Emanuel

LOL Posted practically at same time... (new edit there now) Here is other info essentially as digest from reduser:

LOL Priceless post, Ebrahim ;-) They say the bird flies quick. If high(er) than Ursa Mini, we will see... Good for industry, good for filmmaking. Links: http://www.studiodaily.com/2015/09/5950-new-raven-reds-lightest-digital-cinema-camera/ http://nofilmschool.com/2015/09/red-raven-4k-for-all-camera-teaser https://***URL not allowed***/red-raven-ready-entire-sub10k-market/

Yes, indeed. I see the specs now. Pity no 4/3" mount, so close 1.7x is from 1.8x. I should add the verb on "would" than "will" : D I also see the idea of universal pre-mount brought by RED in 2006 is a mere page of the past. PS: The difference of price range with Weapon is huge, so 4/3" mount (with the right tricks) would place it even more planetary... ;-) https://support.red.com/entries/93023988-WEAPON-DRAGON-Pricing-Information-USD

And mid range? Those focal lengths are pretty wide. So, anything is already good enough. I know as for instance, 16mm covers FF on Tokina.

True. They will review the OLPF I guess they'll need to. Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 is plain enough. If you're able to add a SpeedBooster, you'll be fully fulfilled with.

Fear stands a hard bitch, word. Since to not buy Lenovo because of such is an overstatement IMO. Should I quit of my citizenship and nationality because my government wants to control my earnings from my expenses via my tax number or credit card statement? So, forget about VISA, Mastercard and AMEX? For the sake of this conversation and it doesn't matter if your concern matches with the same values I believe, we can't fire back with a nuclear weapon when we just need to go out hunting birds. Emanuel :-)

I don't shoot with the AX100 so I'd take the report from the previous poster as a good hint. :-)

If you use anamorphic glass, it is between 5K and 6K. Count with more detail going on downsampled 4K.

I am not engineer either. No need to be one nor a businessman to figure out a La Palice truth. That one on 10-bit 4:2:2 lighter than 8-bit 4:2:0 is the first time I've heard. That is, if same codec, same parameters... To be frank and straightforward with you. No, I won't show off and call you stupid in a public place. Nor thinking and writing you are this or that. Read your post again, you'll likely find inaccuracies in your post. I have no need to write the other side is wrong (you say) anyway. But I can tell you very straight using your lexicon, stupid is when we see real tests proving something and we insist this or that theory is the one valid and keep going what experience proves the contrary. Hey, the lady is not mine. The test is not mine, no need to send me the check. The results are there. Very explicit ones, to say the truth. A few others much prefer to praise their dolls. Yes, you and others here are also missing the point over there. Apart the fact, brands like to sell expensive toys and whishful thinking has a place but happens to be far away of reality most part of time, you are able to say 8-bit 4:2:0 is not favourable for banding (I've read lots of things over here but this one is new... LOL). OK, let's try to decode your saying, even though, you don't make the necessary effort to decode mine. Still on the variables? Who said bitrate/codec don't count?! So (no, not necessarily your saying, take it as sarcasm indeed), let's fulfill the 4:2:0 recipient with empty data and try to see if matches 4:2:2, why not? It reminds me those who think they actually record 10-bit in their external recorder only because they read the specs on the paper they're using a 10-bit codec, even when they stream a 8-bit output from camera. I only read blah blah but... C'mon, give me, you and everyone a break. This is not a contest to pick up the best smartass ready for. Neither a kindergarten. (your) point taken, thanks for the link, nice reading :-) PS: Last but not least, speaking of accuracies ; ) the overheating issues seem to come from processing, not sensor. Or you wouldn't be likely to overcome the trouble triggering from the external recorder.

Better than GH4 for sure... But forget the RX100IV, go instead for RX10II, best bang for the buck :-)

Not 4K, only 1080p.

It is impossible to know exactly as of now. But possible to predict from what we've seen on Sony's offer. Without mention the fact as same as happens with the a7RII, Sony warns for the eventual problem in the camera's manual. Seems the problematic heat comes from processing, not sensor's. In any case, no downsampling operation as much demanding as the older new sister, 'cause the obvious sensors' differences.

How will you upgrade to 10-bit when: a) the manufacturers have their high-end to protect? b) compact size on large format is unable to go higher bit depth when internal 4K 8-bit 4:2:0 by Sony is out there to pop up full of overheating issues? The fact 4:2:2 recorded externally brings higher bitrate to you is the only viable choice you have going with a large sensor. Other than that, 10-bit also means a higher bitrate (irrelevant the degree for certain tasks; there's the point), hardly to see internally in these small "toys" whether we cry or not. And for some reason ; ) you have it on GH4 but not on Sonys via HDMI. Why hasn't Blackmagic released yet 4K in a compact package? Because they are too focused on the new Ursas (reason a) above-mentioned) is short to explain it... And when they will, don't count on a large sensor size. The best you can dream about will be the SpeedBooster route. Other than that, you're stuck on 8-bit. Whining for 10-bit or higher for this market segment is a futile exercise and meaningless. That test proves we have now a solution to help you out with banding. Not really significant for much other (banding as topic), but a way better than 4:2:0 (again, for banding). The comparison speaks by itself, the variables to second it only testify the grace. There's a difference between to dream with and following the t(r)ip. Reality-wise, of course ;-) No one here is against 'the higher', the point is the way those several existent differences (RELATIVE variations, certain gaps, jumps as you call them can weigh much more than absolute values) and variables can have an impact in our tools for real in order to comply some goal. Those you can use in the field. Not mere wishful thinking for a bunch of geeks we are here :-)

If you research back throughout this thread, you'll find the answer you're looking for. 4:2:2 means higher bitrate too and all this means a obvious benefit.

LOL I'm sorry to disappoint you when I can't neglect the benefit of higher bitrate 4:2:2 even if 8-bit...

Part II?

Well, you have higher resolution with the new Sony's toy. Bit depth also known as color depth, though, has several variables indeed. But, noise? I guess BMPCC is noisier. And haven't you had trouble with aliasing/moiré going with FF? I've found all the footage I've seen very disturbed, even if barely, with such issue. Haven't you?

But, for that, they shall run it in much higher bitrate... Upcoming post-focus feature will happen. And I hope for 4K/60p as same as DVX-200. S35 won't happen, I bet. But, have you used the speedbooster going with the GH series? You'll reach the same optically.

I guess you'll find it, though. Have you also shot in FF? Or mainly S35? BMPCC shows moiré, anyway... How have you felt the difference coming from much higher than 8-bit? Why a7RII instead? Stills worth the trade?

And haven't you found aliasing/moiré with such setup?

Why not detail all way down?

PS already included by editing in my previous post.

The Man of the Renaissance is not wrong when says it depends on the priorities, of course. But, tell me where the announced a7SII goes where the a7RII is unable to offer? (that is, apart the 8K stills / 5fps burst as bonus for mere 200 bucks of difference for the 42MP higher density) Full pixel readout in FF? But you have speedbooster option, if so. The same applies on the lowlight department. Noisy higher ISOs mean too little, as the last footage released from the new prototype of Canon easily proves it. Aside the fact the difference is nickel-and-dime. Much because of a newer BSI sensor tech. 399 hybrid phase detection AF points is a way more efficient than only 169 contrast (slower too) detection AF points. Even overheating, once it is not coming from sensor but processing, it can happen a negligible difference if any, with the a7SII, because of downsampling has more impact on the a7RII, but I doubt of importance. Even rolling shutter won't be much better, considering what we've seen from the older sisters. Actually, the apparent advantage for lowlight performance you gain going FF on a7SII, without mention the speedbooster option available shooting with S35 (on a7RII) but not in FF, you'll end to lose it with rolling shutter. Last but not least, the native 800 ISO for S-Log2 on a7RII is much more interesting than 1600 on a7SII (S-Log3), with no mention the PITA of 3200 for the old a7S (S-Log2). And let's not forget the color accuracy issues on such sensor (a7S).

a7RII is a much better deal... :-) You can always use 4:2:2 8-bit going externally in both anyway... ;-) LOL OK, apart my jokes, I think you're safer with the most interesting hybrid offer from Sony...

Color other than banding is a different story. In any case, it is very possible the reds of this 2015 version may end much more accurate, following what happens with the most recent offer (a7RII).