[Christine Tham]

i like the fact that samsung is putting h.265 on this camera, it could be a solid advantage over h.264... it's just sad that you pay big $$$ for pro editing apps that don't support modern codecs like h.265, even after they've known that it's been coming for over a year now.

if you buy this camera, don't transcode the video to another lossy format, like h.264, just so that your editing software can handle it.

what's needed is an intermediate codec that's virtually lossless, like prores, or one of the high-end canopus codecs.

The new Apple iPhones also do h.265 so support in Final Cut Pro X is coming (if not already there - I think there are already third party h.265 to ProRes converters)

h.265 is really meant to be a mobile device standard, I think I prefer Sony's approach which is XAVC S. There's a huge jump in quality in XAVC S over MPEG4/AVCHD.

[osv]

50mbs xavc-s on the a7ii is awesome... only problem is, what about my a7r, the a7s, etc... will sony step up with an update for all of the a7 lineup?

i have another paid video shoot for the a7r on sunday, don't really need 50mbps for that, but it could be useful later.

cell phones seemed like a good match for h.265 to me, but the people behind it didn't stop there, they just kept developing new specs for it, to the point where it's now the standard for the future 4k bluray disc, and even some 4:4:4 stuff... just crazy... then there is this:
TVTechnology: HEVC vs. VP9: Which Will Win?

[Christine Tham]

50mbs xavc-s on the a7ii is awesome... only problem is, what about my a7r, the a7s, etc... will sony step up with an update for all of the a7 lineup?

Don't quote me on this, but what I heard was that XAVC S on the existing cameras are ... unlikely.

h.265 will be a great codec - a few years from now. We are currently in a transition state. The same happened when we transitioned from MPEG2 to MPEG4 - for a while it was better to go high bitrate MPEG2 than low bitrate MPEG4. XAVS C is basically high bitrate MPEG4.

[jimr-pdx]

A NX camera with a pancake mounted is about as thick as just the K-mount flange distance, making it pocketable.

Here is a lousy phone image of their nx300 and a Q. The nx300 has their 20-50 kit zoom, the 30 pancake is half as thick! And this has a sensor equivalent to the ks1..

[VisualDarkness]

Here is a lousy phone image of their nx300 and a Q. The nx300 has their 20-50 kit zoom, the 30 pancake is half as thick! And this has a sensor equivalent to the ks1..

NX flange focal distance + 30/2
21.5 + 25.50 = 47mm

Pentax K flange focal distance
45.46mm

Isn't that quite amazing? This is the problem with the K-mount when going slim mirrorless. They need to keep the lens protruding only 1.54mm to become as thin as a NX with the 30mm. Even if you manage that you get a big protruding nose on the camera to house the mount and forget about a focusing ring.

[y0chang]

Samsung has their 16-50mm pz as well. Its ridiculously small, its has image stabilization and its sharp through the zoom range. Samsung has a very compelling feature set, great interface, and superior lens quality to price ratio. Its just has almost no respect in the photographic community. I hear a lot of "Doesn't samsung make refrigerators?" alot. I want to say "Doesn't Panasonic and Sony make TVs?" I struggled deciding between a Q vs a replacement for my nx100. I ended up with a NX1000 samsung body. The NX 20.3 mp sensor is equal in noise performance to a k5 with a bit less dynamic range, and the new NX1 sensor (which will be in the nx400 or nx500) is the best APS-c sensor on the market today.

[kadajawi]

The new Apple iPhones also do h.265 so support in Final Cut Pro X is coming (if not already there - I think there are already third party h.265 to ProRes converters)

h.265 is really meant to be a mobile device standard, I think I prefer Sony's approach which is XAVC S. There's a huge jump in quality in XAVC S over MPEG4/AVCHD.

XAVC and XAVC-S are really just h264 implementations that make use of more of the features that h264 offers. Previous in camera encoders weren't powerful enough to do that.

Any BIONZ X equipped camera should be capable of XAVC-S, it is up to Sony to enable it.

The problem is that while 10 and 12 bit files are supported by h264 and the XAVC-S implementation of it, there will NEVER be hardware support for it. It will be as bad as h265, just that h265 decoder chips will support higher bit depths, some already do.

[Christine Tham]

XAVC and XAVC-S are really just h264 implementations that make use of more of the features that h264 offers. Previous in camera encoders weren't powerful enough to do that.

Any BIONZ X equipped camera should be capable of XAVC-S, it is up to Sony to enable it.

It's not as simple as you think, it's a fairly major software engineering effort. And XAVC is more than just h264 - for example, it supports LPCM (which is a HUGE win for some of us - it means we don't have to carry a separate audio recorder in the field).

[kadajawi]

It's not as simple as you think, it's a fairly major software engineering effort. And XAVC is more than just h264 - for example, it supports LPCM (which is a HUGE win for some of us - it means we don't have to carry a separate audio recorder in the field).

I didn't mean to belittle the effort... it's a major thing, AFAIK the first h264 encoder chip that actually makes use of what h264 offers. Just that it is basically that, making use of what h264 offers. Wasn't aware of LPCM, that's nice.

[Christine Tham]

I didn't mean to belittle the effort... it's a major thing, AFAIK the first h264 encoder chip that actually makes use of what h264 offers. Just that it is basically that, making use of what h264 offers. Wasn't aware of LPCM, that's nice.

I don't know how many specific variants of the BIONZ X processor Sony has, but it may also be true that the specific model used in the A7 or A6000 don't support the h264 profiles for XAVC. The h264 codec isn't a simple one, some profiles may require additional hardware encoding support.

Anyway, my point was it may not be as simple as Sony "enabling" it via a firmware upgrade. I have already asked Sony to consider it if it is not too difficult, but the unofficial response I received was it was "unlikely" - you can interpret that any way you wish.

[kadajawi]

Producing different hardware revisions seems not cost effective, though if the encoder is in a separate chip that's different. That Sony doesn't include the feature may simply be to differentiate the models. But that's just my guess...

[Christine Tham]

Producing different hardware revisions seems not cost effective, though if the encoder is in a separate chip that's different.

Actually, that is not true. Sony has the ability to produce a specific variant of BIONZ for each camera they sell, and it make sense to optimise the processor to target the specific features in the camera. Designing a new variant is relatively easy - it's a bit like LEGO, you select the blocks you want from a library - as long as you can justify it by enough volume, which Sony can. Intel has dozens and even hundreds of variants for their x86 chips for example. Same for all the major players - including Samsung.

Smaller players like Ricoh/Pentax (and arguably even Nikon) do not have the capability - they buy a predesigned "off the shelf" configuration and they adapt their firmware around that.

[kadajawi]

The different Intel variants though are usually the same silicon, just with features deactivated. i.e. the dual core CPUs can be quad core CPUs with 2 deactivated cores, because there was a defect on one of them, or even because there is more demand for dual core CPUs. Sometimes they may create real dual core CPUs by removing the cores, but they don't always. At least that was a couple of years back, not sure what is going on right now.


I think the only one who can answer what Sony is actually doing is Sony (or someone who hacked Sony). And of course they wouldn't want to disclose if it is indeed just a disabled feature.


Look at Canon's Digic for example, they seem to be using the same chip, sometimes several times, and features that are missing from lower models are simply deactivated in software (that's part of the reason why CHDK and Magic Lantern can get impressive things out of those cameras). And I'd argue that if any camera company can produce different versions of their digic for different cameras, it's Canon.

[Christine Tham]

At least that was a couple of years back, not sure what is going on right now.

I know that Sony do design different variants for each camera - they even market it ("features new version of BIONZ ...")

Sometimes there are even multiple variants over time for a specific model. For example, it may be worthwhile to redesign the processor if it results in cost savings by reducing components elsewhere.

Canon is a bit different. They lost a lot of their capability during the GFC by closing down some of their facilities. I know people who were directly affected.

Why do you think Canon's models over the last few years have shown little change in specs or capability? Don't you think they would have wanted to innovate if they could? They are in a tough situation and they know it.

[kadajawi]

I see. Thanks for the insight, I didn't know