Leaderboard

Regardless, this does not exactly play in their favor. Sony chipsets and other chipsets in the market are able to do in 1 chip what Canon's do in 3. Either way, they're behind. It costs them $0 to include it. The feature was always there for 10 years now, and it was always part of their OS. This was a clear move to push people to buy more expensive models. They aggressively segmentize and they've done so in the past (I will explain below). And that would work if they were a monopoly. But they have competitors that include more than just 24p in their cheaper cameras, they also have zebras, log etc. So why go with Canon then? Only Canon thinks that Canon users will stay with Canon no matter what. Little did they know, their EF lenses are getting adapted well to other systems as well. So, for a little history lesson. As a few people mentioned above, I indeed used to run a video-related blog back in the day. My little niche was "filmmaking on the very cheap". Basically, back then there wasn't much processing power to do 1080/30p on P&S digicams, manufacturers were often forced to use 24p (just because it was easier to encode). So Canon had a line of P&S cameras with 1080/24p at 36 Mbps. There were no manual controls, but there was exposure compensation & exposure lock. Which was enough to create artsy videos or short films on the super-cheap that looked rather professional -- if you were careful of how you were shooting with them. Add on top the ability to get a rather flat look to widen the DR (there were sharpness/contrast/sat controls), and it was a pretty sweet deal for cameras costing $150-$300. So for a couple of years, we had a number of P&S cams from Canon specifically that could be seen as alternatives to their 5D MkII, T2i, and 7D of that time (at least for people who couldn't afford these cameras and their lenses). I even shot a couple of music videos with such cams (we were not allowed to use my 5D MkII in the Santa Cruz Boardwalk to shoot a music video, but when I showed to the guards the tiny Canon SX30 HS P&S cam, they had no problem -- so they were really good guerrilla cams). The magic feature here was the exposure lock, that made those videos look pro. Fast forward to 2012. New Canon P&S line up announced across the board. And each one of these had exposure lock in video mode REMOVED (AEL for photos was still there). And in some other models, they removed exposure compensation as well (again, these features had been there for years at that point in video mode). They had to remove these because they couldn't remove 24p outright (simply because their processors were not fast enough yet to do 30p at 1080p, they were stuck with it). They probably saw that some people who could not afford dSLRs used these small cams as a cheap replacement for filmmaking, and they wanted to push these same people to upgrade. The thing is though, if these people had the money to buy a dSLR, they would have done so anyway. So, since then, I have a love-hate relationship with Canon. But their recent removal of 24p from a rather high end super-35 camera (the M6 MkII is not as low end as say, the M100) is unforgivable, sorry. Just because that's the EF-M line, should not make it a useless line for filmmaking. Some of us, want such cameras simply because they are small. The EOS R is much larger in comparison (and expensive when you account for native lenses). So yeah, what Canon is doing now, they've done before. It's part of their MO. And if it's true that they are upscaling 2.8k to 4k and lying about it, then they are really unforgivable. I have lost all the respect I had for that company all these years ago.

The 0:0 aspect ratio with the Mckinnon LUT pack is the clear winner here.

Don’t forget the Peter McKinnon cinematic lut pack!

@Eugenia I’ve been reading your blog since your Canon P&S days. I learned a bunch back then, so thanks. I have a 5D3 (ML Raw), a BMMCC, and an old eos-m, I don’t really use anymore. I passed on the M50 to see if this generation of cameras would have 4K and DPAF... I was excited to hear that they did... but then when I learned there was no 24p... I was completely dumbfounded. I still love my 5D3 and feel no need to own a bunch of cameras, so I probably should thank Canon, because they just saved me some money. I’m keeping a hopeful eye on the Sigma FP’s price and if it’s something I can manage, I may replace my BMMCC with it and slowly build a kit while I finish my current projects on my 5D3. If the price isn’t right, I can happily shoot another 2 years with ML Raw and save my money for the first major manufacturer to give me internal Raw at less than $2500.

Exactly,...so for the blue channel clipping, yes we have seen this for decades on many camera models. Some camera's are more resistant that others. However, with the S1 and S1H, we are seeing these cameras having an EXTREME sensitivity to blue lights. More than any camera I have ever seen. Oddly enough, the same blue light test scene is 100% FINE when switching to HLG. And, going further, the exact same blue light does NOT hurt the GH5 VLog-L or HLG. Even B&H's S1H promo sales video is riddled with severe blu channel clipping. That was a terrible way to highlight the S1H. Those guys spread blu light all over their shots! If I was Panasonic, I would BEG B&H to take their promo video down! I "think" Panny can fix this, but of they can't, people MUST know that if you have blue light in your shot, like a stage show or wedding reception...DO NOT USE VLOG....you need to switch to HLG. Once that blu channel gets smashed, it cannot be repaired in post. We need to raise public awareness about this. If you are doing a paid project, VLog could totally ruin you footage before you are able to switch to HLG. BE CAREFUL NOT TO GET BURNED BY VLOG!

Also always shoot at 60fps. Canon proves that you don’t need 24fps to make cinematic video, at least that’s what Potato Jet told me when I watched his canon 90d review

From the OP link, "How can Canon ignore such a large amount of interest from filmmakers in smaller, affordable, 4K shooting cameras?" I first became aware of 4K video back in 2010 while attending Canon's gear Expo at the Javits Center in NYC...it was my first time seeing 4K camera prototypes, first time seeing 4K monitors outputting 4K footage, first time seeing 4K sensors on display. I was immediately blown away by the clarity and detail possible at that resolution and I was convinced on-the-spot that Canon was clearly the brand to "hitch my wagon to" going forward. I had been shooting my 7D and 5D Mark II for both stills and video up to that point and I was feeling a bit cocky that I had chosen wisely "going with Canon" leading into that expo. I thought, "Ooh boy, I can't wait for their 5D Mark III and Canon 7D Mark II, whenever they get announced! I've got to get my hands on some 4K gear, pronto!" And with the arrival of the 4K-capable 1Dc in late 2013, I was eagerly anticipating my "impending good fortunes soon-to-come"! Ahahahah! The 2012 no-4K announcement for the 5D3 was a true "WTF?" moments for me, as was the 2014 7D2 announcement. "Really Canon?! What's the hold up?!" I was dismayed. Plans were dashed, my future shooting goals, postponed seemingly indefinitely, I was not a happy camper. Who, if anyone, was going to bring 4K DSLR-style camera gear to the masses? The subsequent arrivals of the 4K-capable GH4, FZ1000 and the Sony Alpha lines began to offer a glimmer of hope for me and my "4K Canon master plan", "surely they'll come through now!". But, as we all know now, I was "hoping against all hopes". "What a shame and disappointment, Canon." I thought...and still do. I began to jump ship from Canon with the FZ1000...and it was a revelation in "what the competition was up to"...sensible menus, fabulous in-the-field ergonomics, great video output quality (for me, at the time). I opened myself up to see what other manufacturers were offering and soon ended up with a Sony a6300 and a7SII...not as user-friendly as the Panasonic and more than a few-notches-below on image stabilization and rolling shutter, but usable, not a fan of their color vs Canon and Panasonic. In the past year+ I've been a razor-thin phone call away from grabbing either a GH5 or GH5S after getting some 2017 PhotoPlus Expo hands-on time with Panasonic's G9/100-400mm combo...now here was Image Stabilization realized! A small piece of kit that can effectively do what my Canon/Sony FF camera + Sigma 300-800mm lens can do, but handheld with IS?! I was absolutely floored and that kit was under the holiday tree for my sweetie two months later! I'm onto the S1, now...as I roll my fingers daily still waiting for that mythical V-Log upgrade to make that long boat trip to North America...thank goodness for Cine-D to sort-of hold me over in the meantime. And, "whither goes Canon?" I know not and, truthfully, do not truly care any more. And I do not write this with malice or from "sour grapes", it's just that they are no longer innovators and pioneers in my eyes. Based on what I saw and experienced back at that 2010 expo, Canon could have and should have owned the 4K DSLR/M market today...how they managed to "snatch defeat from the jaws of victory" is beyond me. Haw! And should they ever decide to produce a DSLR/DSLM camera worthy of my attention and shooting needs and desires, I'll surely give it a look-see. But, to the OP's question, yeah, they lost me as a customer a while ago.

All valid points, but it makes me wonder how much you want to spend for a "what if" scenario. An alternative to this is a C100 and if the client wants 4K then hire a C200 for that project. At the point that clients routinely ask for 4K then you can consider how long a purchase would take to pay for itself based on data rather than a general concern. "What if" is the enemy of photography because it leads you down a path where you buy so much equipment that you don't have time to learn how to use it and you take so many things with you that you can't actually go anywhere or shoot anything. True wisdom is knowing how much is enough.

Sure Here it is

I was inspired by those Cinama5D P6K tests and take attempt to exam BMMCC in near similar conditions. DNGs processed with workflow described here https://forum.blackmagicdesign.com/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=65149&p=543725#p537852 My background is simple black fabric, so it is darker and so more extreme test than Cinema5D examples, you can compare things by Color Checker patches. Let's be honest, even P6K can't provide usable underexposed 5 stops. It looks too noisy and became plastic mess if you add SNR. Sort of horisontal FPN lines also became visible in Sony sensors. So we see here is 5 years old native HD camera with Fairchild Imaging dual gain sensor fights against gigantic 6K/4K modern Sony sensors in downscaled to HD mode. 3 stops under expose is pretty usable with BMMCC as well as P4k/P6K. If only we can fight FPN it could be extended even further... P.S. I only can imagine what newer Fairchild Imaging dual gain sensor is capable of. Along to 4K it technically waaaay less noisier (Dark Current: 2 e-/sec compare to BMMCC sensor: 25 e-/sec, Ursa 4.6K sensor: 15 e-/sec) (Read Noise 1.0 e- RMS. BMMCC sensor: 1.2 e- RMS, Ursa 4.6K sensor: 1.5 e- RMS) It is better to see images at full size in new tab: And same examples, but with noise reduction (applied before expose push) and with fIlm emulation LUT applied:

Thank you Mercer! These were great times back then, reporting on cameras etc. ? I personally use the M and the M50 for small short films like this (M50 below, with the nifty fifty). So despite some people saying that 24p is not needed, I actually need it, and I rather use such a small package camera rather than a larger or more expensive camera for these smaller film projects. Canons have their problems, but with the VisionColor's Cinetech picture profile I get an excellent cinematic look, and more DR than Cinestyle. If only they could do proper 4k and have a 10bit codec. I tried ML a few times, but the aliasing and overheating keeps me from using it further.

i dont even like metallic but im obsessed w this cover rn its a rendition of an old irish folk song i think always natalie aaaand i had a rlly good time watching this this morning.... MUD FIGHT!!!!

I own 4 Canons (along a BMPCC og & 4k, and GX85) and I was looking into upgrading my Canon M50 with the M6 MkII (as a walk-around video camera). I was shocked to see no 24p in there. So instead, I pulled the trigger just last week and bought a Sony A6400 with its kit lens, and an EF/S adapter. The A6400 has its own crippled sensor with (surprisingly high) rolling shutter. But at least it provides me with the right tools to create a cinematic image, if I'm careful of how I shoot. The M6 does not. No 24p, and still no zebras, spot metering, or a log profile after all these years. So despite its own problems, the A6400 was a better buy for me. Canon lost a sure sale. And now I'm hearing about pixel binning and upscaling, which makes me happier about my decision to go Sony. At the end, it's Fuji that it's going to win me over though, I know it in my gut. As long as they have an updated X-T3 with ibis, I'm there. I'll get their f/2.8 kit lens zoom, and the Fringer EF/S adapter, and I'll be golden for many years to come, I reckon. The last camera I'll buy for a good long while. It'd be good enough for what I need.

As someone wrote up there on YT comments... from "THE MOST UNDERRATED BAND OF ALL TIME" and written by some YT user in capital letters (expressly quoted as the way it was originally written): Tell us what you listen : -)

This is true, and I've thought about it as well - renting as needed / when the time comes. The problem is that I like to be very familiar with my gear and not think about it during a shoot, and this familiarity comes from using the same gear a lot. Buttons, menu layouts, etc., should become muscle memory, and I don't want to be fumbling around looking for this or that button, or this menu item, etc. during a paid shoot. Renting at the time of the shoot (even a few days before at an extra cost) puts me in a position to have to learn a new piece of equipment on the job pretty much, which is not good from my experience. Though the C100/200/300 are pretty similar, there are some key differences in form factors, button layouts, menus, and workflow. So that's the downside in looking at it. I'm not looking to get a ton of gear, I'm very minimalistic in fact. I'm looking to get the right piece of gear that I can use for quite some time - a few years, as I do with my photo cameras. Usually, in my experience, this does mean investing a bit more up front in more of the middle to high tier of gear. If I get a C100MK2, it's already paid for from my current shoot which I invested zero capital in as I used my 3yo DSLRs. One more shoot, and the C200 is paid for - heck, even a C300MK2 will be just about paid for. The math is not hard - one more shoot and I can get the C300MK2 pretty much. The question is do I *need* a C300MK2 (or a C200)? I like to keep it simple and not have stuff I'll never use. That's why I started out with the DSLRs and then by looking at the cheapest option (C100MKII). The question again is will I need a C200 (or even C300MK2)? This translates to - do I anticipate having to shoot in 4K 2-3 times in the next 3-4 years? That's all it takes, even less as I was saying to justify the more expensive camera. What's the probability of having to shoot in 4K? Probably pretty high in the next few years. If I get a C100MK2 now, then a C200/300 in 6 months, then I lose on the purchase of the C100MK2 any way you cut it. Or if I keep it, then I will have too much gear! I see one can go nuts with these cameras, rigging them up, adding this and that, etc. A bit overwhelming, and I would just get the basic package, regardless of camera I get, and only add accessories as / if the need arises. It is easy to watch some video or read a review and think you may need this or that, but the need will only arise from within if you know what I mean. So yeah, it's not easy, and you make good points which do make me think. And I'm taking my time. All feedback is good

Great user to pop up amongst us... @Eugenia how long since those crazy reduser times, without mention dvxuser and the Chris Hurd's corner... Be welcome on behalf of our host @Andrew Reid ! E : -)

Right on, same here

i read your post, and at the start, i thought i hope this guy is joking? the web is responsible for some good things out there but adding black bars top and bottom just cheapens it for me. Just goes to prove you still need to filter lol. Admittedly you probably could throw some bars top and bottom on some footage and maybe i would be none the wiser. However that may depend on the content if i went back and watched the batman movie again now that someone has pointed it out i would probably notice it this time because i'd be watching out for it, but those youtubes that switch to different aspect ratios no attempt seems to be made to smooth the difference, and it just seems pretty jarring to me. Digressing momentarily Youtube is actually starting to tick me off. i have noticed lately they now seem to be playing two ads at the start of a video one you can click on to dismiss but one will play the whole way through. Its rapidly becoming like tv. Kaylee had a thread about monetizing a channel, and there was some talk about the monies been make have dropped off. Now with two ads at the start and ads inserted into the video it does seem like like youtube are glutinous in their appreciation of filthy lucre, for me its getting to the point id rather pay a fee to not watch advertising and get content that interests me. Heck some of that fee can even go back to content creators, it would be a win win.

I always wondered if I would ever be able to laugh at a 9/11 joke.

Correct, the song dates back at least to the 17th century (more likely the 16th) and the writer is unknown. It's one of the most performed songs, not just Irish folk singers/bands, but also rock, metal and punk and all have slightly different lyrics. Molly is sometimes called Jenny for instance. Thin Lizzy made it popular back in the 70s with their rock cover and basically started the whole thing of combining Irish tunes with rock which sparkled The Pogues and the creation of celtic punk which lated led to Flogging Molly and Dropkick Murphys.

Yeah 16 doesn't have it, 16.1 b2 (the latest beta) added it.

I did my tests using Fujifilm F-Log as input color space, then Rec.709 Gamma 2.4 as timeline & output color space. I don't use HLG but for that I'd use Rec.2100 HLG as input, in fact that's automatically chosen by RCM if you import a Fuji HLG file. (in Resolve 16.1 beta 2) About interpretation of F-Log files (didn't test HLG yet): If you use the Ninja V then you're fine. If you use internal footage then you're fine in Davinci YRGB and ACES, but not (yet) in RCM. If you transcode the footage by doing a matrix conversion from BT.601 to BT.709 then you're fine. If you transcode the footage without a matrix conversion and you preserve the original matrix coefficients flag, then you're fine in Davinci YRGB and ACES, but not (yet) in RCM. If you transcode the footage without a matrix conversion and you omit (or simply rewrite) the matrix coefficients flag, then the footage will be interpreted incorrectly everywhere. It all comes down to how shutter encoder works. I can only help with FFMPEG.

Hi all, I found this thread a few weeks back and have been lurking on the forum ever since. It's been very helpful for getting more familiar with the X-T3, which I've been shooting on all summer. I'm slowly building out a mini-cine rig for it. I know some folks aren't fans of rigging small mirrorless cameras like this, but I've found it to be useful. Looking forward to swapping the Anker battery for a V-mount and adding a monitor or Ninja V.

After 6 goddamn years?

thats my dad

While we are waiting and dreaming I am solving some issuses for now by myself - bought several NDs for each lens plus rapid filter system for them. You can get the latter on Ali for 15$

It used to be. I used to be in the HV20 community forum back then, I was quite active (and a moderator). These days, it's the 5D Mkii, M50, and three EOS M. I was looking forward to upgrade to the M6 MkII, but Canon had other ideas... I didn't want to pay almost $1100 more (kit lens, plus Fringer adapter) and not get IBIS. So basically, I see the A6400 as a cheaper, in-between camera, until an updated Fuji next year. That way at least, I have one sample each from all major manufacturers, lol...

After some more thinking, I'm now leaning more towards the C200. Not that I see a real need to deliver 4K, but because I worry some clients may ask for it, even if they don't need it. They may think they need it and want it, and if I can't offer it to them, then I'm stuck if I get the C100MKII. I would have to use my 1DXMKII/5DMKIV for 4K if they want it, but then yeah, back to huge MJPEG files, inconsistent crop factors, and using DSLR bodies instead of a dedicated video camera system. With the C200 I can just shoot UHD 150Mpbs/4:2:0 8bit internal to redundant SD cards (or UHD 4:2:2 8bit external / HD 4:2:2 10bit external if that gives me higher bitrates to work with in post - not sure how much higher they would be over HDMI than 150Mpbs and if worth it / visible difference). And yeah, I can use the RAW for personal projects, as that gets crazy expensive with the CFast cards. The added bonus is the better DPAF in the C200 (touch, face tracking, etc. - similar to my 1DX/5D), better screen, & better EVF. It's not cheap by any means, but the alternatives (Panasonic, Sony, BM, which do 4:2:2 4K 10bit+) I think would be harder to match with my DSLRs in terms of look/color/etc. It's hard - I'm not in love with the C200, but if I need 4K, it checks the box. C200 is about as large a body as I would want, because I want to handhold, move around, etc. C300, even if I could afford it is a bit on the heavy/larger size.

?

I understand your point, but I suspect we have a philosophical difference here. My end goal is to make art. Out of the many ways I could do this, I have chosen video as the medium, and for this purpose I own a camera. If I could stick a USB stick in the side of my head and render my memories to it then I wouldn't bother with any of the opto-electric-trinkets that we talk about here. So, when we talk about spending many thousands of dollars on equipment instead of $40 for a 10-year-old point and shoot on ebay, we are doing so because we think that expensive equipment gives us a nicer image. For me, and I suspect most others, nicer typically means that the end product looks far less crunched when compared to what we pointed the camera at than a cheaper camera would do. This is why our discussions talk about everything in the image pipeline. Walking through it, we talk about filters, lenses, the sensor stack, the sensor, the digital processing (colour science), the codec, editing, grading, delivery codecs, distribution, and final projection. We care about everything. I understand that not everyone wants to have perfectly realistic imaging, there is this concept of a 'cinematic' image and we talk about how certain distortions have a pleasing effect. Swirly bokeh lenses are an example of this - not everyone wants the modern look. However, when we're talking about what we want vs what we don't want, not everything is desirable. For example CA isn't something most people want. It's definitely not something I like the look of. There are other things we sometimes want to get rid of. ..and here we get to the crux of the problem - if there is a problem with something in the image pipeline then we have the choice of having everything else in the pipeline have high-quality and therefore ruthlessly reveal the issue, or we can deliberately lower the quality of something in order to effectively hide that issue. It's a question of how clearly do we want to see the best part of the image, knowing that we will also make it clear to see the worst part of the image too. For me, it's about spending the money on the worst part of the image pipeline. If someone said they had an Alexa and PL cine lenses but used a scratched $10 ND filter and were thinking of upgrading to an ARRI LF because they wanted to get better image quality we'd think they were crazy because they should replace the ND filter instead as that's clearly the worst part of their setup. For me, I think that lenses might be the worst part. I watch a lot of Netflix and on almost everything I watch I'm seeing bad image quality caused by lenses, not by filters, not the sensor stack, not the sensor, not the digital processing (colour science), not the codec, not editing, not grading, not delivery codecs, not distribution, not the final projection, the weakness is the lens. And when I look at moving from 4K to 6K I think about what lenses people are using and I think "4K isn't your bottleneck". Using a Helios... 4K obviously isn't your bottleneck. Using a Sigma 18-35, Panasonic 12-35 f2.8 or Canon 16-35... I still think that 4K isn't your bottleneck. Using a CP.2... Even then I think 4K isn't your bottleneck. I know it's a taste thing, but when I see lens issues I'm just thinking everyone is spending big dollars to make high-resolution copies of fuzzy 70's polaroids.

Apparently its only with Vlog not HLG tho

my take is: im not a fan of switching aspect ratios, but NO ONE NOTICES BESIDES US case in point: the dark knight nolan films, going from letterboxed 2.39 to 16x9 imax footage at will, with no apologies~! i ask my friends... "Did you notice that...?" They ALL say no. except for the DPs lolol

Yep, perhaps some component is not holding up to what they expected and they prefer to play it safe and do a hardware upgrade. On every site people have been complaining about companies giving more features if need, even for a paid upgrade. You have a company doing it, and giving you the ultimate format and people are still complaining. I mean Nikon just brought 10 bit (full frame) and raw to the dslr mirrorless market price segment and those guys are still complaining. You would believe Nikon just removed 24p in their latest camera release or still sticking to 8bit video.

People are real life jokes, so you are getting RAW video from an update and don't have to buy a new camera and you are still complaining. The z6 is like half the cost of that Panasonic and is still beyond most people capabilities as shown by the video above. Have you seen the size of the BM apsc only 6k camera. Tell me about it's superb autofocus and battery life for video... and photo. Oh yeah, Nikon should do a video camera and forget there core market for some people on the internet that I am sure has a valid reason to need a raw full frame camera for less than 3k. They are really ripping their customers.

Hollywood does it on occasion. The Dark Knight had a few IMAX shots sprinkled in where the aspect ratio went from ~2.39:1 to ~1.85:1. The Grand Budapest Hotel goes from 4:3 to 16:9 for stylistic reasons to show whether scene is current day or a story by the narrator. So long as it serves a purpose, I think this is completely fine.

Well I was hoping for the infamous Organic sensor from Panasonic. I dont really care for 8k at all. I need more DR, built-in ND and perfect AF which oragnic sensor promised to provide. So I still have some hopes for it..

so the 83 year old CEO, Chairman and Emperor of Canon Fujio Mitarai basically said that "we are now aware that we have lost the camera market lead and will cut our R&D costs into cameras and try to compensate by selling more Corporate Printers instead". to me it seems like a matter of Pride & Principle when a greedy old fart and his ego can't accept and admit that he was too Greegy and it didnt work and that he should just Quit and commit HARAKIRI and be done, and so will also end the age of weird basic feature crippling on overpriced products that no one wants to buy anymore anyway... Party's Over Canon! XC10 (wtf!?) why didnt it have EF mount? or EF-S even? probably so we dont buy or use it by mistake. ehh go figure... even the Canon lens devision is still waiting for a Camera to put all that new 2.5K glass they keep making on... and then... 1 Card Slot - No Joystick... ok... the EOS R is as aborted baby a 1DXII made on the side with a 700D... A Crippled Perfect Cam. but crippled... beautifull but ugly at the same time! i guess we just wait 2 more years... save up some Rubels... maybe then... this for me is the embodiment of the "OLD MAN CANON" mentality that has left me (and others it seems) feeling abandoned and even betrayed, still waiting for that 1DC style 4K shooting "5D-MKIV" that never came (...) and the last 'Worthy' Canon (the 5dMKIII which i still use) owes most of the LOVE it got to the Magic Lantern guys anyway. Now 6 yrs later they would rather completely stop playing than admit defeat - i guess it's a Japan thing... DAMN you Canon for basically forcing me to have to buy that Square Sony! but i now realise that my wait will never end if i dont... oh well... i think i'll go take a nap now...

I've shot over 50 Weddings with the Pocket 4K. Never let me down. It even got knocked to the floor twice, and kept on recording to the USB drive. When a similar thing happened to my GH5, it shut down and the file was badly corrupted. Best camera I've owned. :). And to think I very nearly cancelled my pre-order last December....

Impressive results. I was set for the 4K as the convenience of the mount is perfect for me but now I paused my order again. The P4K seems like the small sensored camera it is now! There is always the argument that you gain the stop you loose from a Speedbooster of course, but still..

It doesn't have an RF Mount, dual XLRs, or an internal ND (either internal or with the adapter). So the Pocket 6K does not have all of the specs a C100 III would have. I've tried out the Pocket 4k and all of the usability issues remain in the 6K version, 3 or 4 of them being fatal flaws (meaning, I won't use it professionally): - terrible battery life - fixed screen that is difficult to work with and not daylight viewable - Terrible ergonomics and general shape. - Quite a few reports on random shut-downs (I had the Pocket 4K turn off on me more than a dozen times whenever the battery got close to 50%). Currently, Black Magic makes cameras that give you a beautiful image with a fantastic codec and menu system at a GREAT price, but everything else is a bit of a disaster.

Super impressive performance for 5-stops under exposed for the Pocket 6k then brought up by 5-stops in post. The underexposed performance of the Pocket 6k was also evident in Tom Antos' USRA Mini Pro, Pocket 6K, Alexia and Red Tests. It seems to me that if you are shooting in natural light the Pocket 6k is the way to go. I knew there was a reason I liked the Pocket 6k over the Pocket 4k - now if Blackmagic would release a MFT version of the Pocket 6K - I would purchase it. From this: To this: Wow!

I’m really into listening to Bob Wills’ again. Can’t really explain why, just am.

I saw that, really looks stunning

From my understanding, color science and video codec are part of the story of Canon’s failure. There were several more fatal mistakes being made by Canon itself in the past five years. Before Sony released the first 4K camera A7S, Canon occupied most of the video shooting marketing because most of the photographers, especially in wedding photography sector wanted to manage the equipment easier thus they purchase all Canon stuffs from bodies to wide range of EF lenses. This was the good old day of Full HD movie that was still adequate for the producers facing the average consumer market. Canon reserved the color profile and 4K exclusively for the Cinema EOS and lured the producers to buy the expensive movie body which could utilize their EF lenses to “save” money from buying extra filmmaking lenses. In certain sense, Canon slowed down its step to improve the video technology because they believed 4K were for the professional and wouldn’t be the mainstream in the coming five years. And the users’ loyalty to EF lenses will help it maintained the sales of camera body. However, Sony thought differently and tried to be the bad boy to ruin the lenses-monopolization of Canon by using the trick – the EF to E-mount adapter. When Sony A7S entered the market all wedding photographers and filmmakers just went crazy with the most economic 4K solution at that period. The adapter helped Sony to buy time and boost sales during the days without enough good choices of E-mount lenses. Canon couldn’t do anything because the patent of EF mount was already expired which meant it was going to be exploited by other camera brands. This smart move ruined the plan of Canon entirely but it still did not want to face the truth that 4K should be getting cheaper and more popular in the following years. Instead of releasing 4K in the EOS DSLR line, it launched the stupid XC10 as responding to the need of 4K in the prosumer market. The situation getting worse when more brands and various kind of equipment penetrated the market such as GoPro 4 Black, DJI Inspire 1, iPhone 6S, etc. I still remember my first 4K camera was LG G4 in 2015! But even worse that actually, Canon’s technology of CMOS hasn’t been improved much after 5D mark II. The merely increased pixels and boring ergonomic design just losing all its charm . The only reason of buying Canon is just because the users are photojournalists who need weather and dust sealing in the tough environment. Sony (with EF lenses), GoPro, DJI and iPhone take its place in video taking position. Otherwise, there are not much reason to have DSLR with lame video spec. EOS m6 mark II may be the new hope. But what Canon should do that is releasing more power in color profiles and in body RAW recording. Otherwise, a little Sony RX100 mk VII is still able to blow it away. Dinosaur should die anyway but usually slowly.

DaVinci Resolve Studio 16.1 public beta 2 released • Support for Fujifilm F-Log colorspace Now it's possible to use RCM and make color grading without LUT. 1a : F-LOG 1b : Color space F-Log+OFX tone mapping simple 1c : Simple adjustments expo, contrast and auto WB.

I think the C200 looked the best in the studio shot... the BM cameras made the girl look sickly and two-dimensional in comparison. I even preferred the C200 over the Red Helium (I hope I don’t get a cease and desist order). With that being said, I still believe Canon is making a huge mistake taking 24p out of their “lower” tiered cameras... regardless of their reason for doing it. But at the end of the day, it doesn’t really matter, Canon does not offer an inexpensive camera that I am interested in, so if/when I am in the market for such a camera, I will look to another brand.

If anyone knows of any lenses that are 6K wide-open to go with my new P6K / S1H / F6 camera or 8K lenses for my F8 then please let me know. Must be under 100Kg and budget is limited to the GDP of a small island nation.

Older cameras had 24p when they still was a huge gap with Pro models. And at the time, the C lineup was not very developed. When canon started adding DPAF and 4K, they crippled it somehow with lack of AF, huge crop and now the removal of 24p. They just want leave a large gap between prosumer cam and pro cam. Someone shopping for $6500 camera might also need a B and C cam with relatively close look, APC-S and S35 are close. A few 90D might do well with regular C200/C300 footage for quick cut and B roll. Canon try to sell A, B and C cam at full price. Not sure about the reasoning, does it really work for them? Big prods might buy that but how many customers do they lose in the process? I don't know. But it's not just about price, mounting a M6 II on a small gimbal would be much easier than a C200. Getting B-roll with light and small gimbal is great, doing the same thing with a C200, not so easy. It's all about margins not sales. They probably make pennies on entry level DSLR but the margins in the Pro camera business are comfortable, even after factoring the smaller production batch: Need a longer cable? $350 !!!! https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1184818-REG/canon_0887c001_un_10_unit_cable_for.html A 90 Wh battery? $430 https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1159864-REG/canon_0870c002_bp_a60_battery_pack_for.html A 4" monitor $650 https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1340812-REG/canon_2417c001_lm_v1_lcd_monitor.html

Frame grabs from a shoot yesterday, 1080p 120 fps upscale to 4K in Resolve.