Policar

On the contrary, the C500 and 1DC are the best-specced cameras Canon offers, and the least successful.​ For a "professional" workflow, the smallest file sizes win out over 6k and such. Major network shows shot on the Alexa go with prores 422 hq than 444 because the savings in storage trump the extra image quality! For enthusiasts the Panasonic and Sony cameras are fine, but they do make compromises. The 1DC seems like a good deal now if you're a dSLR-style shooter. Canon dSLRs still have the best color.

​I've seen some hovering around 10K, but then you need a recorder. Too rich for my blood, but it seems like a nice camera. Canon hurt with the 1DC and C500 relative to the huge success of the C300 and baby C100. I'm looking at them to take the C500 into the Alexa realm and the 1DC either much more expensive or much less (4k 5D III). Canon boosts gain at the analogue level and they have the best color science so they're still making some great low light cameras. Panasonic has its revolutionary 5000 ISO varicam... but the Need for Speed Trailer is already largely 4000 ISO on an older production camera. And with a great image. Canon has low light down. Sony would surpass them still if they fixed their skew a bit and their color a lot (SLOG 3, not SLOG2, please!). A7S remains awesome. Either way, both C500 and 1DC their charms (and beautiful skin tones) and are falling fast in price. Me... I still need that ISCO. Canon dSRLs (other than 5D raw and 1DC) are too soft to showcase character, but once you step up Character is what counts. And since we're only going forward, character counts forever. Following this... never tried a 1DC, but love the C300 for the good compromise that it is.

If you feel the need to unload an Iscorama...

And that footage is quite well shot, too. :/ As I mentioned, there's a new variant of SLOG 3 that fixes this issue and which can be loaded onto the F5 and F55. It's really nice and should look great on the FS7, too. But it definitely was one of many things that turned me off the F5. I wanted to like that camera much more than I found I did. Some people prefer the punchy colors, but I don't. It's not an intentional DR thing as suggested below, Sony is just behind with their color. It took Canon until Wide DR to get it right in the C300, but Canon has all along had the best skin tones. The Alexa has the best color response overall. The Dragon appears to be a huge step forward for Red; the Epic MX was poor.

Good implementations of AVCHD are much better, generally, than Canon's I-Frame codec. 24Mbps can be more than enough.

Not entirely; the proper white balance certainly helps, but the gamma and matrix need to be changed to really solve the problem as with the custom SLOG 3 profile above. That said, if you're careful it's fine and in Resolve, you can do a luma vs sat curve so long as channels don't clip to get a more "film like response," but there are situations (traffic lights, flares, mixed lighting) that become difficult to handle. A flare will clip to white on an Alexa and to over sharpened ugly red on the F5 or A7S. On the F5, it seems the new SLOG 3 profile can solve this. It took Canon until the Wide DR look (the most recently developed and best gamma setting on the C300) to get it right on the C300. Maybe if Sony ports their new SLOG 3 settings to the A7S it will solve it there, too. For now the best you can do is avoid mixed lighting and blowing out channels. You can see in shows shot on the F5 (Blacklist, I'm guessing Gotham based on the trailer) how well they are able to deal with this issue in post... it is generally no problem until you look at a traffic light, exit sign, etc. But it's one more reason Alexa is king. :)

The channel clipping issue on the A7S has been around as long as SLOG 2 has been around (if not longer) and is dreadfully evident on the F5 and F55 and even a lot of high end content shot on it, though it's rarely this bad because you're dealing with a stronger codec on the F5. It's the very reason I still prefer the C300 (which has this issue a bit in Canon Log, but not at all in Wide DR) and Alexa (which has the best color rendering overall of any camera) to the F5 and Red (which has weird magenta highlights, too... Dragon appears better). The Alexa clamps saturation around 30 IRE and slowly brings it down to nothing, which emulates the behavior of color negative film. dSLRs behave more like reversal (positive) film in that saturation increases until you clip, though slide film still clips a bit "softer." Sony keeps saturation high in video, giving a digital "look" even in flat profiles. Sony has apparently fixed this in certain variants of SLOG 3: http://www.dvinfo.net/article/acquisition/sonyxdcam/sony_sgamut_vs_sgamut3.html So the FS7 should still have the mediocre color rendering of a Sony camera, but with enough love in post and the right SLOG 3 setting it will at least look decent. Plus 4k and slow motion, wow... looks legit. But the saturation is clamped so hard in SLOG 2 that it is often unfixable and this may persist as an issue on the A7S; certainly the skew will... So as for the color issues on the A7S, well... no surprise. :)

Re: the speedbooster, I'm not looking to pay more money but the GH4 does look cool. The GH2 and GH3 impressed me... other than the awful interface. Maybe I'll pick up an SL1, it's cheap and cute. Could you post some images where you found the extra shadow detail helpful in post processing? I don't doubt that it's useful for a certain kind of look, but someone once cited I think it was Marc Adamus as someone who got a lot out of the D800 and while a few of his shots are great, 90% of the post processing he does looks horrible to me. I do see the value in the D810 for landscapes, particularly if you want an HDR "look" or shoot wide dynamic range scenes with wide lenses. But I don't do that. :) I like Canon's skin tones for portraiture and autofocus and speed for sports, photojournalism, etc. If I had the money I'd buy both.

No, I get that some people want a lot of DR for landscapes, but for me since most prints have 4-5 stops of contrast at absolute best, I try to shoot scenes that are as evenly lit as posible. I don’t like tone mapping, either. For video you’re looking at displays with 10 stops of contrast and you have have less control over light because you can’t use strobes or wait on light most of the time. So for video I’ll use things (ND grads, polarizers, power windows, etc.) that I wouldn’t use for the types of stills I like and I just find the Alexa’s image to be nicest and the post workflow a dream. I like Canon’s autofocus (lightning fast with the old 70-200mm f2.8, even faster with the 70-200mm f2.8 II IS) and ergonomics. I just wish they’d update their 50mm f1.4. For stills it’s a nice package, yes video is very soft. I get that people want a lot of contrast if they post images online, but even then I’d rather wait on good light than dodge and burn. I just feel goofy carrying around this awesome 18-35mm f1.8 Sigma (and 11-16mm Tokina) and having no camera to use them on, except that dreadful EOS-M I’m now trying to unload. Which, btw, has surprisingly great image quality, significantly exceeding the 7D… but it’s basically unusable due to poor AF.

I'll stick with the Mark III then. :) The Nikon D7100 does look nice, but I much prefer the images from the Mark III to the D7000, so if the 70D is way below both, then it's out. I've never had the need for 14 stops of dynamic range in stills. For video, yes, which is why I'm a big Alexa fan, but for stills I just haven't found the need for more than 10 stops, 5-6 for most purposes. But I grew into the Mark III shooting 4x5 Velvia, which has 4-5 stops of dynamic range so I come at this with a different approach from most, I think.

Name another camera that's compatible with as wide a range of good lenses (that means Canon or Nikon only), has a better AF system, better viewfinder, better build quality, longer battery life, and better ergonomics for $800 (which is what you can get a 70D for these days if you look around)? Or are you getting caught up on two stops of shadow DR that I've never found any use for in a properly exposed image? I mean this as a serious question because I've considered selling my 5D Mark III kit after buying a vast number of APS-C-only lenses for my C100. If there's a better system out there, or if (as you state), the 60D, t3i, t4i, and t5i all outperform the 70D, I'd like to know. How much worse is image quality at base ISO in your experience than on the Mark III? Is the autofocus system that bad? What I like about the Mark III is its amazing viewfinder and autofocus system.

I mean for stills. It's a stills camera (unless I'm missing something). Includes both MFA (missing from 60D) and a vastly improved AF algorithm over the 60D, much sharper sensor, etc. and like $800 now.

The 60D lacks MFA, I believe, and the Rebels lack MFA and 1/3 stop exposure increments.... 70D looks pretty nice right about now, though...

Exactly. Canon will improve their video a bit now that Nikon is improving their video (Nikon is currently their only real competitor in the pro dSLR market), but it won't be much or terribly soon. I do think the lack of moire in the Mark III was a real attempt to improve video and I see the Mark III used for professional BTS and corporate video ALL the time, even with some very very high end clients. What's funny is that Canon has crippled its products in pretty obnoxious and obvious ways... but no one here seems to care about their legitimately obnoxious omissions. On the still side leaving out 1/3 stop increments and MFA is a big deal and unnecessary. For video it's worse: AVCHD instead of XF Cam on the C100 is a significant and unnecessary downgrade, the lack of 60/720p confusing, but much, much worse is the lack of HDSDI/timecode and the horrible viewfinder... Next to those omissions, a lack of 4k is basically irrelevant. VERY few clients want a 4k finish. A LOT want timecode sync for dual sound. A LOT want a codec that's 50Mbps or higher. The viewfinder thing is just dumb beyond words. I mean that viewfinder is awful. But that's what Canon is about. dSLRs marketed toward still photographers and a cinema line marketed toward low/mid end professional video production. And from what I've seen they have 95% marketshare among pros in those categories. I do see a lot of Red Scarlets and Alexas, but the Scarlets don't rent nearly as well as C300s and the Alexas are too expensive. Sony has some traction, too, but Canon did amazingly well with the C300. Among artists? Well, you're the client. Buy what you want!

I wish! Maybe then I'd get some discounts. :) And, to be fair, having used every major camera system, I do far prefer the Alexa to the Canons. By far.

I have been super happy with my Canon products and don't see any need for them to change. Really love the image quality and easy workflow. They offer a conservative and reliable system targeted at professionals concerned with reliability, ergonomics, and compatibility rather than specs or innovation. When it hits their bottom line they'll shift, but right now it seems easy to buy an A7S or FS7 and not wait for the C50 or C400 or whatever if you're after 4k... The FS7 looks amazing, but my brief time with the F5 scared me off Sony's "look" and ergonomics. That said, the FS7 looks... amazing. So amazing that the FS7 might force that rumored C400 soon. :) And the D810 might force slightly better video. But if you think Canon's not listening, it's because they're not. Their way out of the race to the bottom every other manufacturer (other than Arri and maybe Red) has jumped into is through a conservative approach. And look how well their most innovative products (1DC, C500, EOS M) have done... Not well... Meanwhile their AF systems are really great and their lenses are awesome.

Is the flange distance too small between EF and F mount or is it that the mirror would get in the way (not an issue with C300)?

If they could build one that works on the C300 with Nikon lenses... I would buy five lol. I wonder if it's possible.

So are a lot of people getting money from clients... But for those who have graduated into theatrical releases (such as, presumably, most people here), I can see the need for something sharper. Although what's funny to me is that 90% of what I see shot for tv or theatrical is Alexa, which isn't even 4k. :)

The C100 should have a slightly different noise texture, but it shouldn't be a different color temperature and exposure at apparently equal settings so right off the bat it's obvious that whoever did this is doing something wrong. When you're examining low light performance by testing ISO, you need to stop down or change the shutter speed to compensate. If you expose everything much too brightly it gives an unrepresentative result... In the test posted, they're boosting the ISO, but not stopping down or decreasing light levels to keep the exposure consistent. So the image won't look noisier… just brighter. The test is totally useless for this reason. If I point a C300 at a light bulb at ISO 80,000 of course it will be noiseless, it will be pure white… and it's that but a little less egregious. To compare ISO meaningfully you need to compensate and shoot at an even exposure, by stopping down, adjusting shutter speed, adjusting light levels etc… Look at virtually every other ISO comparison ever made. This "test" is just… incredibly stupid and whoever performed it doesn't have a basic grasp of exposure. Not trying to be rude, but if you don't know what you're doing you might use this as a reference, and it's useless as one. The C300 is only this clean at extreme ISOs when extremely overexposed and, likewise, only noisy at low ISOs when underexposed. A series of shots exposed at key at different ISOs would have been useful, and that is how every other worthwhile ISO test I've seen has been handled. (I've seen this mistake repeated, but it doesn't make this any better or more useful.)

SLOG does a digital push (like highlight tone priority) to retain highlight detail beyond what you'd get at normal gammas. The F5 has an 800 ISO base in normal gammas, but 2000 ISO in SLOG2, so a stop and a half push (not-so curiously it has a stop and a half more highlight detail than the C300).... If SLOG 3 on the A7S has "1300%" more dynamic range, as claimed, that's a 3.7 stop push from 200 ISO. That gets you to just under 3000 ISO. Reasonable that 3200 ISO would be the base for SLOG 3, due to the digital push, but weird. Fwiw, I do not like the F5's tonality in shadows using SLOG 2 but the dynamic range is better than anything short of the Alexa, which has more DR AND better tonality and more pleasing noise structure... and better everything. The C100/C300 low light test is irrelevant and incompetently handled, fwiw. Whoever performed it approached it wrong. Both cameras should look the same first of all, secondly there's no stopping down to compensate for the ISO push. 80,000 ISO on these cameras is terrible.

Sounds impressive! That easily beats anything else out there. How many situations have you encountered when you needed that my dynamic range, though? Usually when the Alexa is blowing out it's in a situation in which I'd want it to, anyway. I am surprised you are getting 11 stops from the t3i to start with though? I found it to provide 8-9 at best with neutral or technicolor picture style. To be fair, I have not A/Bed it with the Alexa, nor shot charts. Great camera nevertheless! And to be fair, nothing compares with the Alexa. :)

While the Alexa does seem to have the most DR to me (two stops better in highlights at least, 1/2 stop better in shadows than the MX) in my experience shooting with it, what sets it apart is how cleanly the highlights clip into white rather than into over-sharpened/over-saturated color, but Red has really improved in this respect. Also the Alexa looks better under tungsten. The Dragon seems to be a move in the right direction, though. The C300 in wide DR mode is pretty decent in this respect, too. 5D III raw has maybe 11 stops useable, but pretty darned good, on par with Red MX but noisier shadows and the color is handled really well in ACR but the highlights are UNDERsaturated, weirdly. The CX00 seems to raise gain in each channel independently in hardware or something, but it does a great job under different white balances. I don't see the appeal of 16 stops of dynamic range because a projected stock has what? 6-7 stops of contrast and my monitor has maybe 8-10? So it begins to look flat, and few scenes approach that number, but I agree that the Alexa is still the reigning champion.

Vision 2 was the first time even film stock really exceeded 10 stops of usable information, even then only available when digitally processed. MX has the same DR as C300, 11-12 stops. Red was never good in this respect (until now at least), but since dSLRS are so bad it seemed great. 15.3 is insane. Alexa is 14-15. F3 and F5 12-13. Most of that unusable. Sony handles highlights terribly (over-sharpened, over-saturated), hopefully they will implement the modified SLOG3 curve on this. F5 with SLOG2 clips horribly while Alexa (older Sony sensor) clips beautifully.

Thanks, 50mm on APS-C or on FF? If it can do 50mm on FF, then 35mm on APS-C should be possible? It's the same field of view, or close to it. How is the image quality of this adapter? Flare quality? Oval bokeh?