AnotherDave

How much better is the final resolution of 5k 200mbps vs 4k 400mpbs? I wouldn't imagine that there would be a huge difference. Plus isn't it 8bit? Or is it 10bit?

Who said anyone was looking for a winner? But, if you're comparing two things... you can't skew it by not equally matching them. I, for one, want the C300 to be the overall winner of every comparison - mainly because of the demand for the previous model. I want to own one, because at the price point it eliminates some of the competition and I won't have people asking me to 'throw it in for free' like they surely will do with a a7sII. Spec-wise, though, I don't think the camera has as long of a life span as the previous c300 did.

Hang on a second. I just realized you're comparing them using a Canon 24-70 f2.8 (presumably the mk2) on the C300mk2 to a Sony FE 24-240 f/3.5-6.3??? That doesn't seem like a fair competition at all. The auto-focus and the colors would be greatly effected by the differences in the glass for sure.

Given the price difference, it's a bit funny anyone would be comparing the two. What's more, I'm shocked by how close they are to one another. Do you actually think the average viewer would know the difference? And, I doubt the c300mk2 would win at ISO 20,000.

No No. But the Sony 35mm 2.8 is a hell of a tiny little lightweight lens. Also, I've tried to reproduce the sun spot issue in PAL mode on my camera, and I can't get it to do it. This might be an issue with the models that were sold in Europe.

Why does the consensus seem to be that it is harder to grade S-LOG? Because it's 8-bit, 4:2:0? Are people confusing color grading with color correcting? It isn't raw. You have to set the white balance correctly for every lighting change. That is as easy as holding up a grey card or using an expo disk and shooting a custom white balance. Done. I find it is much more difficult to do a final color correction on Red footage because no body ever shoots a grey card. I might have a bit more room to tweak colors, but I HAVE to do a job that someone COULD have done in the field. I haven't noticed any banding.

I've had the a7sII since launch (bought it from BH), and I'm not getting the sunspot issue you're getting. I've tried pretty hard to re-create it... and nothing. Just white, bright, light... I'm also not having an issue with heat, either. I've used it on 4 pretty long (12-15hr) shoot days, and never have I had it overheat. *I should note, I wasn't recording continuously. Each take was between 20 seconds - 2 minutes max. But the camera was running mostly all day, recording 4k, powered through v-mount, running video to a SmallHD 502 and a Paralinx Triton and I never had any heat issues. I do agree that the Gamma Assist LUT should be adjustable. It mainly hangs in the dead center for me. I never had an issue under-exposing, but I was mainly checking exposure through the 502 and using a quick, LUT I built in Resolve. As far as adapters go, I recently learned to love E-mount lenses after picking up a used 35mm Sonnar, and I'm a bit blown away by the auto-focusing and face tracking modes. I've set Focus Hold to C1 and I like it enough to double down and sell my 24-105 Art for a Sony 24-70 Vario-Tessar. It isn't as sharp, but offers better contrast and is also nearly 1 1/2 lbs lighter.

I'm going to test it out and see. I thought the upscaled 4K APS-C crop from the mk1 looked fine on my Shogun. I get that it is upscaled, but I'm wondering how different upscaled 2.7k recorded through clear view zoom could look versus an APS-C mode (which doesn't exist).

But wouldn't any upscaled 2.7k to 4K image be a little soft? If you're cropping the center of the 4K image in post, you'd throwing out a lot of image data. I'd imagine it would look better to zoom in camera, then downscale to 2.7k in post.

Any other a7s2 owners notice that, despite the fact the camera won't record 4k in APS-C internally, you can digitally zoom from 1.0x, 1.4x, all the way to 4x? What is the difference between a 1.5x zoom, and shooting in APS-C? Isn't it essentially the same thing?

You get HDMI out, but not uncompressed clean from the 1.2.1 firmware update. The hack is for the previous firmware, and DOES NOT give CLEAN HDMI out. You could, however, record your compressed "dirty" HDMI out (I assume with sound) and edit it as a dub... if you had a quick turn around time.

Somebody will make a CF to SSD adapter so that we'll get the FULL 167MB/sec throughput from the CF Slot - this is a given. But... will you want to carry that extra stuff around when someone else will produce a CF card fast enough to handle the data too? I think, some a experimental standpoint... the developers need to figure out why people aren't able to convert the larger than 4gb files, and MORE IMPORTANTLY how to pair the workflow down into a single step! I don't want to shoot raw only then to have to convert it to ProRes 422 to edit it... that is (excuse my french) bullshit. What is the point if I can't have it in my NLE?

Andrew - what about the Delkin Devices 1050x? Anyone trying those? They claim the write speed is 120MB/sec. Also, fine print on Toshiba's site says the 1066x cards write to a max of 95MB/sec...

A CF to SATA SSD adapter sounds like the logical conclusion to me.   I want my HDMI port for my EVF.   I bet we'll see CF to SSD adapters within days.  CF cards are essentially IDE drives anyway.  It should be very possible to get the FULL 167MB/sec from the UDMA 7 standard in the 5D3 to a SSD.     *Note: this is a good place for you entrepreneurs out there to start your million dollar idea!  

I would be completely shocked if Canon didn't cripple the 7D2 so that this feature was impossible.   Honestly, I wish they'd just put a thunderbolt port on the damn thing... but you know... they have a market to protect.