 1DXIII by having a single processor (not clear if there is a separate processor for DSLR focusing/imaging since they don't usually mention that one in their promotional material). My guess is that the Digic X in it is basically two Digic 8 processing units with some additional encoding unit all mashed into a SoC.