It remains to be seen whether they will and whether they even want to. As far as I know, there is nothing to suggest they want to. But I think it would be a smart move, and they are well positioned to do it with their strengths.
Are you skeptical that they could do it? Or skeptical that it’s needed? Not sure what you meant by “meh” 
I am skeptical that they will do it and that it’d be popular. It’d almost certainly be an MFT sensor, which puts it in a similar class as several other already available cameras. I don’t know that they’d get the aesthetics right either.
Is it needed? I’m not sure any of this is needed 
but its fun. I’d welcome another competitor to the market, especially if priced well. Their latest retro camera had a crazy price, I thought.
Back to the GR IV, it looks like the button to change the mode dial is now stubbier, which is good since I’ve had the mode dial shift on me in the bag before and ended up shooting jpegs without knowing it. So making that little button protrude less is really welcome.
How is money earned with cameras these days? I bet videography is much more important than photography for earning moneys. Youtube, advertising, streaming…
Heck, my own work-from-home webcam is a Sony a5100, which gets used eight hours every workday. That’s about 95% more than my photo camera gets used on average per day.
Then again, I don’t know what part of camera sales goes to content creators, and how large a fraction is still sold to us (anachronistic) hobbyists.
I just realized this thread is the “video” one. I thought we were in the “compact cameras one”. Talking about the GRIV in the video thread is quite funny. Oh well, no biggie!
hmmm I thought the same. The four espresso shots haven’t kicked in yet… Oh well. Everyone needs to know how good the GR is 
I own a Fuji X first generation, so… nope! 
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4210839
If I only saved enough to gain an extra lick of paint on a control dial, it would be worth it - in fact, I’d PAY EXTRA to get rid of the embarassingly poor video.
As a slight offtopic, I guess it’s about a hybrid camera: Any idea why the original Z6 is so cheap? I was looking at full frame options to adapt old glass to, which seems like a much better option than going full film, and the Z6 sparked my interest. It’s CF Express only but that’s not a big deal. Besides that it’s 600-700€ used in “excellent” condition on MPB.
It’s impressive how fast Fuji improved their video capabilities in just one generation. The X-T2 already had very good video and the X-T3 got even better.
If you consider something released 11 years ago recent 
Are high-end video capabilities really that sought after?
As far as I can tell the “appeal” of true cameras over smartphones is the depth of field. and perhaps the better low-light capabilities.
I would have thought photography is by far the more popular pastime because of how accessible it is and the ease of displaying your finished work. I have dabbled in video myself, but I very soon realized that editing video is very time consuming, and there are far fewer opportunities to watch and enjoy the finished work. You can’t just hang a video on your wall or use it as your desktop wallpaper, for example.
But these days video is not for your own consumption, it is to show yourself to others.
So, are content creators driving the market these days? Why does there seem to be such a focus on video?
Content creators, maybe not, social network users, definitely (where you put the line between the two is left as an exercise to the reader)
Given that it’s reused over and over, the cost of software development is marginal. The processor chip in the camera is probably costing a bit more due to additional video capabilities, but even then the difference shouldn’t be that big, especially factoring in the rest of the camera.
I think that these days, shooting a bit of video as part of event photography is very much in demand. Definitely not movies, just snippets that can be edited together. The key requirement is cutting down on production costs, so the point is to have cameras that a single person can operate, which requires a lot of latitude in post.
Panasonic has been riding this market for a long time now with their robust “workhorse” hybrids, which are priced to be relatively affordable. Other brands are still trying to position their entry-level cinema lines higher (Sony FX30 etc). I am wondering what will come of RED’s acquisition by Nikon in the long run.
I’d guess it’s because it’s discontinued, and the subsequent models offer better overall value.
That said, if you’re just looking for a sensor to put behind good glass, the original Z 6 is a great value, because the original sensor is still one of the highest dynamic-range ones out there. Go to Bill Claff’s PDR page, click on the Z 6, then click on various comparable cameras. I just did that, only Canon’s R6 and some of Sony’s recent models ( I can’t readily deciper their metadata names from the “box” model names) meet or beat the Z 6. And, it’s paired with the excellent Z glass.
A lot of angst in the camera-using public is about “features”, things that make life easier, but the sensor is at the base of it, it’s the ‘part of the body who’s boss’, if you know the old bawdy joke…
https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm
https://www.reddit.com/r/Jokes/comments/61jl4p/all_the_organs_were_deciding_who_should_be_the/
Maybe it’s a bit niche or a fuzzy category these days but journalism is definitely this way now.
There were defined categories for print, photo, broadcast journalists in the past. You have to do it all now. I just started a new gig for a news org and the website for one of the freelancers clearly shows this:
Thanks for the information. Yeah that’s exactly it, just looking for a sensor to use with old lenses, and who knows maybe get into the Nikon system. I had no idea the original Z6 sensor was that good, I am intrigued.
In Sweden it’s not uncommon for the journalist to take photos and video “whilst” interviewing! Madness.
Why is it madness? It saves the journal wages. People can be trained to take OK portraits in relatively short time, not anything award-winning but that is probably not the point.
I don’t understand all the angst against the fact that cameras nowadays can equally well shoot video and still. The D-SLR had to lift the mirror out the way and while it could produce professional quality videos it was not functioning at its best. Now mirrorless cameras are the norm and they equally well do videos or still. So why the problem. Just embrace the beauty of both worlds.
It’s madness because the photos, the video and the interview all suffer. We get lower quality journalism.
As far as I understand, its autofocus is said to be mediocre by modern standards. I think the first generation of Z cameras has a bit of a stigma of not having come into its own yet. Perhaps they’re also seen as inferior to the Z5, which depresses their prices.
The original Sony A7, and A7 II are similarly affordable.