Andrew Reid

  Yes I am sure the crew and post team on Skyfall found Alexa raw really hard!

Why would anyone get the C100 Mk II when for less than £2k more you can get an FS7?   FS7 UK price - http://cvp.com/index.php?t=product/sony_pxw-fs7   C100 Mk II - http://cvp.com/index.php?t=product/canon_eos-c100-mark-ii

  Nah, 1/25 is the slowest it goes in 24p. I couldn't have shot the Beka Hoop video with it. On the A7S I could do 1/8 to get the blur.

So C300 on Blue Is The Warmest Colour is the new hype machine on the EOSHD forums I see. Well here's Roger Deakins view on it... he found it "disappointing" http://www.rogerdeakins.com/forum2/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=2691   As for image quality, it really has very little to do with the C300, more about the £25,000 Angenieux zooms they had on the front. And of course, the million pound post production budget and talented crew of many people, plus the lighting.

It's 4K scaling artefacts from it being scaled to a 1080p screen by the player software you're seeing Neverending.

I just don't believe it! Sorry!

Can't say I am noticing any moire so far with mine.   Review soon.

  Interesting, thanks

  There will be coverage of the Shogun when it is out. It isn't released yet.

  O rly?

To read part 1 of my Sony A7S review click here A long time has passed since part 1 of this review but I've been spending a lot of time with the A7S. I am really under the skin of this camera. That's a good sign because somewhere along the way, the A7S became my main filmmaking tool. Perhaps surprisingly for me, a huge Panasonic GH series advocate on EOSHD over the years, I have been using the Sony A7S more often. The GH4 still has many advantages the A7S doesn't have, like longer battery run-times, a better screen, quicker boot time and of course an internal 4K codec though. Read the full article here

I don't agree. Sorry! To my eye the C100 and the very similar Mk II do not look better than the A7S, which has HD more in league with the F5. Actually better because it isn't as noisy. The A7S is full frame, nicer rendering of EF lenses than Super 35 and the 4K output is superior - 4x the data in the file than 1080p ProRes, not just 4x the detail. The only image quality related issues the C100 Mk II is superior over the A7S is rolling shutter. I dare say the A7S is better in low light too!   The Blackmagic cameras if you stay under ISO 800 offer better skin tones, more tones in the lows (much nicer shadows with less banding) and the BMCC in particular has a significant dynamic range advantage in raw.   In terms of grading, raw does not compare to AVCHD, nor ProRes via HDMI. It's obvious you can do more with raw. The C100 Mk II will not give you the advantages of raw, unlike the 5D3 with Magic Lantern.   The GH4 is of course more details and is 4x the amount of data in the H.264 file than is the case with H.264 on the C100 Mk II. The GH4 is a bit noisy at times and the smaller sensor needs Speed Booster which has trades offs of its own, but I will bet you a lot of money that if you gave me two shots, one from the C100 2 and one from the GH4 I could match them in post so closely you wouldn't be able to tell them apart at 1080p.   I can appreciate why the C100 Mk II is a work tool, and at $5500 it's a very solid one which does very good 1080p with some of the best ergonomics, excellent audio and built in ND filters. But let's not pretend that $5500 is getting you anything magical on the image side. Very good compressed 8bit 1080p yes, with decent colour straight off the bat with no grading. It's certainly convenient.

  I noticed this too. When I bought my LX100 last Thursday from Saturn, price was 899. Today at the same shop it's 799. Did Panasonic make a last minute adjustment?

This is the kind of camera Jim Jannard would have criticised in 2008. Now 6 years later it's 2014 and it will look like standard definition playing in a high definition world. There is no reason this cannot do 4K. The sensor in the C100 Mk II does a 4K readout. I have a very good 4K video processor / LSI in my $899 pocket camera (LX100). I have a 4K HDMI tap (4:2:2 8bit) on my $2299 one (A7S) and a 10bit 4K HDMI at $1699 with the GH4. 4K raw from Blackmagic at not much more.   If you're busting a gut making art, and you want it to be timeless, appreciated by future audiences, then 1080p 8bit is not the format to shoot it on.   If on the other hand you just want to do a job efficiently with a minimum of fuss and get paid, the C100 Mk II is a bargain. I am sure it will sell very well to the large (but shrinking) crowd of workers who don't need anything more than 1080p and 8bit AVCHD.

Guys you need to state more details, like your vertical screen res as a minimum fact before I can do anything about it.

Let's see how far Nikon have taken video since the D90 shall we!     In contrast to Canon who have only fixed moire on one model, and taken high quality video off DSLRs altogether, to put it on Cinema EOS cameras.

What's the advantage of getting a NEX 5N to learn on? You want to become an expert in moire patterns!?   Just get the best you can afford. The difference in price between a GH1 and GH2 used isn't very significant. The difference in codec, workflow, grading, image quality and low light performance certainly is.

  Were you using a pinhole lens on the GH4 or something?

  Switch to NTSC mode.

Internal card does 5K but there's no target display mode, you won't be plugging anything into it and using it as a 5K display.   And the 5K cinema display is curiously missing for probably similar reasons. Hope they do a 4K version!

Read my thoughts at DPReview in the Panasonic GH4 review (page 7), here As was the case with the GH3, the GH4's video capabilities were enough to achieve a gold award at DPReview. Read the full article here

Yes it has an XLR add on. And don't let a rumour made up by a 16 year old teen in a bedroom add a cloud of doubt over your filmmaking work.

If you're fed up of workarounds and add-ons in the case of your BMPCC and 7D, the GH4 and A7S are actually a very practical step up.   Good focus assists on both. Very good EVFs and articulated screen.   Superb battery life and long run times on the GH4. The A7S run times are good if you add the battery grip.   No built in ND filters so that might be a consideration, however with a decent vari-ND you get more control than with a switch.   Low light on the A7S is better than C100 and it's full frame so full use of your EF lenses, whereas the C100 is APS-C.   GH4 low light not as good as C100 but it's 4K and 10bit capable externally whereas C100 is limited to 8bit. The GH4 files grade very well but the A7S with S-LOG 2 grades even better. Does the C100 have C-LOG or is that just the C300, I can't remember.   Anyway I'd say get the A7S and save some money for more important things like lenses and filters.

  That's utter crap talk and you know it.

  The low light and full frame of the A7S will come in more useful for weddings. When you have limited space full frame is really useful. When you have dimmer interior light the high ISO performance is a huge advantage. I can go to 12,800 in S-LOG and not even notice I'm doing such a crazy ISO when it comes to grading the footage.