pablogrollan

It seems the technology has been designed with video in mind and the leaked specs refer to a video sensor, so my guess is it would appear on a traditional broadcast camera first with a bigger-than-usual sensor (1.5 inch) and later on in s35 cameras and maybe photo cameras. We still don't know much -such us the body size requirements to keep heat under control, etc- but moving away from bayer sensors sounds like an option for the future...

Probably... there's people from all walks of life out there... but early sneak previews of The Hobbit in HFR were a huge disappointment, slashed both by critics and audience, and they substantially modified their release strategy to make the 24p version of the movie easily available in theatres. HFR is the new 3D, a soon-to-be-forgotten experiment to bump up ticket sales and try to avoid the slow but steady decline in theatre attendance. Full HD 50 inch TVs with surround sound systems are making "going to the movies" obsolete. For us film lovers it really is sad, but the truth is the average moviegoer has less and less reason to go a movie theatre. Same happened to drive-in theatres when they lost their reason to be (movie + 2nd base, which could be accomplished with home video and no parents at home). At least 3D had some glory moments (Avatar, Gravity) before fading away, but this experiment was stillborn.

Fake or not, the trailer is HFR (60p) and has given me the same fake feeling as whenever I have seen HFR. I agree with you all, it looks like crap. Our mind is too used to 24p in cinema and 60p should be left for videogames and such.

That little jump -which you understandably hate- can easily be avoided. If delivering for web, you can edit and encode the finished piece in 24p. If you are editing for broadcast or some medium that requires 25p, just conform the footage first -it's done in different ways in different NLEs, but it is always easy-.

My experience has been the other way around (and some D600 users would probably agree). Anyway my comment was that, as stills cameras, Canons are more reliable than Sony and Panasonic. The bracketed addition regarding the Nikons is because in my experience Canon has a slight edge in build quality, though obviously not in every line or model. I've had plenty of Nikons, from a 60's Nikomat (indestructible) to an F60, D100, D90... and in the last 8 years or so I've felt the Canon counterparts to be a little sturdier, not implying that Nikons are flimsy or poorly built. I stand corrected regarding the D800 -which has a Sony sensor-, though regarding the 13 stops of the D4 the only source is that controversial and vague report that led Nikon to announce both the D800 and D4 were broadcast approved and then take it back... The dynamic range was measured using a 4.85 stop chart, which is not really the best way to do it though it makes sense since for broadcast approval purposes a stop more or less is not really that relevant. I, too am brand agnostic and can see that Canon is lagging in terms of innovation for quite a few years now, but the 1DX and the 7D MKII with their lack of video-oriented appeal are still among the top choices in their category for a stills shooter, and that's the crowd they are aimed at. Until now, their expensive cinema line has been doing really well. It's taken Sony quite a few years to release what looks like a C300 killer (the FS7) and I personally thought it would happen a lot sooner (remember what so many were saying when the Scarlet was announced at the same time as the C300?). I don't like Canon's strategy either but let's face it, they are squeezing top profit for every dollar spent while other brands with the "urge" to be at the top of the tech race are making their own previous models obsolete with too-short product cycles. Some F55 owners may not be so pleased to see the release of the FS7. I don't think any of us has enough information to claim a certain strategy is right or wrong. Sure, I prefer to see brands pushing the limits and bringing better and cheaper tools to the market, but I can understand that doing a little as possible to stay on top (and pulling it off) is a profitable business model. If legions of stills shooters are happy with those releases and your cinema cameras are widely used in hollywood, why spend more? why give more features for a cheaper price and a smaller margin? That really would not make sense for a company in Canon's position (it would if they were Blackmagic).

Like Andy said, DXOMark does not measure the sensor's video performance. Nikons probably won't reach 12 stops in video mode just like Canons have about 8-9 stops for video. You can see a considerable difference with ML raw video (which gives the claimed 11.5 stops) or a C300 which does give you about 12 stops in video. Having said that and admitting Sony and Panasonic are a step ahead in technology, the truth is the Canons offer a durability and reliability that Sony and Panny have yet to match (and even Nikon, though it would be closer). I can see why a stills shooter would rather side with Canon in spite of its outdated tech, considering the wide range of accessories, lenses and the peace of mind that something really weird has to happen for the camera to fail on you.

Crop, yes -although they claim there would be no crop because they use some sort of interpolation to "rebuild" the missing part of the frame, which I doubt will yield decent results-. There should be no warping if you use 3 axis stabilization. Warping would come from trying to correct perspective. I believe this device works like a reverse process of After Effects old motion tracking stabilizer, using data from the accelerometer to create a motion path. What I guess would be unaviodable is shooting at high shutter speeds, since no matter how well the footage is stabilized there's no way to correct the baked-in motion blur from a shaky cam at 1/50. No doubt the best way to have a steady shot is shooting a steady shot, but this device could be very useful in many instances -such as following a walking subject- in which there'd be little crop or motion blur.

...Or you could wait until this is available: http://steadxp.com/ If it works properly, we'll see different versions from different brands, different prices and, as most software related tools, with bigger room for improvement in following generations.

Moot point? Apart from you mathematical DOF equivalence -which sounds accurate- the look and feel of a larger sensor is very different. Try to shoot outside on a sunny day and get shallow depth of field with a M43 sensor. On full frame you would need ND filters to be able to open up to f5.6. On APS-C you probably need a stronger ND filter to open to f3.5. Can you imagine the kind of filtration you need to shoot under a summer sun at f1.8? Unless you are using good expensive filters, you'd need to correct IR and color shifts. The "character" of the lens would probably be lost under layers of filters, and the rig would not be so convenient. No matter how you look at it, a bigger sensor has a different -IMHO more cinematic- feel that cannot be so easily compensated. It helps both in bright and darker environments. Wether you consider it fundamental or not is a matter of taste or the specific look you aim for, but the difference between APS-C and M43 is an important factor, just like perceived resolution, dynamic range and color science. And by the way, there are wider aperture zooms that you can use on E-mount. That's one of the particular strengths of the system, that you can easily adapt lenses from many other mounts, or even use native primes, which is the ideal way to go if circumstances allow it.

Daniel, léete esto antes... http://www.quesabesde.com/noticias/panasonic-fz1000-sony-rx10-comparativa_12381 I believe that a 1000$ cap would make me turn to bridge cameras: the Sony RX10 and the Panasonic FZ1000. They are the most complete all-around package for both video and stills for under a grand. Which one? a matter of taste I suppose. Personally, I would take the sony because it has both mic input and headphone jack, nice XAVC-S codec, slightly better build quality, built-in ND, clickless aperture ring and a constant aperture of 2.8. The Panny gives you 4K video, a longer focal range and an articulated screen, which I guees could be more important for others.

Considering the price point of the camera ($8K) I don't think adding 400-500$ (not 200$) is a problem for a PL lens user. As Ebrahim said, proper adapters should be a perfect fit, solid and with no play whatsoever, just like a native mount.

Pretty much on the contrary. E-mount is one of the most adaptable mounts, allowing you to use both cine lenses and stills lenses from Canon, Nikon, etc. including legacy lenses. If PL is what you are after, it is simple: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/808236-REG/16x9_Inc_169_CLM_PLE_Cine_Lens_Mount_PL.html As an added plus, you can use a speedbooster if you want a "Full Frame" cinema camera.

This camera definitely doesn't seem to be for us as video innovations are not present at all. But it's not a camera for beginners (quite the opposite) and will probably sell OK. Just look at it from a photographer's point of view: it is very likely the best APS-C camera on the market. New sensor (they rushed to say it's not the one on the 70D, who knows though), faster fps burst, better lowlight sensitivity, faster processing, USB3... Sure, it is just an incremental upgrade, but for a sports & wildlife photographer it is the top camera by far. The a6000 gives you 24MP instead of 20 (and much better video), but the rugged, properly sealed and almost indestructible body of a pro Canon camera is a bigger selling point for a pro photographer. They expected something strong, durable, professionally reliable, with slightly better specs and fully compatible with their glass. And they got it. The price point is also ok, at that level (1800$) it is not that relevant. For filmmakers there is a Cinema EOS line, which undoubtedly took a hit with the FS7. We'll see if they react. What puzzled me is what took the competition so long!! When the C300 was released many people said it was already outdated specs-wise but anyone who worked with it fell in love with the image quality and the ergonomics, and it is the best selling/renting camera in its category. It's taken Sony almost 3 years to release a C300-ish camera with updated specs!!! And we still have to see if it delivers as promised (I hope so!). So most sports photographers would take a 7D (even mark I) or 1D before an a6000, a GH4 or an a7S. And most DPs would take a C300 before a GH4 or an A7S... I believe that Canon, in spite of their lack of innovation, know very well the product they are selling and whom they are selling it to. It's simply not us!

Well, the cat's out of the bag and it's far from impressive unless you are mainly a stills guy. http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/09/official-canon-eos-7d-mark-ii/ http://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/photography/news/unveiled-canon-eos-7d-mark-ii?cm_mmc=EML-_-NewAnnouncement-Canon7D2-_-140915-_-Body_Explora_Canon-7D-MarkII_Video#video Except for the presence of both mic and headphone jacks, slightly higher ISOs and what seems to be a slightly shaper image, not much improvement. Video modes are like the 5DMK3 with the addition of 1080 60p

Go to the last tab of the menu (shaped like a toolbox). In the second screen of the tab (out of 6) you should find an option in the bottom "PAL/NTSC selector". After you switch I believe you have to restart the camera.

Yes I did, and I never said you denied them being sales leaders, I just wanted to point out that telling the top selling companies that their products suck compared to the less-selling competition may not be the best approach, especially cause the rebuttal is easy: "We outsell them considerably. Most pro photographers worldwide choose to pay extra for our "outdated and underperforming" products instead of working with a GH4 or an A7. Do you know better than them?" I believe you know it is much better not to include a conclusion (or even less a personal opinion) in the question. The idea is for the questions to lead to that conclusion and I think there are ways to make the Canon rep blush if they have nothing new to offer. Kinda happened "naturally" at NAB this year, whenever they appeared in a panel with reps from Sony and Panasonic and all the Canon guy had to talk about was the autofocus upgrade.

Or even better, ask Canon about any future addtions or plans for their EOS cinema lineup (they have been steadily releasing small sensor video cameras). I agree that telling the best selling DSLR brands why they are so bad and far behind at selling DSLRs is not the best approach. Not long ago many people on this forum claimed that if the A7S was released at a price above 2.000$ it would be a stupid marketing decision and pricing policy, and that they would fail against the GH4. I honestly do not know which one is selling better, but I have a feeling the A7S is far from being a sales failure. The truth is that Canon, Nikon, Sony and Panasonic have large and experienced R&D, sales and marketing departments and that they probably have more and better information to make their decisions. They may be wrong, but in those instances the "cause and effect" is likely quite complicated. We don't know if Nikon's contract with Sony prevents them from pushing their video capabilities. We don't know if a year from know Canon will renew the Cinema EOS line. What we know is that they still are the top brands in photography and that the C300 and C500 are very widely used in filmmaking (from top hollywood to indie). Squeezing every dollar from your technology is not a bad company policy and sales tell the "overpricing" is not such. They know what they're doing, even if I agree that Sony and Panasonic are more innovative lately.

I personally shoot 90% video, so an EVF works better for me, but some of my "only stills" colleagues would tell you nothing beats a telemetric viewfinder. They just love the fact that you actually are seeing the subject in the moment you shoot the picture (no more blinking closed eyes in group protraits) and the fact that the extra room in the viewfinder lets you know when an object is going to enter the frame (to shoot a bird flying across the frame for example). But I guess Leica geeks will be amongst the last ones to adopt an EVF.

The PDF brochure shows it's a very complete package... Now we only need to know if the image quality is as good as expected. It's not the A7s sensor, so it will be nice to see how it performs in terms of dynamic range, noise and lowlight ability. Sony say that with s-log3 they manage to squeeze an additional 1.5 stops compared to s-log2, so even if it is the FS700 sensor it could be around 13.5 stops as long as you use S-log3 with its minimum 2000 ISO... Tests, tests, tests...

Well, it didn't succeed because it was a very poorly executed brilliant idea. Image quality sucked like the worst early NEX cameras (moire and aliasing), had no built-in ND filters and the ergonomics were wrong: looks like an ENG camera but is actually too small and there's no way to comfortably mount it on your shoulder (like the Sony EX3), not even sliding the shoulder pad. Just like the VG900, it could have been great but had absurd shortcomings. There was also the price tag: 3200$. I would love to have an a6000/a5100 sensor in a proper ENG body with a proper video EVF and a couple XLR imputs. But how much markup would you pay for that (the a5100 is 550$)? Maybe for 1200$-1500$ it would stand a chance (and put the FS100 to rest) but I personally wouldn't pay much more for a bigger plastic housing, 2 XLRs and an EVF. For 3200$, Wouldn't you prefer an A7s + DSLR rig?

Maybe there's not that much cropping. The newsshooter article talks about "computational photography" to reconstruct frames. Maybe a combination of this litlle box's magic + some good old post stabilization may result in very acceptable steadycam.

Does it create any sort of preview (the "conforming file")? The only problems I see with your hardware are the CPU (it is not true that all operations are GPU based with the Mercury Engine) and the single HDD. Usually it is recommendable to have several HDDs in RAID or SSD to ensure the read speed is enough. Also, have you checked why only 50% of the RAM is used? You know that the ratio of RAM allocated to Premiere and available for other programs can be tweaked, so maybe it only uses 4GB because it is as much as it is allowed, not because it is enough... One of the things that slows down renders more significantly is the scaling of the frame (1080p timeline encoding a 720p output, for example), so it makes sense that a 4K timeline is smoother than a 1080 one.

I never said anything about buying a 7D for video. I merely compared how top of the line product cycles are longer. A canon 1DX could be comparable in stills to an Alexa in digital movie cameras. True, the 6.000 $ investment is far from an Alexa or F55, but for a photographer it means buying top gear at top price (I know medium format cameras are way more expensive, but they are "niche" and not used by most photographers, just like there are specialised cameras more expensive than an Alexa). Dangerous? Why? The Alexa is a 4 year old camera that still holds its place and is far from being obsolete... and the mark down in movie camera rentals did not come with the Alexa, but long before with the RED One. A 35mm Arri camera could cost up to 350.000 $ and was a standard rental for film and commercials until RED came along and released a digital movie camera for around 60.000 $, which was the price of a Betacam camera in the early 90's. Arri has a tendency/policy not to innovate, not to release a product to be the first of its kind. They wait until there are several digital film cameras and they become common use to release THE camera, the one that is not a breakthrough but does everything right and is guaranteed to work as expected. They've done the same with LED lights.

Not really. The consumer, prosumer and lower end professional markets are very different to the high-end line. As slower pace is forced so that a certain type of clients may take full advantage of the investment while the manufacturer squeezes the product cycle to the last dollar. Those who early-adopted the Alexa in 2010 still have a camera widely considered to be the best available. It has been upgraded and looked after. Arri has released new models that complement it without making it obsolete. Same with top of the line DSLRs: Canon has not yet updated the 1Dx nor the 7D (flagship of their respective lines). Sure they have released a ton of lower end FF and APS-C models based on the same technology, but their high-end line has a 4-5 year product cycle. BMPC and GH4 are aimed at a different crowd. Buy it and you won't become a premium client. Buy an F55 and you will, more so because after that investment you will probably not risk installing any third party accesory or addon. If you drop $29K for a camera, you might as well drop another $1-2K in "official" recording media, battery packs, etc.

It was in one of their press statements and on Dpreview's preview of the camera. Still, I too doubt it has it, especially considering the a6000 is almost moire/aliasing free without full sensor readout. It would stress the processor unnecesarily and would cause a slower rolling shutter. Nevertheless, the RX10 had it out of the box, so it is possible Sony managed to make it work on the bigger sensor of the a5100 (it does on the A7S, though it is only 12MP).