Emanuel

My understanding is that it's a codec issue, but I'm far from an expert. I just know what i see. the GH4 handled it better than most low-cost cameras, but it still often rendered motion with a "doubling" or "tripling" of the fast-motion portions of the image in single frames. It was always easiest to spot on specular highlights on passing cars. Take a look at the car's grill in this image from a clip I shot many moons ago. You see how fast motion in this frame is rendered in three "steps", rather than one smooth motion?



On the whole, this subtly nudges the perception of motion closer to a "video look" (for lack of a better term) when played back at speed. It's something that I don't see on the Alexa (the Mini specifically) or even the BMCC, BMPCC & BMMCC sensors when shooting in RAW. Certainly there are more important considerations than this when choosing a camera -- and many would say this is acceptable -- but given the choice, it's something I try to avoid.

Yachts: Too expensive!
Jets: Too fancy!
Jetpack: Too dangerous!
Trip to Mars: Too exotic!
Panasonic GH5: Just right!
 

Going to be a little more cautious with the GH5 than I was with the GH4. I took possession of two of those on day one and spent a year trying to wrestle that image into something it wasn't capable of -- and VLog was a massive disappointment. Have been much happier with the Blackmagic line -- especially with the more cinematic motion cadence of those cameras. Optimistic about the GH5 but again, taking a wait and see approach.

Hey Scott.
This sums up quite well what I loved about DPReview's editorial and why I was so proud to be contributor for those years. I looked upon DPR as something of a leading light, the most respected review site for digital cameras, one of the first, and that's why I hold it to a higher standard than others. I care passionately enough about it to get upset and to shout about it when it goes wrong and I think it's in danger.
DPR did go in-depth, especially on the technical side and still does.
If the new advertising in the form of sponsored content also did this to the same standard, then the quality would remain and not hurt the brand as much but even then there's a problem, because it would only work as long as it was impartial, which advertising never is and never can be.
Flick through an old fashion magazine from the 1970's and it is almost ALL advertising yet readers still bought it in droves.... you'll see a lot of high quality advertising, fantastic photos (David Bailey, Helmut Newton) and minimal words, minimal editorial pieces! I am not against advertising culture entirely or with zero tolerance of ads and I'm not a communist although I do live in Berlin
The problem I have is that more and more the manufacturers seem to be the boss, the paymaster and the editors, if not directly then certainly in subliminally controlling ways like with the PR organised events and it is wrong that this appears to be our only choice as reviewers if we want to get our hands on new gear at the earliest opportunity.
We join the hype train by doing this and we trade our credibility, or at least it looks that way for the readers.
I am open for a civilised debate on what we can do in the industry to recover some integrity in what we do. There needs to be some collective action.
So the PR companies and manufacturers are after our jobs Scott.
And we are going to just let them take over on the content side?
But their purpose, if sponsored, is to sell a camera.
For me that is not the purpose of what we do.
I hate this insidious influence.
If we for example are to put out educational content for instance and it is paid for by Canon, then whichever manufacturer sponsors us the most or pays the most, the more content on that particular brand there will be, and there's yet another form of bias. Even if the content itself had zero bias, the money still control the agenda.
It's our job to create excellent content that's worth watching, not Intel's.
By taking their money, you are trading your position as a content creator with them and one day you will be without a job.
Of course! I understand that and always have.
That's because it's being traded in bit by bit.
Your voice replaced by somebody else's.
If it's only a 3% increase in ad revenue and you're owned by Amazon, why do it at all? Why take such a big risk with the brand for the sake of bowing to the manufacturers and 0.001% of their overall ad spend budget? Tell them to fuck off!
Thanks for the message on here Scott, I do appreciate it.
If I can ever mend my relationship with DPReview I would.
I have friends there and the only bad words exchanged were with Barney and Simon Joinson.
In the end the buck stops with them.
If they are going to take the site in this direction, they know my opinion on how wrong this is and why it won't turn out the way they hoped.
They have a responsibility as the senior figures to change tac.
Their responsibility to the readers should come before their financial obligations to advertisers anyway, because without any readers there won't be any advertisers!

LOL
Luke, people are all crazy with your NDA... Can't they allow a time for a break? It's Christmas time, after all! :-)

Hey all, I work at DPReview, so figured I chime in and perhaps dispel a few myths. 
sponsored content and the end of the world as we know it...
Yes, we do sponsored content. Most for-profit publishers do now, as banner ads do not work, and marketers are realizing this and switching gears. But it is not some clandestine operation, a complex web of ethical quagmires. DPReview hires scientists, PHDs, literally, to design our camera tests. We then perform those tests and write about real world usability to create a review, which is a combination of facts and opinions. Whether our camera testers get everything right (with their real world usage opinions) is up for debate, but we strive to ensure our reviews align with the science in such a way that questions about editorial integrity (very common well before we started sponsored content) do not hold weight. Go back to any review we've done and look at the data. You will bore yourself to death looking at test charts before you discover any bias towards a brand. 
Taking a step back, I can speak personally to how the advertising campaigns (including sponsored content) come to fruition because I manage them (I am the product manager). The reality is that camera manufacturers, if they are smart, realize they cannot put lipstick on a pig, no matter how hard they try. So they are resorting to finding ways to actually engage people. It's the early days, so a lot of the sponsored content is still shit. But the vision is that publishers influence brands to actually make content worth looking at, with the goal that the quality of their product, the soul of their brand (if there is one), actually resonates in an honest way. But it will always be, in some way, advertising. Maybe one day they will turn the corner and actually make content people want to watch/read on the regular, but only time will tell.
So when we decided to go down this road, we asked a few basic Qs. What could we make that would be worthwhile? How could we do it in a way that we were able to make videos we wanted to make, but could not afford to do so. And one of the first roads we went down was having pro photographers use cameras in the real world, and make little short films showcasing their experiences. On the whole, I think those videos have worked out well, we have been able to showcase photographer workflows, tell stories about real people and places, have cameras used in real world shooting situations, and on the whole, do all of this with almost zero manufacturer interaction. There is a ton of room for improvement, and I talk with visitors all the time about what else we could try. 
But alas, the topic at hand, we also decided to do "Native Advertising", where we have no role in creation of the content, and simply provide real estate for a brand to promote content they have created. As I mentioned above, the vision is that this type of content will get better over time, but the camera industry is a few years behind the broader CE industry. I remember a good 4-5 years ago Intel sponsored a series of short films telling the story of a handful of creatives that were excellent, beautifully shot, and overall just worthwhile to watch. There is no reason the Camera industry cannot get there, but as I said above, time will tell. 
DPReview staff are photographers, no really, I swear.
We are not winning any World Press Photo awards by any means, that's for sure, but we are enthusiasts just like our visitors for the most part. It's an important point because I think when the topic of editorial integrity, advertising, relationships with the brands, and all of these themes come up, it gets lost. Maybe I'm an optimist, but I like to think that generally people are "good", and difficult to corrupt, and that set of assumption definitely applies to my coworkers at DPReview. Our guys are using cameras every day, shooting photos, and spending a ridiculous # of hours every year thinking about cameras. The last thing they would ever want is to feel like everything they were doing was compromised, without purpose. It would be soul crushing, demotivating, and completely unsustainable. So yeah, I understand the need to be skeptical, critical, and diligent in pushing for transparency in journalism, and we are no different. But aside from the more potent reasons I just mentioned, there are also the legal realities of sponsored content; we are legally required to disclose when a brand is involved with something that goes on our site, and we follow it to a T because, quite frankly, the world of hurt we'd face if we didn't would be far worse than a 3% increase in advertising revenue. 
DPReview hates EOSHD, and had a bitter falling out with Andrew Reid.
Simply put, this is just not the case. We obviously respected EOSHD and Andrew as we tapped him to be involved in our efforts to begin talking more seriously about video capture. The reality of our publishing process is that it involves several layers of editing, and Andrew is not the first writer we've worked with that experienced this process as frustrating, and wont be the last. Hell, I even tried to write a few articles when I first joined DPR and definitely pulled out a few hairs when my words and voice were changed to be in line with DPR's style. But editing is a necessary step in the publishing process, and in the end, even if DPR and Andrew didn't align on how to do this, none of us here view the situation as anything other than a freelancer not working out, it happens ALL THE TIME. There doesn't need to be a villain. Blogging is a much less rigid workflow and half of the writers we work with are much happier in that context. It makes sense. No hard feelings are needed. 

Thanks Andrew for speaking up.
It is very sad in deed.
I was doing my daily walk-around, EOSHD – slashcam – dpreview… and as I saw this, my first thoughts were also: 
OK, sponsored with orange, but what does this content doing here, among real articles?  
And I got angry, as I read:
“Filmmaker ScottDW trades his pro video gear for Canon EOS 80D…. and the results surprised him”
In the camera PR and marketing, the words “pro” and “gamechanger” are probably the most devaluated ones. For me, they have a rather negative meaning, as these words are often used, when they have nothing better to say. So when a pro trades his pro gear for an 80D, and gets surprised….
I think, either
- he isn’t a pro, or
- it wasn’t an 80D, or
- he was not really surprised at all :-)
Then I thought, I would write a comment about it, but there is no place for comments there.
So I comment it here :-)

Thanks for the support.
If people don't agree with me on this, then I will at some point also cave in and do a run of big advertisements splashed on the site and regular sponsored articles. But if my readers say they're NOT fine with this, I won't. Simple as that. So speak up for the indies... not many advertising-free places left now on the internet.
It wasn't supposed to be this way online.

I agree with both Andrew and you.
Andrew you post a post per 15 days. So it is "doable"  to not have a lot of ads.
But when you have a huge website that reviews ALL cameras, and all news with multiple full time employee. How do you pay them if not with money earned through ads?
I am fine with ads and affiliate links. But I agree with Andrew that non honest reviews and "fake" sponsored articles are disgusting. 

The content is shit though.
Tag or no tag.

I noticed that one of the writers on DPReview did something similar a few months ago.
Canon also sponsored that video and was, not strangely enough, about the 80D.
It features some kayak building.
https://***URL removed***/videos/0287044739/canon-eos-80d-field-test-barney-builds-a-boat
At least this time the "Sponsored" tag was clearly visible.

So we can't trust DPReview anymore to give honest feedback on camera's, so what, now that we know we don't have to visit their site anymore. In fact, who can you actually trust on the internet, I recall reading an article on this site about the Canon xc10, a camera I was planning to buy, and Andrew trashing it but then later on when he actually had the camera completely changed his mind, it went from "the camera has a IQ that's a bit better then a gopro to it reminds me of a Super 16 version of the C300 Mark II", Eventhough this is not the same as what DPReview has done it has the same effect on me as a reader, to me writing a heavily opinionated article will misinform your readers in exactly the same way as writing a article that is sponsored by the manufacturer.
I personally like to read Gordon Laings articles on cameralabs as he conducts his tests for every camera in the exact same way and he just leaves it up to his readers to form an opinion and I like to watch the Camera Store TV guys videos just because they are entertaining as well, Philip Bloom falls in that same category. I actually value the actual users opinions most as they will report problems with a camera after months of use, they will give you information most reviewers won't be able to because they use the camera just once for the review before returning it to whoever lend it to them. And even then you need to be careful as sometimes reported problems are user error.
If you want to buy a camera it's best to wait a few months after it has been released, read up as much as possible you can about it so you can separate fact from fiction and make a more informed decision.
 
 

Dpreview will always be a very good site for camera research, since most of their ISO, DR etc, claims are supported with a few image examples. Anyone can decide if the examples support their claims. They even have tracking AF videos, so you don't have to believe what they write and check it out yourselves. Is there any other site offering standardized ISO samples for most cameras with a handy comparison tool? Take their words with a grain of salt (and compare them to other reviews) and you are good to go. Likewise, it would be insane to trust Andrew as your only source info when researching a camera.

Why do you even care ? 

I totally agree with Andrew: as guitar player I worked for 10 years in one of the best selling guitar magazine from Italy, AXE Magazine.
Our Editor always wanted the truth about the guitar's and gear's performance. No space for sponsored articles or "nice" reviews.
We had advertising but clearly visible like 1 page or half page or 1/4 page. No matter if Gibson or Fender could be offended by a sentence.
People and companies trusted us because we always try to test the guitars in their price tag and for the performances. Rarely we had problems, because if you separate the "professional" opinion from the relationship - that should be good exactly for that reason- it is always better for all.

 

I sold my GH4 and I'm using my 2nd body (G7, which is great, but I miss some extra features from the GH4) and look forward to buy the GH5 as soon as possible, of course if the images will be good

Jonpais! Love the SOOC look with the 50-140 :)! 

I just got my x-t2 and am starting to shoot a little with it.  I have to say it is excellent!  I need to look at other lenses for lowlight options.
Could you take some video shots and night and indoors with limited light?
I recently invested in a c100 II because I'd like to do some video/doc. work for my students and myself but I am having major buyer's remorse now that I see how great of an image x-t2 is achieving.  I'm actually strongly considering selling my c100 II and 24-105 with less than 2 hours of recording time.

Blacks are crushed.

 

6K!

I see the HDR is too new for most. 
I think most wifes can see the difference between SDR and HDR.

These all sounds great however more importantly is there a dynamic range improvement and is there an improvement to the noise floor, if not it makes the whole 10 bit thing not more than a marketing gimmick.
 

A lot of blogs to feed with affiliate link commission!

I know. Terrible...

Who doesn't love this cam?