BJL

Besides ignoring the fact that our “detail vision” is only over about a 60° field of view, those measures are solely based on photoreceptor density of the retina, ignoring the resolution limits of the eye’s lens; diffraction and all that. We Nedra good light, our eyes are about a f/4, 16mm lens. So a bit like this 200MP sensor greatly over-sampling what the phone-camera lens in front if it will deliver. (Not that oversampling is bad; it is useful for AF, HDR and such)

It's rare to see the DPReview forums get excited about a camera that uses sensors smaller than the ones in smart phones. (I do see its possible industrial/lab role though.)

At a guess, color film will get squeezed out of most photography courses, in favor of a mix of B&W film (much easier for learning darkroom) and digital.

I agree that a computer like this should not be bundled with keyboard, mouse or display—typical customers almost certainly already have such peripherals, and/or want to make their own choices.
It’s ironical that some criticise the lack of modularity (a common Apple weakness, and my one frustration with my iMac, whose display is still fine but will soon have to be surplussed along with the slow old CPU), but then object to this little bit of modularity.

Buon your own is always going to be cheaper, and Apple is just not in that market. The far more relevant comparison for the vast majority of computer buyers is “pre-built”, Apple vs Windows options.

The standard output based “JPEG at level 127” definitions are the only one ever used for the “ISO” setting on cameras, and indeed this is required by the industry association CIPA.

The relevant standards from ISO also included other measures like SSat (based on highlight clipping) and SNR10 and SNR40 (based on noise floor), but these are explicitly intended to give recommended upper and lower limits on safe usable Exposure Index, not as measures of “ISO speed” analogous to the old ISO/ASA speed of a film.

(The CIPA standard can be found online for free, whereas getting the related ISO standard costs.)

mais51, that is true for now, but Italy like the rest of the EU has now standardised on the “German plug”—which fortunately has the same configuration for the main two pins as most European countries have been using for a long time (just different earths and socket shapes). So the standadardization is rolling in.

P .S. Thanks for explaining the weirdess of Italy having two traditional plug/socket formats!

@donpjt, I see no point in comparing lenses of the same focal length when used with different formats — what matters for recording a given composition is lenses that cover the same field of view.. For example, where one would use 200mm with Four Thirds format, one would use about 400mm with the 24x36mm "35mm" format. (Or if you used 200mm, one would have to crop down to using only the image from a part of the sensor of "Four Thirds size", making the larger total sensor area irrelevant.)

@Bazzh: "bigger glass" is "faster" in that an aperture of larger diameter gathers more photons per second from the scene — this is exactly the same reason that a lower aperture ratio (at equal focal length) gathers light faster.

(Did you really think I was talking about the speed of light?)

@donpjt That "better performance at equally high ISO speed" relies on using the same aperture ratio at twice the focal length (to get the same field of view), meaning in general a far bigger, heavier and probably more expensive lens with an effective aperture area four times as large.

For example, compare a 200/2.8 lens to a 400/2.8 for size, weight, cost: the first has effective aperture diameter of about 200mm/2.8 = 70mm, as indicated by the typical 72mm filters for such lenses; the second has effective aperture diameter about 400mm/2.8 = 140mm, so big that rear drop-in filters are usually used.

Bottom line: It is "bigger glass" the gathers light faster and so allows better low light/high shutter speed performance, not "bigger silicon" alone.

Welsh make the usual assumption that the 36x24mm sensor is used with a lens of twice the effective aperture diameter, so about four times the effective aperture area—that’s what you get with the same aperture ratio and same field of view, which requires double the focal length.

Which is fine if the far bigger heavier lens and half the DOF is OK, but not if a smaller kit is desired ir you are stopping down to get enough DOF.

A quibble on the medium format sizes: they are all a bit smaller that the nominal “6cm by 6cm” and so on. The emulsion is 56mm wide, and the common formats are 42x56mm, 56x56mm, 56x70mm. That is, 4:3, 1:1 and 5:4 shapes.

There are plenty of DSLR lenses out there — the new mounts and new lens design flexibility is naturally where the new lens design and production resources are going.

Market demand for OVF vs EVF cameras and lenses for them will dictate if and when one becomes obsolete, not some vast secret conspiracy.

Agreed: a wireless transfer system — something like Apple's AirDrop (for moving photos between Mac and iPhone, for example) — would be far quicker and more convenient than fiddling with SD cards, cables, or such.

Though 600MP sounds crazy except for heavy cropping (digital zoom) and then Tetracell-style binning for wider shots, there are already phone-camera lenses that do a decent job of resolving these 0.8 micron pixels. About f/1.4 is enough to get diffraction down to the level of blurring that demosaicing introduces anyway.

To those worried about Adobe not having immediately produced M1-native versions of its apps, it is worth noting that so far only a couple of low-end Mac models have been converted to M1 chips. The higher-end MacBook Pros, all iMacs, and the Mac Pro are still Intel-only.
My guess is that the M1 chip is only intended for the lower part of the Mac product range, for example only supporting 2 Thunderbolt 3/USB4 ports, and a higher end "M1X" will be the one for power-users. Let's see if Adobe has hit the XCode "recompile for Apple Silicon" switch — or fixed its non-compliant legacy code — by the time that the higher-end MacBook Pros and such go to being available _only_ in Apple Silicon versions.

My apologies; I misread the 2018 Mac Mini specs; as strawbale says, it has 4 TB3/USB-C + 2 USB-A

The Mini reverts from 4 TB4, 0 USB-A to 2 TB4, 2 USB-A, which is better for backward compatibility (flash drives, printers, etc.). That might make sense for the Mac Mini target market, which is the most price-sensitive part of the Mac market.

Richard Murdey,
Your "10% plus half = 20%" arithmetic only makes sense if all or most FF ILCs are mirrorless, which is far from true. For example, another scenario is that the smaller ILC formats have roughly the same 90% of both the MILC and DSLR unit sales; FF with 10% in each size category. But with several brands offering MILC in only the smaller formats, not FF (Olympus, Fujifilm) my guess is that the smaller ILC formats have over 90% of the MILC market, under 90% of DSLR.

Yes, but BCN reports on other categories too, so I am wondering why I have not read any of that reporting here lately