padam

https://youtu.be/AekKwgvS5K0?t=6m57s Of course it holds up better, but how much of that actually matters is another thing. The C200 has 8-bit 4:2:0 internal compression as well, and it looks totally fine. Yes, those 'other issues' are there with this camera as well. It's a good camera for the price (kind of a given if one needs 4k60p and does not want a GH5), I just don't feel like we will think that much of it, once the X-H2 comes out.

Because of exactly what I wrote before, that people might (possibly wrongly) assume that it is a game changer and matters above all else, like how it was with the GH5?

It's 10-bit 4:2:0 internal I also don't understand why. 10-bit in the GH5 will be a "game changer", they said. And yet there are still people switching to older, bigger, way more expensive 1DX II cameras with out of date 8-bit codecs and no Log, because it has a more pleasing image. Don't get me wrong, it is great to have, it is just not the only thing that matters.

Yes, that's why I brought up the FS5II Obviously an older sensor, not FF, no stabilisation, no phase-detect AF and an external recorder is kind of a "very useful accessory" (finder and LCD are both quite crap) but the handling is great, and I think it has a more pleasing image, although it is still very much a Sony.

With the Sony it can even hit 3 hours (but certainly 2.5 hours), that is a big difference. Although it can overheat in the meantime in FF 4k mode. Sony has some small lenses are well like the 28/2 (optional converter) 35/2.8 55/1.8 85/1.8, the 24-70/4 OSS is also good enough for video use (APS-C mode is just a flick of a switch for more reach), but they need to fill out some more holes in their lens line-up rather than producing biggest and most expensive glass. Fuji has a better lineup of small prime lenses, but some of them are not optimised for video AF , and they also don't have any image stabilisation (or the standard zoom being not constant F-stop)

Yep, you could almost buy an FS5II with that amount of money with very useful features like a variable ND and have an arguably less digital image, because of the low megapixel low rolling-shutter sensor, and much higher quality slow-motion than any stills camera (currently) and the option of raw output. I understand if it is too bulky for you or you are simply fed up with using Sony. Here is the "Sony side" I am sure the X-T3 has improved on several of these things, but some might still be problems. But you know, you can switch to Fuji and possibly switch back to the A7SIII if it comes out with major improvements again. That's what I meant.

You can get it for a lot less though, the cheapest EU price is 3800 Euros versus 6800 Euros for the C200, that's actually a massive difference.

While that's certainly fun, it's worth noting that you are severely limiting yourself by not getting fully accustomed to one tool (while also spending money that you could buy lenses, tripods, whatever) There is probably lot more in your current gear already, that you haven't even put to good use.

I have recently got a Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 Great lens, but I haven't found the perfect home for it...yet.

I have it as well, love the finder, but the shutter shock is also the thing I really hate about it ? Love the lenses though (and kind of annoyed that they can't be put on an SLR like the Konica FC-1, which I find to be more discreet) The EOS R shutter looks ok, it is bigger so more clunky than the EOS M series (but similar), so it is far from being silent, but I am sure it is well damped and the silent continuous mode will be very useful (when the update finally comes up).

Wait, what? It's always funny, that the camera one does not own always looks the waxiest I am not sure why people jump to sudden (and of course one-sided) conclusions after one short single test. The WB on the Sony has to be set differently to the others (maybe even the X-T3 and 1DX II should be set a little differently) and yes it needs a handful or tweaking.

Was that the Praktica? I wanted to show that to a friend, but it got removed I thought this was pretty funny as well. Maybe the competition could hire him "Samsung Anti-Apple-style" The EOS R <silent pause> YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS!!!

I think it could actually be a misunderstanding (lost in translation or something) people tend to use the term binning very loosely. It looks like if the guy wanted to say that the area is the full width of the sensor, so no crop factor applied, that's what was written in the original release. That's my assessment anyway. Leica S3 will also have full sensor width 4k video, but it's not going to be sampled from all the pixels.

It is, if you consider how much glass is actually in there. And it is still recommended to get the clear filter as well. But again, it is a bit more than just that, the US price seems a little more reasonable, so it is definitely something to source from the grey market, if it will be available.

Konica Hexanon 40/1.8 clone? (also 6 elements in 5 groups)

Yes, of course, but it is also the first one that actually works well. The Fotodiox ones are money down the drain, the Aputure Vari-ND is probably not quite as good, costs more and way more fiddly to use.

There is no better way of saying this, it costs 450 Euros (and the circular polarizer is an optional add-on as well as a clear drop-in filter in case you don't want to change the whole adapter when not using any ND) The C100 produces a much sharper (nicer) HD image, a downsampled 4k from this camera is more in line with what that looks like (but worse rolling shutter) but the internal codec is much better than the C100. The rolling shutter is much better in HD.

They will both sell well, for different reasons. One is (still) the most featured 2000$ camera, the other one is the mirrorless camera with the most lens options and the biggest user base.

If you have to work with lights that are already there (like an event or a wedding) it is not necessarily that simple. Also, it is nice to be able to achieve any look that one wants or prefers, but it may take time that is not being reflected in the amount the client is willing to pay. So in that way, a camera that has a pleasant baked-in look may matter. You also use one differently to another, and it may affect the outcome. One needs to use it well, whatever that is, but for every video saying the gear does not matter there is another one saying that it kind of does. Nice work anyway.

One thing to not about these sales numbers is that they are always misleading... I guess saying this mean that I can easily get attacked from both sides, but I don't understand why there can't be any 'balanced' opinions about this camera. It is either very enthusiastic, or just bashing and more bashing (mainly from Sony users who wouldn't even consider it anyway). It is what it is, a first generation product with issues both in terms of handling (while the grip looks good, they really didn't need to try and reinvent the wheel) and also its autofocus, for some reason, it just doesn't seem to feel as sorted out as the earlier, less advanced implementations (with much less given AF points/areas), hopefully a newer firmware will help. The crop is not great but workable, C-Log is really great to have, codecs are a lot more friendly (option for Both low and high bitrates, only Panasonic does that), 10-bit out (to annoy C200 users) rolling shutter still not great. Single card slot. I do not like how the adapted EF lenses work on this camera in AF-S mode. The aperture always opens up and temporarily brightens the image and slows down the AF. I don't think it is the way it used to work on older cameras but it is what they use with the RF lenses and they didn't change it back to EF. So 100% working well zero limitations may be a little misleading. On the other hand, it is integrated into their system rather well, the platform looks great (the RF 24-105 looks a lot sharper than the EF version II) it does have things that are sorted (quality of the EVF and the tilting touchscreen with the usual interface) and it does deliver the image quality expected for its price (as a Canon product of course, that should be added) both in terms of photo and video in a smaller package. Unfortunately, I don't expect its price to drop anywhere near like the 6D II. But, (despite what the internet says) it will be able to generate images that are at least equal to the 5D IV, so where would they price a camera like that anyway. A simplified, more entry level model, without that experimental touch bar and with the good old 6D II sensor with the newer processor and some new features (decent 1080p please) would suit just as many people as this one.

I have one coming up to replace the 5D Mk1. Might be the most frustrating camera ever. It is a fairly cheap (tick) EF-mount FF camera (tick) Canon colors (tick) DPAF (tick) good interface (tick) with a tilting touchscreen (tick) and pretty much the softest 1080p out there(before any IS)...At least the IPB codec doesn't hurt when the source is that soft anyway... No way I would not choose it over a C100 at the right price, that's for sure.

The battery life and weather-sealing can be added in as well. I think one of the biggest pros is overlooked (not just to this one), that it is a Canon EF-mount camera with these features. The lenses can cost a lot, lot less, the newest ones really aren't necessary for 20 megapixels (and the edges even get cropped out in 4k). We start to see other mirrorless cameras with good AF systems but it looks like if most the lenses weren't designed with video AF in mind, breathing and pulsating too much. Oh, and there is physical manual focus on most of the EF lenses as well, which I think is a big thing. It is kind of frustrating that Canon has this great overall system all laid out, and because of that, they can get away with so many things.

Just wanted to add one thing to the 5D IV video about the 4GB limit:

The X-Trans sensor with the compression really hurts this camera for video (or it suppresses its advantages). Still great for the price, but that's a shame.

Um...maybe pretty much every video he makes? Although there is also a demonstration on the dynamic range available on the MJPEG file as well.