Quirky

Yes, it will most likely have moire, as it has no OLPF, or even a "counter-anti-aliasing filter" á la D800E. Even much smaller sensor cameras with no OLPF like the BMPCC and the RX10 with full pixel readout show some moire in certain conditions. Even when recording to an external recorder. Nevertheless, I don't think the minimal moire (alone) under certain conditions is such a big deal in the case of the BMPCC or RX10. The D810 may indeed show much more moire, false colour and other digital artefacts, thanks to the (likely) pixel binning and stuff, unless it packs some secret sauce we're not aware of yet. How likely that is, well, maybe not too likely. But better to hold judgement until we can see some real world samples from reliable sources, and dust off all the marketing buzzwords sprinkled around by the easily intimidated marketing moguls.

Yeah, it's just an incremental, yet clear upgrade to a DSLR. Not something a keen cinematographer would kill for in the first place. As for the the question why some people might get upset, apparently it's psychology. Apparently some people are projecting their egos onto their Nikons, and/or expect a brand to conform to their will. On the other hand, looks like most people in this thread are excited rather than upset. Whether they want or like the D810 or not. After all, any new high megapixel Nikon is a feast for the gadget geeks, a one that will keep them busy for weeks. The D810 means a new bonanza of nerdy-nam-nam, and since it's about Nikon, this thread alone is likely to get at least ten pages of it in no time, and probably a couple of other similar threads, too. That's just how the cookie crumbles. It has little to do with actually shooting/making video. /snarkasm alert ;)

No comment on the rumour, because it is, well, just a rumour so far. As for Canon coming up with a FF mirrorless camera, they have kinda done that already. The C100 and C500 are, whilst not literally FF, already Super35, aka "full frame" in cinema terms. I don't think there would be much point in adding yet another model with a FF 35mm sensor into their mirrorless Cx00 series. Whatever happens in the mainstream photo/video DSLR side of things, suppose a new upgraded EOS-M model is possible, even in Photokina, but I doubt that it'll be nowhere near a 5D3 sans the flipping mirror. Or that such a camera would have video features better than those in the 5D3. Possible, perhaps, but not likely, given Canon's recent track record. The recently super-hyped 70D ended up having just one new gimmick, the on-chip PDAF, but beyond that, it offered little or no improvements in overall video quality. But we'll see, eventually.

Among the AF and other updates BM mention "additional MFT active lens support." Whatever that really means in practical terms. Surely we'll find out later on. Got to admit the new update has sort of made me a bit more BMPCC-curious than before.

Sounds like within a few days or a couple of weeks there'll be a flood of new A7s reviews and test videos online. ;)

About two hours ago. Along with DaVinci Resolve 11 Public Beta.

It's more or less the same in any other off-mainstream brand forum, be it about cameras or other devices. For some "critics" it is apparently impossible to grasp that some people might even like using the quirky and unusual devices despite all the shortcomings, and by doing so they are not a threat to anyone with a healthy state of mind. I'm not a BM user and therefore I don't follow the BM forums regularly, but I know how it's like. I think the only feasible solution is to just ignore the rabid lemmings, the noisiest "critics."

It doesn't matter. Even if the A7r had very few or no flaws, even if it rivalled both GH4 and others in video quality, it still wouldn't matter. That's not how the mainstream market works. Don't underestimate the lemming effect. What the enthusiasts get exited about in their small niches like in this forum is pretty irrelevant. Canikon is like the MS Windows of the late 90's and early 2000's, maybe even today. There were/are other systems that are either better or at lest as good in one way or another, but none of it matters in the mainstream. Mediocre or not, Windows/Canikon still dominate the mainstream. Technical sophistication often has little or no impact in that. It doesn't mean that the likes of Panasonic and Sony should give up trying and innovating, however. Quite the contrary. It just takes a frustratingly long time before things change in the mainstream mass market. They will, eventually. Meanwhile, whether or not the latest Sony camera could "erode the dominance of Canikon," I don't give a crap. That's not important to me. The camera I like using doesn't have to win popularity contests.

In fairness' sake, if one uses a licenced track from the Music Bed, Triple Scoop, etc, the video is not automatically going to get flagged and banned, is it. It's just a risk, because of the dodgy filtering system, which may or may not distribute false flags. Other than that, so far so good, the soundtrack sounds interesting, and so does the project, so far. The prices will start at 20 bucks. The price will be same for both videomakers and pedantic 'what if' people alike. ;) If you suspect your piece might make money later, buy a pricier, or another licence for another edit. Surely there's not much point in worrying about every possible scenario beforehand. Especially now, as he said, So be patient. :) Meanwhile, use the policies of the aforementioned royalty free music delivery services as a general guideline. When in doubt, ask the provider for a quote, or buy a pricier license. In this case, the money is going to support independent music makers (and EOSHD:) directly. Support your indie artists, people, be it a musician, filmmaker, graphical artist, app developer or whatever. That's us supporting each other.

Looks like one is no longer limited to Nikon glass when it comes to the Metabones Speed Booster and the BMPCC. According to Philip Bloom. Hopefully more options will follow beyond the Canikon glass later on.

Don't they always? All reviews are subjective, and almost any tool can be made to look bad in the wrong hands, and good in the right hands. Not much point in going too anal/pedantic with the first few test videos online. Soon. Yes, since yesterday in Japan and some other places in Asia. According to Matt Allard in that video. A bit later elsewhere. Well, the hype always gets amplified online, be it good or bad, but the A7s still looks rather interesting as a hybrid camera. Quirky, but interesting. If I had a $4k or thereabouts to spend on a video camera, I'd probably still be tempted to go for a Digital Bolex, but for multi-purpose use the A7s still looks quite interesting, too. Even though it 'only' has 12 megapixels, and has no internal 4K. Although I believe the initial street price is pushing it a bit. I think the A7s would be a bigger hit if it was priced the same way the A7r is right now, and the price is likely to drop to that level within a year. Nevetheless, the A7s along with two other rather different cameras would make an interesting combo for both stills and video. Time to start saving and/or hustling for some exra cash.

Well, the point was, the EOSHD forum is not much different from a bunch of other online forums, be it a stills or video oriented one, they're all filled with the same gadget geekery and nerdy-nam-nam these days, and it's normal these days. Going on a crusade in defence of the pure craft of filmmaking is pretty futile, and waste of your time. You could assume the role of the noble king anointed by some watery tart distributing swords from a lake and go on a quest for the Holy Reel, along with the noble Knights Who Shoot Cinema, but in threads like this you might end up being taunted by those outrageous French soldiers throwing down cows wrapped in DXOMark spec sheets over the wall of their castle time and again. So why not letting them be and go looking for the light on your own instead? Those with a genuine interest in the pragmatic side of photography, video and filmmaking will get bored with the DXOMark specs eventually, anyway. Then they'll start following you and knight Andrew on the quest for the Holy Reel. But meanwhile, let the French soldiers keep their outragous geek accents and their cows wrapped in DXOMark sheets. After all, this thread is their castle, it's only a model, and they're minding their own business behind it peacefully. Save your Holy Hand Granade for the killer rabbit, which is much more dangerous to all of us, you know. :P Life online isn't supposed to be too serious, anyway, is it. Carry on. /OT

Apparently you missed the point of the car analogy. The high specs on paper are not too practical without a matching enclosure. A high-revving engine of a Japanese crotch rocket may deliver fancy dyno sheets, especially if you turbocharge it, but it wouldn't be too practical when bolted on a Land Rover. There's a reason why they often come with a 2.5-litre diesel engine instead, even though on paper it doesn't deliver as much horsepower as the turbocharged Japanese sewing machine. The bottom line is, putting a focal reducer made for a smaller sensor camera sort of defeats the purpose of having a large sensor camera to begin with. The high numbers may look impressive on paper, but what's the point? Why not going for a faster FF lens instead, and have an ideal sensor-lens match to work with. Sure, you could do that, anyway, and nothing is stopping you, but that would be quite a... um, nerdy way to use a FF camera. I'm pretty sure a fast FF lens would be a better match optically, too. Just saying. But by all means do just that if it floats your boat. ;)

So... if your goal is mostly video and not stills, why not just ignore the usual suspects, and go straight to the Digital Bolex, then? Skip the dishwasher, buy a few new dishwasher brushes and a bottle of Fairy, and save the money for the camera. I think I'd do just that, if my current dishwasher went kaputt today. ;) The D16 is quite a compelling option, albeit a bit pricey, too, for my current budget.

Actually, you are overlooking one little tidbit, namely the fact that ever since cameras became digital, not all cameras are being bought for making great still or motion pictures. Sometimes the digital gadget itself is the core of the hobby. Or sometimes the camera buyers are just a bit geekier than you. In such a case, the scores matter to the intended target audience. You quite apparently aren't in that target audience, so you might just want to ignore the scores, as well as the discussions around them. You are right, the DXOMark scores don't tell much about the devices as a whole, and most people do realise that, but reading and comparing them is a popular form of socialising for the right target audience. Nothing wrong with that per se. Besides, the nature of this thread, and thus the main target audience, is clearly marked right in the header. Not much point in delving into such a thread, if that's not your cup of tea. You might as well let the intended audience just have their geeky fun without disrupting it. Even though you did have a point in your comment. Whatever floats your/their boat. Just sayin'.

I'm not 100% sure, but pretty sure, anyway. Feel free to prove me wrong, because I can't do that right now. Looks like the "thumbnail" is actually a full pixel jpeg file. Or at least a rather large one. The same used by the lcd screen of your camera for a preview, which you can zoom into. Quick Look is using it, as long as it can read it. I don't have any NEF files, but my .ARW and especially my .DNG files look pretty good in preview, too. But they do look different (better) when opened up in, say, Aperture or another RAW converter. Sometimes we can even see the preview of a yet unsupported RAW file of some new camera model, too, even though the RAW itself wouldn't open yet. Have you ever noticed that? I believe it's up to each carrier package, and the metadata in it. Most RAW files do have an embedded full pixel jpg file cooked by the camera. But in some rare cases, like with the three-layer X3F files the embedded jpg image doesn't work with quick preview, even though it shows up and is zoomable in the camera screen. Why is that, I don't know yet. But it's there, and it opens up with the SPP app provided. Then it gets replaced by the actual processed RAW file, after a few seconds. Apparently some preview files just aren't as well cooked as some others, or the metadata isn't optimised for the preview app, even though there's nothing wrong with the actual RAW file itself. Just my 2c.

That's nothing strange, it's just basic business dynamics. The DXOMark scores are irrelevant, they're mere nerdytainment. Sony retreating from the dSLR market made perfect sense, and was the logical decision to make in their position at the time. Olympus did it, too, for more or less the same reason, and the fact that Pentax haven't done so yet may still become a fatal mistake, despite the recent Ricoh acquisition. They're not different enough yet, and dSLR's are sunset technology to begin with. They will have to differentiate themselves enough soon, or join the classic brands of camera history. They don't have the market might of Canikon to lean against. Canon don't respond to each move by the perceived competition, because they don't have to. Sony are trying to innovate aggressively because they have to, and because it makes sense in their situation. Unlike Canon, they're not the market leader who benefits from the status quo on the market. Until the world around them changes enough and forces them to change their course, too. Meanwhile, if you're not happy with the pace Canon is moving, simply choose another product. Simple as that. Nevertheless, I think it's premature to assume that Canon have totally lost their mojo and are now only concentrating on milking the mainstream market for as long as they can. They still have enough resources to do their own r&d behind the scenes, and all the DXOMark scores put aside, some of their non-mainstream products aren't that bad, nor are they doing too bad in their niche, either. Canon might still become a crumbling giant for sure, depending on the efforts of their upper management but again, I think it's a bit too early to tell.

To answer the question in the topic title, the Quick Look is doing nothing to the image. It's merely reading the preview file Nikon have embedded in their proprietary RAW files. It does not open the actual RAW file. What's causing the banding, I don't actually know for sure, but my more or less educated guess is that it has something to do with the quality of the embedded preview file. Want a better looking preview, ask Nikon to cook one. Well, opening the file in ACR/PS CC means that you're reading and converting the actual RAW file, not just the embedded preview, which Quick Look is using.

Surely Panasonic will note your eloquently expressed opinion. There is no ND filter. Nor is there analogue IBIS in video mode. Not in GH4, GX7 or GM1, either. For a pretty obvious reason. In other words, just buy a tripod and get over it. Maybe a camera, too, in case you haven't got one yet. As for why there are no ND filters built in the mainstream interchangeable lens (DSLR/DSLM) camera bodies, that I'm not sure about (yet). Apparently there is an equally practical reason for that, too, though. In case someone knows it, please feel free to chime in.

That's what The Obviousman does, he sometimes delivers the ugly truth, and therefore his flashy entrances with his cape flying are sometimes seen as naughty. As for myself, I've got almost two decades of experience in camera (and other gear) sales, so I no longer bother to sugar coat the obvious, either. ;) Is it? As we've established above, that sentence might make sense if there was already a real knowledge base to refer to for each camera, but in the case of A7s a one doesn't exist yet. We've all seen the spec sheets, but beyond that all we have so far are the flea snacks off our furry backs. Nothing wrong with that per se, but it's only marginally more helpful than speculating over GH5 vs. A9s. I often call it nerdy-nam-nam (derived from an old Peter Sellers(?) movie). Of course one could, and some people do indeed externalise their purchasing decisions to the mob (aka ask their peers online to decide for them), but the results are often worse than by making the decision oneself. Externalising the decision may lead to a vicious circle of buying and trading gear again and again at a loss. Which is of course nice for others who can then buy almost unused gear for reduced prices from them. ;) Well, what's the problem then? Listen to The Obviousman, be honest to yourself. Just go and buy the GH4 already. ;) Keep in mind that the "best" camera will always be the one that will be released soon after you've just bought a new camera. If you wait for the A7s, there will always be a "better" one in fall, during or after Photokina, perhaps, and eventually there will be GH5, A9s, BMCC Mk2 and so on. Better to buy a camera when you need one. Besides, 80+ per cent of our purchasing decisions are based on emotions, anyway, so not much point in trying to over-rationalise it. :) Ew. Now you are being naughty. :P

FWIW, as I am playing the role of the grumpy superhero, the Obviousman again, I do put my money where my mouth is. The most recent case being yesterday, when I took my time to examine the Sony a6000 IRL, and the real-life encounter was worth much more than either of the a6000-related topics here. I came to the conclusion that whilst it does offer some value, it looks nice, it's reasonably priced and a clear improvement over the NEX-6 in every way, it still isn't quite my cup of tea, after all. It didn't feel quite 'right' in the hand. No doubt it's just perfect for someone else, though. So I'm not likely to buy one as a stills and b-roll camera, after all, even though I thought I will. At least not before it drops down to about half the original retail price. It was even more clear with the GX7 and GM1 a while ago. So I'll just stick with my dodgy old cameras for now, and try saving/summoning some more dough for the A7/r/s, or whatever new and cool is coming this fall. At least in theory, even the GH4 might be one option, thanks to its reasonable pricing, but I haven't had a chance to try one out IRL yet, either. The online topics about these cameras are good for just yakking about the gear with my peers, and the trusted reviews might even steer my attention to a certain direction, but they are no substitute for the real thing. Duh :)

Sighhhh.... Here we go again. Ha. If you were truly sorry, you wouldn't have clicked the black button in the first place. ;) Duh You think? :) Surely/hopefully you do realise that apart from a handful of reviewers with pre-production units, no one has one yet, let alone has extensive shooting experience with one. Therefore the opinions and speculations shared here have social interaction value only. It would be the equivalent of a bunch of monkeys gathering together to pluck fleas off each other's fur for calming down and snack acquirement purposes. Which is perfectly okay as a purely emotional and social function, but it will tell you nothing whatsoever about the camera that hasn't even been shipped to the retail stores yet. (That is, in 14 June 2014 as I'm typing this) Besides, it's not like there haven't been at least a few similar topics already, so do we really need yet another one, before both cameras are available for anyone to buy or play with? [Sarcasm alert/rhetoric question] So be honest to yourself, will you. If you really can't wait because you really need a new camera NOW for a work assignment that cannot be done with your existing gear, go and grab the GH4 or whatever is available today. If you really can't wait because of a near fatal case of GAS, well, it's your money and your decision. No one else's. If you are able to convince yourself that you don't have GAS, and you don't have a technical urgency to buy a new camera, well, then it should be relatively easy to wait and see the A7s in real life, right? I for one will do just that.

The 4:2:0 would indeed seem likely, given the price point of the a6000. A bit like in the case of the sub-$1k Samsung NX30. But then again, there have been some little surprises here and there lately, not necessarily covered by the mainstream. So it would be nice to have a confirmation, even though the 4:2:2 option doesn't seem too likely.

Well, looks like you got what you bargained for, the lot of you. For some reason people's egos and their cameras seem to be linked somehow. But I'd like to offer another Pythonesque suggestion. You see, in case you do indeed feel necessary to let yourself slide down to exchanging personal insults, why not doing it with style? Something like this, for example; "Go and boil your bottom, you son of a silly person! I'll fart in your general direction! Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelled of elderberries!" After all, you have to admit, that would be much more entertaining for the onlookers trying to read these topics, wouldn't it. ;) Now, go away or I shall taunt you a second time-mah.

...I'll dismiss it as yet another piece of nerdytainment. "Better" is subjective. Depends on one's needs, goals and resources. The typical A vs. B comparisons tend to turn into efficient fanboy traps. Some of them may deliver actual info beyond the usual deliverance of opinions, but quite a few, if not most, don't. One might as well watch a classic Monty Python sketch instead. Camera A is better than Camera B is because the Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft camera A from the bosom of the water, signifying by Divine Providence, that camera A was to be the One, would be as good a reason as any to choose between A and B, wouldn't it. ;) Seriously. :P