Leaderboard

Best movies ever made :): director: Krzysztof Kieślowski 1. The Double Life of Véronique (1991) 2-4. The Three Colors Trilogy (1993–1994) 4-*. The Decalogue (1989) And something extra for future directors: Amateur [eng: Camera Buff] (1979)

Just to explain my motives, I had a couple of reasons for suggesting keeping it mainstream: 1. So that we might get an idea of what each other's tastes/interests are like through well-known cultural reference points. 2. To avoid complete descent into a "who can be the most highbrow/obscure/indie/arty/leftfield/knowledgeable" type thread (easily done). Tarkovsky has probably been one of my biggest creative reference points for many years, but I overdosed in art school and I'm pretty much allergic to slow cinema now. I'd take Star Trek (2009) over Stalker every time. :) That's just me though. I won't complain if somebody feels the need to put Warhol's Empire, Michael Snow's Wavelength, Brakhage's Dog Star Man or Jarman's Blue on their list. Others might though!

The compression algorithm it's not important here. I did some synthetic tests (>post #118) simulating a best case scenario (a full 4K 4:4:4 8-bit image to a 2K 4:4:4 32-bit). I've tried different scaling algorithms and even adding noise doesn't give us any extra colour information. We technically get an image with increased bit depth(since we're blending some pixels), but it doesn't translate in smoother tonality or better colours.

I think the odyssey does, but I don't know if it is not too costly. I find it strange that they did not put 60p recording in 1080p for the Ninja. With all the camera coming out with 60p. They seem fixed on the Canon now, with the 5d and C100. They will be missing some market with all the cheap Nikon's coming out with clean hdmi. Now what we can hope is that the Nikon hack can bring higher bitrate to the 60p. That would be very nice.

Wow did I make that mistake with the wrong dude! :lol: Yes I must have been getting it mixed up with The Keep. The soundtrack for that film is so insanely 80's it makes Manhunter sound like its from the future. It is the Manhunter soundtrack that I think insanely brilliant though (and just a little, tastefully 80's). Yeah I've read critics describe Mann as a glorified music video director but I don't get it - he's the whole package.

1. No Country for Old Men 2. The Empire Strikes Back 3. Fight Club 4. The Life Aquatic 5. Full Metal Jacket 6. The Big Lebowski 7. The Royal Tenenbaums 8. Rear Window 9. 12 Monkeys 10. Gone With the Wind

Probably style over substance, Superheadz, who endorse the camera also produce the Harinezumi, a digital and SD Super8 camera, which also came in a limited Chinon edition, very lo-fi, charming and not cheap at all: http://www.acgears.com/home-office/digital-cameras/superheadz-digital-harinezumi-4 Most people these days use a Super8 smartphone app for the same effect, which works rather fine, considering that most reversal film only has about 7 stops of dynamic range. As for the look, there is a also a certain resemblance with the Fujica Single 8 cameras, the popular an better quality 8mm format in Japan and only Japan: https://www.google.de/search?q=fujica+single+8&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=VzO&rls=org.mozilla:de:official&channel=sb&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=NlYPU-a5Ncjoswb1rIHoCA&ved=0CC8QsAQ&biw=1271&bih=764 In terms of the sensor, the size maybe closer to 8mm that Super8 / Single 8, since most of these cameras came with non-interchangeable zoomlenses, where as many 8mm cameras had small interchangeable prime lenses, that will in many cases not cover Super8. Pricing as I have read on various websites, probably all based on the one (wrong) source, is around 830$: http://www.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/9714/chinon-bellami-hd-1-another-retro-style-cinema-camera So not cheap at all. I would hardly expect any fancy codecs or even raw, but rather an implemantation of a popular consumer codec. This is more of a toy than a pro-tool I guess.

I really like the camera work and lighting in Only God Forgives , loads of dolly shots, nothing hand held, you can watch it with the sound turned off as there is so little dialogue, there is a very good article in American Cinematographer on how Nicholas and Larry Smith did it very economically , lots of praticals ,no built sets, all on location

Content is king? I don't know. I've seen many films that have made decent money that have been very lacking in the content department. I like to use the builder building a house analogy. The end result may be an architectural masterpiece and the quality in workmanship may be exemplary but if the builder was using poor quality tools that made his life difficult and meant that the build took longer, wouldn't he want to upgrade his tools to make his life easier? I'm sure that if content really was king and our tools were unimportant, studio accountants would have started to insist that films were shot on handycams long ago. Both are important. Its a pointless argument

No offers for links on understanding video?

I liked the story too, by the way. If it wasn't a good story it wouldn't have been distracting to me ;) This whole thing reminds me to spend more time reading people's posts and considering more carefully what I have to say. We're all good now I think. I looked at Skip's photo sites. Very impressive stuff!

Ha! Have you ever seen "Big Business"? It's about as unpretentious of a broad simple comedy as you can get, and it's awesome. That shit ain't highfalutin', it's just damn funny and one of the most popular films of its era. And, seriously, MWAMC is nutso-crazy innovative. They pulled off that stuff over 80 years ago. But I get the point. So it is: late 20th century to present day.

Irreversible is one crazy film. Good to see some more Michael Mann representation along with Heat :)

Yes it's me, I was kinda worried but my childish instincts made me take the risk :rolleyes: , the d800 is my workhorse. So far everything is smoother, no more macroblocking. I will update the first post later.

I thought I made it crystal clear what the intent of the video was in the video description and original post. Again, if I'd posted a creative piece that I wanted creative feedback on, I would have asked for it. Glad you enjoyed it, but I'm not going to get into a pissing match over this with anyone. I learned what I needed to from this personal test. If my method of sharing it wasn't to your liking, then so be it. It was a PERSONAL camera test I thought I'd share. I get bored looking at test footage of traffic going over a bridge, trees in the wind, waves on the beach, etc. etc. I shot footage on a trip I recently took to see how the camera would perform for ME. I thought some here might get something out of it. Nothing more. When I post something creative, and want feedback about the creative, the edit, the voice over, the audio design, etc. I will ask "hey, what do you all think?". For a glorified camera test, I'm not looking for feedback. I'm simply sharing. I didn't even ask for feedback on my grading. I posted this for other's here to see what I got from the camera. I'm done with it. I've actually already moved on to cutting clips for stock video sale and am uploading as I type this. If this were a project that I cared to develop, I'd gladly listen to creative critique on the audio, etc. Then, I'd mull it over, and take another stab at it. Instead, I learned what I needed and am moving on to concentrate on an actual project next. Understand? Again, in case you missed it. The video I uploaded was random shots while I was traveling in Mexico recently. I wanted to see if I could get acceptable results from minimal gear in my backpack. I discovered that I could. I also wanted to see the differences in real world shooting in the field between different picture profiles. And finally, which of the profiles worked the best for my own visual style and which worked the best for the limited grading experience I have. Also, wanted to confirm that I wasn't making a mistake by not investing in a much more cumbersome and expensive raw workflow. I learned that the compressed Nikon D5300, if shot well, holds up well to grading and produces an acceptable image for my needs. No need to spend any more time comparing, buying, shopping, looking at tests, etc. Now time to learn how to use what I have and apply it to a cool project, instead of wasting time. ;) Decided to add narration I'd already recorded and I actually like it. To do a voice over talking about the camera and such is not my job. I didn't need that for myself. I shot it, played with grading. Thought it was boring without sound, so I slapped a loosely related narrative I'd already recorded over it, with some catchy royalty free music. Done and done. You're welcome.

Looks like a re-incarnation of the Sanyo Xacti. Except they added a trigger for those filmmakers not in Philly ;) I had one of the first ones. Neat little cameras and very cheap. http://us.sanyo.com/Cameras-Camcorders-Previous-Models

Wow, it's tiny!

It looks like old-school Megatron in gun form.

Except that most of that work isn't actually enhancing the footage, it's getting to a reasonable place to start. You can't intelligently grade your footage until you see it for what it is. That's not what you really start out with most of the time when shooting raw or if you've shot linear with a baked in LOG curve. If I was a client and I'd shot film and I got rushes back that were different every time or, worse, I was at a lab timing my film and having to sit there and watch the colorist poke around and try this or that to get my footage to simply look as filmed and as good as I would expect from rushes with house lights I would take my film and go someplace else. But somehow this is how folks are expected to work with the digital equivalent to a film negative. It's awful. Once you're really grading, I wholeheartedly agree, methodical, logical order. But it's easy enough to see in upload after upload that most folks aren't starting their grade from a good place before trying to get to their look. Just look at Shane Hurlbut's BMD tests. They're no better looking than Joe Six Pack bought himself a BMCC's uploads to Youtube. I've got this fellow's entire short shot on an Epic sitting on a drive. I look at the footage as-is in After Effects it looks just as bad as it does in Redcine-X. Just awful. Unusable for my purposes. So I'm having to linearize it all to a meaningful place to work that's appropriate for display on an sRGB monitor. That extra work is eating into time that might otherwise be spent doing my actual job on this fellow's film and it's going to be the same waste when he goes to do his final grade in Chicago because the colorist is dealing with it like everyone has always had to deal with it. At least most of these cameras seem to have decent monitoring now, even if you're going to have to work to get it back to looking like what you remember from set once it's shot. One of the most said phrases by Brian Singer on the set of Superman Returns, the first motion picture shot on the first model Sony Genesis, "it's not going to look like that, right?" We have come at least that far.

This advice makes the assumption that you're doing things wrong, or at least, not as well as you should. It's also making the assumption you're applying some bull-shitted "film curve" that applies a uniform transformation without respect for the digital file's origination. It's like good advice for doing things wrong which I don't get if it's coming from that Australian colorist. Resolve doesn't clamp or integer-ize intermediate results at the output of a modification node. It makes no sense. You will lose information if you read in 8-bit footage, apply a LUT and then save it back to an 8-bit file. Don't do that. That's bad. You will lose information if you think because you shot 8-bit footage you can grade in an 8-bit project. Don't do that. That's bad. (I don't even like working 16bit any more) If you are working in a floating point project. there is nothing lost after applying a LUT. There is no removal of anything. Nothing destructive is happening. I can crush an image down to practically nothing and expand it back out to its original form and everything is still there. That's true in After Effects so I would be really, really surprised if Resolve did something boneheaded like clamp or integer-ize all intermediate steps between nodes. You should really be operating in a floating point project and saving both intermediate and final imagery to a high quality, un-compressed format with enough precision to not be destructive. edit: he's also referring to "print LUT" which, while highly anachronistic and a dubious proposition at best in any case, is very different than what FC is. A "print LUT", if you were going to do such a thing, would definitely be the last step, if you were really after an old telecine look (but if you work without having it on most of the time you are in for headache and heartache doing your grade, being happy with it and then applying something like this). It's analogous to AE's View->Simulate Output->Kodak 5218 to Kodak 2383 (which would only really look right if you were working with scanned 5218 negative though they also have a "universal camera film" to 2383 as well). When you watch a movie on TV or BD or DVD or LD, ideally, you're not seeing the influence of a print stock. Likewise with commercials shot on film. They scan or otherwise transfer from negative. If a movie has had a DI odds are no video representation you have or will ever see has any printing influence. Ideally you're always wanting to be looking at some representation of the IP and not something that's been "stepped on" because, yeah, you don't grade/time a film once you've printed it. Maybe a "print LUT" would be useful if you were wanting to simulate the very specific look of old (like '80s and earlier) telecine (transfers from print rather than negative material) or something like Technicolor's ENR or other silver retention process applied to the printing of a film, creating an image that you would only ever see in a theater from select, expensive prints and not your typical release prints. This is a look that you would not get seeing the same movie digitally projected or on a home video release.

With all due respect to Andrew... why the heck do so many here care what he likes and doesn't like? Everyones got different taste, needs, priorities, and budgets. Mine are specific to my own needs, so what meets someone else's criteria isn't necessarily the same as mine. Is the D5300 a great filmmaking tool with excellent ergonomics and a contender against cameras costing thousands of dollars more? No, of course not. Does it have a sweet low-light sensor that in the right hands can render cinematic results on par with the better filmmaking tools out there costing much more, and deliver stellar stills as well... for $799? You bet it does. I can't speak for anyone else here, but for me... it's now about realizing a good cinematic idea and using the tools I have to the best of my abilities. For me, that's the only hurdle to get over now. :) I'll leave the arguments over sensors, pixels, resolution, dynamic range, etc. to the gear enthusiasts. I've got to go brainstorm an idea and stop wasting time on gear forums. ;)

Wow, people are still whining about stills cameras that have added video functions? And an 800 dollar model at that!?!?! What's next? A scathing critique of a Flip UltraHD camera?

I don't think this site is aimed too much at producers of content to big budget productions. Correct, you won't find GH2/GH3/Blackmagic, or D800 or Canon 5d mk3 there for that matter. (maybe any of these as funny experiments or very limited scenes where they don't want to risk more expensive equipment). The nice thing about a camera like the Blackmagic, is that it affords filmmakers who can't afford a big crew of lighting people etc to still end up with good footage. So: Nikon 5300 - soccermoms Blackmagic/GH2/GH3/GH3 - indie, smaller productions Arri (mostly) - large budget digital

"In addition Nikon have all the technology to build a high end cinema line for pros like Cinema EOS, something which is turning out to be massively profitable for Canon. The sensor, the image processor, the codec, the lenses, everything." The last few years Nikon has been on recovery after their most important factories got destroyed (Thailand and Japan). That makes a huge impact on a company which have cameras as their main business and no photocopiers to fall back on. I believe Nikon's reaction to this is to be cautious about investing too much into new product lines and try to recover with what they know they're good at. Considering that situation, I think they're on a good track in improving the video modes on their cameras although they can't keep up with Panasonic in terms of features or handling. They've at least made incremental improvements with sensors, moire, aliasing and added 1080p60 modes in their low-end range - none of which Canon has done. What I just can't understand with Nikon, is why that bloody Live view aperture situation exists with their lower-end cameras since that issue is not there on cameras like D800. If that is planned segmentation of products - it is very retarded. If it's something that requires some reengineering to fix it, it's really about time that they fix it. I hope that Nikon is seriously watching what Panasonic is doing, and I hope they'll figure out how to do 4k and how to implement 10-bit 4:2:2 in at least 1080p. This is what Nikon EU product manager has to say about Nikon and 4k: - “We are aware of the need for, and request for, 4K video recording. It is a bit tricky, it’s not something that we are purposefully excluding from our cameras; however we need to approach it carefully. There are high-end cameras that produce this but it just puts such a load on the equipment. For us, because consumers are demanding it we are aware of this and will be looking into it for the future." --- Source: http://nikonrumors.com/2014/01/25/nikon-sees-future-in-4k-video-and-advanced-compact-cameras.aspx/ Sony, Canon and Panasonic all had a headstart thanks to producing video cameras for a long time. In my opinion Nikon hasn't been doing all that bad coming from a still photography camera background only. I certainly hope they will realize what handling issues and features that still are missing and provide that - either in mirrorless, DSLR, hybrid or specifically video-tailored cameras. And my own review of the D5300 and D3300 would be: - Great cameras for the newbies who want to start learning about video while also shooting stills. Far better choice than any other DSLR considering sensor, stills & video performance together. Panasonic G6 and Nikon D5300/D5200/D3300 are my first choice of recommendations for video+photo first-timers on tight budgets. There's handling issues and features missing that are available in more expensive cameras - but that's to be expected in entry-level/budget range.

Absolutely. In fact, most of this article just re-covered the ground of Andrew's fairly recent "Dear Nikon" article. I was hoping for a more in-depth review of the actual camera. Not another generalised rant about why MFT cameras are great. I have a G6 and love it, and agree that mirrorless is the future, but my D5300 is getting more use ATM because I like the image so much. Often I don't find the Nikon quite sharp enough, but resolution is OK and the other qualities trump the G6 for me. The 5300 really is a pain in the neck to shoot with though. There is a lot about this article that is right, but there is also a lot that is unsaid or unacknowledged. There are some things I'm very disappointed EOSHD didn't address and that I actually feel make this quite a misleading/lazy review. My responses to the article are below, mainly adding up to my opinion that for everything the D5300 lacks compared to other similarly priced cameras, it makes up for in other areas - making it one of the best all round choices at the moment. Having said that, I do completely agree that in a year's time the level of detail on the 5300 will look slightly archaic, and the extremely frustrating interface design and feature set makes it extremely frustrating and probably a no-go for a lot of work. So, addressed in article-order: Quote The D5300 comes into a world where video enthusiasts are shooting 4K on Panasonic consumer cameras Er, not yet they're not. And the D5300 actually came out in 2013. Quote I just wanted to shoot nice 1080p, conveniently, for a low price with interchangeable lenses. The D5300 to some is $799 for a Super 35mm camera that shoots quite nice 1080p with no moire & aliasing problems, good in low light, great articulated screen – and free Nikon stills camera into the bargain. Agreed. This is where I'm coming from. Quote I just cannot get over the… Baby Photo Mode This is all an important point, but not really a problem specific to the 5300. But agreed. Nikon are being stupid about their video mode, and so are Canon. Quote The LCD has almost invisibly faint transparent masking marks for 16:9 I don't find this a problem at all, once you're used to it. A small, small, tiny inconvenience. Quote Simply by repackaging the D5300 and redesigning the firmware, Nikon could make it 10x more useful for everyone in the world with an interest in shooting artistic video. Again, agreed. Hugely frustrating. Quote The Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera is $999 with a 10bit 4:2:2 ProRes codec, crisp detail and 13 stops of dynamic range. The D5300 does have a better screen than the Pocket Camera, which is articulated and it does have an APS-C sensor, 1080/60p in addition to the film frame rate of 24p and 25p, so it’s not all bad… The Pocket has a very different workflow that a lot of shooters just aren't going to want, and is even more frustrating to use than the 5300 in many ways. Quote Neither can quite match the GH3 for detail in 1080p (let alone the GH4). I believe the trick Panasonic are using to give us such crisp 1080p on their cameras is to down-sample the sensor to roughly 2.5K and then oversample 1080p from that higher resolution raw image. The D5300 looks like the 5D Mark III’s stock video mode for resolution – it’s a bit mushy. You notice this the most when shooting in daylight at focus points between infinity and roughly 5 meters. Sometimes you don’t notice the softness much at all, so it’s not the camera’s main problem. Agreed. Interesting theory about Panasonic too. Quote Standard or Vivid picture profile ... Whatever method you use the results after grading look similar. FFS ANDREW WHY HAVE YOU NEGLECTED TO TALK ABOUT FLAAT?! Quote Low light performance is very good, even with the focus assist zoomed in 2 levels you will find it difficult to see any noise on the LCD while out shooting in low light at ISO 800. The image maintains rich colour at high ISOs and on brighter areas of the image at high ISOs noise almost vanishes altogether. ISO 1600 and 3200 are perfectly usable in video mode and even 6400 and 12,800 are better than on many cameras at the same price, closer in fact to the Super 35mm sensor in the Sony FS100. IMO this is the major strength of the camera. It is superior to the Pocket, even with Speed Booster, here - because the Pocket has very washed-out colours in low light that completely negate it's low-noise levels. I haven't had a chance to look at how the GM1/GX7 do in low light (and forthcoming GH4). I really hope the GH4 matches the 5300 here. That will make me really happy. Quote The punch-in focus assist is generally a bit slow to use and you can’t simply half-press the shutter button to come back out of it, instead you have to tediously reverse back out out with the ‘minus’ key. Minor niggle and entirely wrong. Pressing 'OK' (centre button) brings you straight out. Quote The lens mount is way too restrictive. Seriously, WTF? You go on about the graetness of the Speed Booster all the time. Pocket + SB = awesome. Nikon mount = grim. But I agree that it's ridiculous the way Nikon cripple their low-end cameras for using their own glass. Quote with the Olympus OM-D E-M1 any lens you put on it automatically has class-leading stabilisation better than any VR lens in the entire Nikon range including their pro lenses. This is the case with any camera other than Olympus - not just Nikon!!! Quote Last year’s D5200 has an identical image in video mode and costs just $400 used, which makes it hard to justify the D5300 if you don’t need 1080/60p. On the surface this is true, but in actuality it is entirely, categorically false. The D5300 has none of the banding/fixed pattern noise of the 5200. This means far better low light performance and crucially, AMAZING DYNAMIC RANGE POTENTIAL USING FLAT PROFILES. I know that you know about this Andrew. WHY HAVE YOU NEGLECTED TO TALK ABOUT THIS?!?! A quote you made on our older D5300 thread: Quote EOSHD, on 16 Jan 2014 - 8:11 PM, said: Today I bought a Nikon D5300 for review, and a bit of shooting, but mainly for the blog with intention of sending it back after. Well, so far it is surprising me. The dynamic range with the flat picture profile is really quite something. Head to toe with ProRes on the Blackmagic Pocket Camera. I'd put it at 12 stops. Very good colour and good shadows, and again good low light performance. The codec in 1080/60p seems ok so far too. The main drawback seems to be the cheap-mid-range Nikon ergonomics (not enough buttons and dials). Wish they had put this video mode (and articulated screen) in the D7100 instead. But so far so good peeps! Why didn't you address this in the article? You do know about this. DYNAMIC RANGE IS A MAJOR, MAJOR PRO OF THIS CAMERA. Far superior to any other low-bitrate camera in the price-bracket. Quote As of today, DSLR video is over. Dead. Kaput! Er, I'd probably pick a GH4 over a 5D+RAW for convenience's sake and features, but I'm pretty sure I'll prefer the 5D image (?) and I think we'll be seeing just as much 5D RAW as ever, even after the GH4 is out. But yes, I hope in the long-run mirrorless is the direction we are headed in (and I believe it is too). Quote The lack of video features and 4K will put DSLRs at a very significant disadvantage on performance relative to the best mirrorless cameras this year. Agreed. Quote To give you an idea of how antiquated the D5300 form factor is you still can’t change the aperture from the camera whilst live-view mode is engaged. Why on Earth not? Agreed. Ridiculous. Quote But in the cold light of day for $1999 (maybe less by the time final pricing is announced), Panasonic offer us 4K video. At $799 Nikon offer us a Baby Photo Mode. Why bother with this crap any more? Really? Ridiculous comment. $2000 is is over twice as much as $800. For some people that's a big difference. Quote Pros OK video quality and very good low light performance Better than Canon Rebels and 70D on image quality, for both video and stills Pleasing colour straight out of the MOV files, richness of tone maintained in low light 1080/60p useful for slow-motion video when converted to more cinematic 24p frame rate 38Mbit codec avoids break-up in 1080/60p mode (only 24Mbit VBR in 24p and 25p mode though) No significant moire or aliasing issues (though resolution falls short of being truly full HD) PAL / NTSC switchable for wide variety of frame rates Manual focus magnification has an ultra-detailed display mode (though painfully slow frame rate) Quicktime MOV file format benefits (easy editing and access, thumbnail preview in Explorer and Finder) Very nice smartphone standard 3.2″ articulated screen The sensor produces immaculate stills quality for the price $799 Agree with all of these, though it seems almost misleading for someone with the respect you have from your readers to neglect talking about dynamic range with the D5300. IMO DR is on-par with low-light as the greatest strength of this camera. Quote Cons Charmless – looks cheap, bland shooting experience Very poor ergonomics by Nikon standards Extremely dated form factor I really like the size, weight and shape of the camera. It is a pain in the backside to use though. Quote No real improvement in image quality over the D5200 in terms of video or raw stills FFingF's sake!!! The banding is gone!!! That was THE major drawback of the D5200. You said so yourself when you reviewed that camera! At least bloody mention it!!! Quote Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera offers much better image for filmmakers (13 stop dynamic range, 10bit ProRes 422) for just $200 more The Pocket workflow is a very, very different proposition for some people, and it requires a much greater outlay in terms of gear and time spent in post. The 5300 is also a much better all-rounder. I agree wholeheartedly with all of your other cons. As is becoming standard Andrew, I have been very critical of you. As always I still have the greatest respect for you and your site (in fact I may actually just change my signature to say this ;) ).

Andrew has aimed a lot of negative comments directly at nikon which apply to nearly every camera maker out there. I agree that 4K is the future, and panny seems to be leading the way, but to hammer nikon seems a bit inappropriate. I own a D5300 and chose it specifiCally for its balance of ability to shoot both high quality stills and 1080p video without moire and aliasing. I looked at many cameras from the nikon D800 and D610, canon 6D, and panny GM1 and GH3 to sony nex7 and was unable to find a better all-around solution. Perhaps if Andrew approached his review a bit less video-centric and recognized that many pros require a camera that can do both stills and video to acceptable stock photo standards, he might realize the humble little D5300 is, right now, about the best balance available on the market. That said, I appreciate Andrew's website, insights, and all the work he does helping the video community.

Pretty harsh review. :P But in all honesty, you are indeed right. They have all the tech and know-how to make it happen, but they just don't. Canon especially has been dragging the 18MP sensor for far too long. They had a head start with their 5DmkII and 550D (and all the models followed after), but started to lose their touch and had to see mirrorless camera's overtaking left and right because they we're not tinkering under the hood and weren't hitting the peddle to the metal. It's like entering the Formula 1 with one car and keeping it like that throughout the season, whilst others install performance upgrades and what not. Given that the new 70D is nice, it performs only marginally better than the in meanwhile ancient 18MP sensor (imho). The real power lies with the 5D. It was pretty ground breaking with the mkII and the mkIII opened a lot of new possibilities. But it's not really thanks to Canon, now is it? Great deal of the credit belongs to the amazing work from the guys over at Magic Lantern who can make it to something you can really get excited about. But why dumb down your own camera's when there's an audience waiting for the possibilities? Like you said, are you really just gonna ignore them and push 'em away towards the micro four thirds camera's?! If you'd just, like Panasonic, take notice of what people are saying and give them something to work with and get excited about, you can win too, but I guess they want to be at the losing end of things and stay cornered in the photo-specific corner. Because 'oooooeehh', you don't wan't to be known for your excellent video when making photocamera's. Atleast Nikon is innovating. In the consumerline budgetfriendly camera's category, their sensors outshine Canon's by quite a bit. But they fail to recognize the wishes of cinematographers and video enthusiasts. And that would even be okay if there was a Magic Lantern realizing those wishes and completely changing how you can use the camera, but unfortunately there's no such thing, nor will there probably ever be. Which actually kinda pains me, because here you have Canon that more or less lacks potential, but they have ML. And then there's Nikon, actually quite capable in theory, but as they say: you can't polish a turd, and nobody is seemingly willing to (be able) to get their hands dirty. The way things are going the only thing looking forward in terms of dSLR for video would be the 5DmkIV. And even then if they would just acknowledge the need for videofeatures on it and not dumbing things down so you can release a new camera after a little while with minor upgrades, you already could've provided months before. Same of course goes for the APS-C line of camera's from Canon and Nikon. It's like the story of Cinderella; a lot of potential wasted because it's being treated like dirt. But when given a proper chance and attention it could florish like a flower and win over hearts! But anyways. It's gonna be too little, too late anyways I'm afraid. In meanwhile mirrorless camera's are performing better and better, but more so, provide dedicated videofunctionality that's lacking with dSLRs. And you can redicule the smaller sensor all you want, but it can keep up, but another prominent benefit thereof is keeping lenses very compact! That in combination with a small camera already opens up a world of possibilities and advantages allowing for small run-and-gun videomonsters that pack a punch. I'm personally very excited for the Olympus OM-D E-M1 (which I'll probably be getting next month to upgrade from my GH2), especially because of the built-in stabilization. This should be a standard on all digital camera's! I'm using prime lenses most of the time anyways and especially with the MFT pancakes, you have sick possibilities in the smallest of packages, though still giving you stellar performance. To take it to the next level we need high bitrates, focus peaking, various fps-selections including 1080p at or above 60 frames per second. 2.5K already would be awesome for implementing in your 1080p projects. And then deliver 4K and uncompressed output for people who want to really get jiggy with it. That is the future! And mirrorless camera's are starting to give it to us already! You got to love the day and age we live in. We get to experience all these next levels! And it's starting to get more accessible and affordable as we go along. Things are moving in the right direction. It's just a matter of who takes it upon themselves to ride the wave... :lol: