DPC

@ Kotlos Kotlos - I'm still testing, I'm often wrong ;-) From what I've seen, it's much easier to get decent skin tones with the Olympus than with my GH4.

I got mine today (I wanted to use it on a specific project very soon). First impressions are that Andrew is being a bit hard on the image quality but I am far from finishing my tests. That said, here are a few things that do bother me - - no way to adjust exposure or ISO when shooting video - no way to do custom white balance in movie mode ( you have to go to stills mode to do this) - no enlarged view when manually focusing in movie mode - apparently no way to refocus using auto focus while shooting movies - there is an INCREDIBLE crop when in movie mode. More than on the GH4 in 4K. I think this is what bothers me most of all. Totally unexpected. But... - build quality is beautiful - peaking seems to work better than on my GH4 - a quick test combining shutter priority exposure, stabilisation and continuous autofocus was really good (and will be good for quick, steady walk-through shots) My reasoning getting this was that it would (more or less) do the job of a gimbal. For what I do I just don't have time to mess around with rigging and it's not practical to have multiple cameras set up on different stabilisation devices. Despite all the drawbacks listed above, I think it might still serve the intended purpose.

Whether it's intended for stills or video, if it has a mirror and a prism I'm not interested. The laziest thing Canon can do to "upgrade" a camera is to add more megapixels. Somewhat to my surprise, I've been using my GH4 - originally purchased for video - on stills jobs instead of my 5D MK III. The results are great, clients are happy and the camera is far more pleasant to use.

I have exported a particularly noisy clip from my edit as a TIFF image sequence, imported into Lightroom, done my noise reduction, re-exported to a folder as TIFFs, converted TIFF sequence to ProRes in Quicktime and the used this new sequence to replace the original noisy clip.

This is all great but... I've just finished a job partly done on the 1DC with 4k (not even raw). Yes, the files were great but it really is a nightmare to shoot with: all the disadvantages of a DSLR plus massive amounts of data to deal with. And then there's the problem of editing the stuff. I love a good image but really don't see how to reconcile this raw development with budgets or turn-around times. On the 4k job data management really got in the way of capturing good content and content is really what my clients are interested in. I worked with the 1DC, a 5D MK III and a "conventional" camcorder. Although the image quality decreased in that order, the quality of the content improved, simply because the camera was less of an obstacle. I would be much more excited if I could just record 4:2:2 in camera.

The Neutrogena video?  GoPros for the timelapse, Canon C300, 5D MK III, Sony NEX 7 (I shot), Sony RX 100 (five shots). The edit had to be done quickly. I don't think there was much time for advanced color balancing between cameras.

Yes, you can use an external monitor but the micro HDMI slot is situated right next to the tripod thread so it's very hard to use both at the same time. Some DIY skills are needed.   There's another good Sony RX 100 thread here http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/1955-sony-rx100-getting-the-best-video-out-of-it/   And here's a couple of links to work where I have Sony RX 100 footage mixed in with other formats -  http://www.withup.com/ (in the first video to play almost all the "people" shots are done with it).     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jq-rDvP5-I   (I was filming behind the scenes and most of the content is by others but there are at least five of my sequences from the RX 100 that ended up in the final edit). I've used it on plenty of other jobs to get fast grab shots I wouldn't get otherwise. 

Could you explain why 50 FPS @ 1/100 dropped into a 25 FPS timeline (in Premiere) would give a more filmic look than if I shoot at 50 FPS @ 1/50? I suppose I'm trying to understand(1) if dropping every other frame from 50 FPS is the same as shooting 25 FPS natively and (2) if Premiere simply drops half the frames when I use 50 FPS footage in a 25 FPS timeline. The footage I have shot at 50 FPS @ 1/50 looks OK to me in a 25 FPS timeline, but then so does stuff shot at 1/100...

Sorry, nothing I can share at the moment. Editing will be next week and these are private corporate events and I don't have permission to share. I forgot to add to my list- (1) The fact that the camera only shoots 50 FPS. I haven't decided if this is a problem or not. In the absence of an ND filter it helps in bright light. I've been experimenting using 1/50 sec shutter in lower light and then dropping the 50 FPS footage in a 25 FPS timeline. I think this should look the same as if I had been able to shoot at 25 FPS in the camera. (2) That in the flexi-focus mode (I can't remember its actual name) I have the same problem as with my NEX 7: I think the focus area is too large. Certainly too large to focus precisely the lens open at f 1.8. (3) [url="http://lensmateonline.com/articles/products/lensmate-sony-rx100-quick-change-adapter-kit/"]http://lensmateonline.com/articles/products/lensmate-sony-rx100-quick-change-adapter-kit/[/url] seems to me to be the most promising solution for fixing an ND filter to the lens.

If anybody is still reading this... I bought one for a specific purpose: I do a lot of reportage work in very low light. I need a good balance of high ISO, fast lens, stabilization. There are things I can't shoot with my 5D MK III or even my NEX 7. I haven't been disappointed by the RX 100 (used on two jobs so far) but there are a few things I would have liked to have known before I bought it. The Zacuto Z finder and Gorilla Plate work very well but you need to make some kind of spacer to raise the camera. You also need to remove one of the bottom screws to be able to slide the mounting frame far enough to the left. There is no histogram in movie mode! This is a real pain for me because that's how I expose. Using a flat picture profile makes exposing by eye harder too. The only option (if you want to use the histogram) is to set your exposure in photo mode and then switch over to video. There is no punch-in manual focus in video mode. There is no AF-S mode either. Just AF-C or manual. There is, however, a very efficient object tracking mode. Focus peaking is pretty hopeless: in low light just about everything appears as a contrasty edge. You just can't rely on it to focus precisely at 1.8. The 1.8 at 28 mm becomes rapidly 2.8 at 35 mm EFOV. Setting custom white balance requires going into the main menu. It is not one of the ordinary white balance options. With my NEX7 I can quickly take out a grey card and set a custom white balance in a matter of seconds. Much slower with the RX 100. Although you can drop the ISO to 80 in photo mode, in video the lowest is 125. Changing the battery or card requires dismounting the camera from whatever support you have it on. The battery life is very good indeed. There is no charger provided. You have to charge the battery in the camera. The zoom mechanism isn't really smooth enough to use it while filming. Also, in video mode, the first part of the zoom is mechanical and the second digital. There is a clear difference in zoom quality between the two with a bump as digital takes over from mechanical. I'm still looking for an acceptable way to add ND filters. Ideally I would like to have some kind of small matte-box like system in front of the lens, perhaps attached to the gorilla plate. Finally, the RX 100 - because of the increased depth of field due to the smaller sensor) will have a much more "video" look when mixed in with footage from, say, a NEX 7 or 5D MK III. Hope that's of use to somebody!

This might be of interest... https://vimeo.com/49063093

For anyone curious about the Zacuto question, here's the result of a little testing: I think the stick-on frame is a non-starter because it will fix entirely to the glass cover of the LCD. I've alreayd ripped out the one of a Canon 550D and don't want to do that again with the Sony. With the Gorilla Plate, the finder frame, without spacer or modification, sits a little too high and to the right. You can see the whole of what you are shooting but not the aperture and shutter info below although you could probably just about guess what they are from the top part that remains visible. I think it is possible to bring up the same info using other menu functions. A small, flat spacer would probably solve this problem. I would be very reluctant to attach anything to the lens mechanism which is clearly not made to take the supplementary weight. I will probably end up buying an RX100 but outdoor shooting in bright light looks as if it will be a problem and, although the body's build is very good, I doubt it will withstand much hard use. Collapsable lens mechanisms are usually vulnerable and dust entering the camera can often be a problem. Some kind of matte box might be a solution, but by the time you have added that and a Zacuto finder with a spacer, you no longer have a compact camera.

Thanks for replying! In the past I've mounted a Zacuto Z-Finder to a Canon S95 via the stick-on frame. The LCD screen was small enough for the frame to attach to the metal of the camera body. This doesn't look to be the case with the RX100 and I would be reluctant to glue a frame to the LCD glass, for fear that the weight of the finder pull it out. The other solution would be to use a Gorilla Plate and metal mounting frame (nothing attached to the LCD screen in this case) but I'm not clear as to whether the whole screen would be visible with this setup.

@ kitchentable -This is attached to the front of the collapsing lens, right? Are you sure the weight isn't going to be a problem? Is the whole lens mechanism robust enough to bear a variable ND (especially one that will be turned)? And I would still like to know if anyone has managed to mount a Zacuto finder on this...

@ EOS HD - Thanks for that opinion! I was blocked on the shutter = twice fps rule. Your comment got me out testing in bright light without NDs today, and learning a great deal from it... Shooting at 50 fps 1/640 and dropping the clips into a 25 fps sequence in Premiere still looks OK to me.

@ZoranBerlin - do I understand correctly: you can't stop the lens down further than f11? With no ND filter that's going to be a big problem for shooting video in bright light...

@richg101 - that's a very good point about the cost of the RX 100 vs the 24mm 1.8!

I've been using my NEX 7 a lot on documentary jobs (the 5D MK III stays in the bag) and was thinking of adding something like a Canon HF G10 to my other kit. Your comments comparing this to camcorders were of particular interest... A few questions: is it really possible to use a Zacuto finder? Presumably if you use the adhesive frames they have to stick on the screen itself. Would you be able to see all of the screen and display through the Z-Finder? How quickly does the maximum aperture drop from 1.8 when you zoom in? What does it become at, say, a 35mm EFOV? What about sound? I don't expect miracles but I imagine that a low-end camcorder would win out there. There's no microphone input, right? Does the peaking work better than on the Sony NEX 7 (which I find pretty hit or miss in low-light, low-contrast situations)? I also find the central square AF zone on the NEX 7 to be too large for accurate focus at wide apertures. Is the RX100 any better? I generally end up zooming in to focus manually but that's not an option with the RX100... What happens in bright light? I don't think there's a built-in ND filter and you can't put a vari-ND onto the lens. Presumably you just have to drop the ISO, then stop down the lens, and, if that's not enough, raise the shutter speed with the risk of jerky motion. And thanks for the review!

When the 5D MK II came out it was the obvious [i]hybrid[/i] camera choice for high end stills and quality video, ideal for photographers who were beginning to be asked to do video work for their clients. Four years later, I don't believe the MK III fills the same niche and it certainly doesn't address many of the shortcomings of the previous model. Yes, there is improved autofocus and high ISO performance, both of which may be reasons for me getting one for stills work with my existing lenses. But I still can't really hand hold it or easily get a shot of someone doing something as simple as walking from A to B. On paid jobs, with two Canon DSLRs and a GH2 or NEX7 in my bag, I invariably find myself opting for the latter two (built-in EVFs, image stabilization...)  and I can't see anything in the [i]operability[/i] of the MK III that would change that choice. What I have trouble understanding is why we still have to stick to the DSLR form factor? It's really not well suited to video work and all I want is something with a large sensor, camcorder ergonomics, a versatile lens mount and the possibility to shoot raw stills. To that extent, the Sony NEX VG-20 was nearly the right tool for my needs. Maybe the next version will be the one for me... When I look at the ROI for my GH2 or NEX7 and the budgets of my clients, it's very hard to see how I fit into the logic of Canon's latest offerings.