forofilms

The Nazis only used MF? Can someone confirm this?

Will be very curious to see the codec and bit rate on the 4k files....

I predict they will hold back DPAF, 4K 60p, log and the 4k will be a APSC crop.

BS, you get what you pay for. There is such a thing as VALUE. Some things have more inherent value than others because of the amount of performance they deliver per unit of cost. Given their lacklustre innovation and purposeful feature-hampering, the Canon's offer poor value for the money. What you're paying for, is brand recognition. If you're fully aware and fine with that, then yes, I suppose you "get what you pay for". But if you're looking for performance, you are unlikely getting what you're paying for when you buy the $3500 5D IV. The question for me will be not whether or not it will have 4K - that much is fairly certain - it is how much of a crop it will be?

Especially since it's just a software add that's already been developed. Costs nothing to add c-log.

I really enjoyed this music video and also wanted to share with everyone my narrative feature: https://vimeo.com/120444346

You guys are hilarious. I was just teasing about the cat video. It's as good a test subject as anything else (except it lacks a good skin tone example:)) Nevertheless, a $15,000 cat is outrageous given that more than half of the humans in this world have no electricity and live on less than $1 per day. I guess for you guys with $6,000 4k cameras and $15,000 cats, you may not be aware of this reality, but I encourage you to research the matter.

How about a D500 1080p image, 24 or 60p?

Ahhh....yes. Buying a $6,000 camera to take cat videos.

I understand some lenses out there actually appreciate in value over time. Wanted to get your guys' feedback on which modern lenses you think might be more valuable down the road than they are today.

Anyone have any insight on the 1080p image on the D500? We all know the limitations of the D500's 4k acquisition, but how about 1080p? Is it as good as the D750? Is cropped beyond APS-C? How's the 60p 1080 image? Would be curious to hear if any improvements were made in this department and if it's comparable or better than the D750's image.

Is it confirmed that 60p is better on APSC mode on the a7s then FF? In what way?

Henry, since you interjected in the discussion and indicated that you have a diverse population of employees, do you care to comment on the lawsuit filed by the US Department of Labor accusing B&H of discrimination against women and minorities, including the practice of segregation? http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/29/us/bh-photo-lawsuit/ The article states that "B&H has been sued in recent years by Hispanic and female employees who charged the company with similar claims.The company settled a similar discrimination case with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for $4.3 million in 2007."

B&H also has a history of discrimination suits (women and minorities). Not sure if this matters to anyone but figured I would share to add to the discussion. Google it.

How about file size? I've read the 1DXii files are gigantic, particularly the 4k 60p (10 seconds = 1 gig). Are these cameras in the same category? Not sure, one is more than twice the price of the other.

You get same FOV and DOF but you're not getting the F2.8 that you're getting with the speed booster. You are getting higher sensitivity with the A7sii so perhaps its 6 of one and half dozen of the other. Would be curious to hear how IBIS compares with in-lens IS. G7 is highly functional but simply is not filmic enough. The aesthetic is poor - part of it is sensor size, part of it is color science. All depends on your needs but all things being equal, you're more likely to produce an aesthetic that is more film-like with an a6300 than a G7.

A7sii + 24-70 F2.8 G lens = $5000+ a6300 + 24-105 F4 (Canon/Sigma) + Speedbooster = $1800. Big difference in my mind. Plus you get the extra reach of the 24-105 and IS!! Comparable image. A7sii maybe 2-stops better in low light. But I'll take the $3000 in my pocket.

I had it. Very sharp lens. Couldn't stand the focus by wire though, particularly in dark environments.

All three look like mushy garbage. I'm saving my money until 6k comes out...

Add a speedbooster and Canon 24-105 F4 IS lens and you have a 24-105 F2.8 IS full frame cinema machine that puts out a 4k image downsampled from 6k in a log profile with a pleasant noise profile for $1000 and I'll be happy to switch batteries every 30 minutes...

It's hard to believe that after 4 years time, the 5D IV will lack the video features to legitimately compete with an a6300.

On another note, Andrew, I applaud you for not only remaining impartial amidst this sycophantic, crony atmosphere but also for exposing the despicable system of incentivization and reprisals going on behind the scenes that compromises the integrity of competing reviewers. Thank you. It's so refreshing in this day and age,

It begins with resolution. If acceptable resolution isn't there, none of the qualities you listed matter all that much. People don't buy TV sets for wider DR and and better color rendition. They buy for better image clarity. Everything you enumerated does indeed matter, but the starting point is resolution.

This is a $1,200 camera in 2016. I expect quality at least at the standard of a $1000 camera in 2013 (GH2). I don't need the 4K. Just give me high-quality 1080p, some kind of LOG and codec that's at least slightly less brittle than a piece of dry toast. Give me something that approaches that of an A7s or GH3 and I'll cut Canon some slack and commend them for the DP-AF.

Give me a break. We don't live in the dark ages any more - other people can test the camera and you can go view the results on youtube or vimeo. You can tell the footage coming off the 80d is glorified 720p. Other cameras have their limitations. There is no perfect camera. But there is no excuse for a company with the equity of Canon to be producing cameras that shoot soft, moire-ridden 1080p in 2016. I expect Fuji or Sigma to do this, but not Canon. Not a company with a well-established Cinema line and a low marginal cost of letting innovation trickle down to the enthusiast level if they only wanted to. I think Canon should be openly criticized for this approach and I don't need to order and go through the rigors of testing and posting low-grade footage to substantiate my frustration. The camera is intentionally hampered, the codec is outdated and the resolution is not up to snuff. I have no qualms in saying that. I've seen enough test footage posted by others - including Canon themselves - to make that determination. Those who needlessly stifle innovation deserve to be bashed. But I also expect legions of apologists like yourself to stubbornly try and find a silver lining in what they do. I don't understand it, but I nevertheless expect it.