Don Kotlos

This unfortunately is a natural degradation process of sensors. The older the sensor the more dead/hot/stuck pixels. Even new sensors have some of them which are remapped in factory. So yes, I would avoid buying an older camera that does not have an easy (and free) way or pixel remapping.

In my experience different cameras have different methods of remaping pixels. A7rii does it automatically E-M1 had a menu setting D800 had to be sent to Nikon service to do it. I bet you can also send 1DC to Canon. If it is worth it it depends on you but I know it can be more annoying in video than in stills.

It is using the same "WhiteMagic" RGBW LCD as the A9 so double the brightness than A7RII with less power. So no dimming while shooting 4K. I remember a hands on report verifying it, but can't find it now.

The Olympus 300mm f4 is $2500 and is selling very well. The pana 200mm f/2.8 comes with a teleconverter so you can get to 300mm f/4 as well. The extra flexibility is well worth the extra $500. Again I find it very useful. For both Nikon and Canon having 2 extra LCDs in their professional cameras and Panasonic deciding to put one in G9, I am guessing there is a large market of "legacy users".

I tested the 2016 13" and 15" extensively with 4K Sony XAVC-S files. I ended up staying with the 13" with an eGPU solution: With Resolve an eGPU makes a BIG difference, but with FCPX you can do without. The 2017 allows for hardware decoding of 10bit H265 files but the current version of FCPX does not. For the smoothest editing you will still want to transcode, but it definitely works fine even with the original XAVC-S files. I am very happy with the performance, and you should be fine with 2017 15" as long as you stay away from Premiere

Just because you never miss it doesn't mean other people don't find it useful. Even in DSLRs you could check the settings in the viewfinder, the back LCD or the top LCD. Shit with the top Nikon/Canon DSLRs you even have a 4th place at the back of the camera to check settings. Do you really believe this is just to look professional?

No from the product spec: "The Body I.S. (Image Stabilizer) in the LUMIX G9 is dramatically improved, making it possible to use 6.5 stops of compensation with or without Dual I.S.2.0 compatible Lumix lenses. This is achieved by a more accurate calculation of shake in various shooting conditions, utilizing information of angular velocity and motion vector acquired not only from the gyro sensor but also from the image sensor and accelerometer sensor."

I don't like looking through the EVF, or turning the LCD on every time I want to change or check a setting. Top LCD is fast, easy and doesn't consume a ton of power.

I am not that sure. I don't find the background rendering with 40-150mm f/2.8 that great and if you compare with FF 400mm f/2.8 or even f/4 there is a big difference in both size and price. Expensive for sure, but there is definitely a market. Plus the 1.4x Teleconverter (DMW-TC14) is bundled with the lens.

I think it compares very favorably to the E-M1mkii. At least in paper it offers better stabilization (6.5 stops even with unstabilized lenses) and it has a far better EVF. I find the top LCD very useful in general, one of the few things that I really miss with mirrorless cameras. The only real disadvantage that it might have is the lack of PDAF, but that remains to be tested of how much difference there is in tracking. I also believe the larger size is an advantage for sports photographers. Coupled with the new 200mm f/2.8 this will be a success in the market that e-m1mkii dominates. And as a bonus you get 4K 60p and far better audio preamps.

Click bait

Everything that you love about GH5 and hate about the EVA1 ...

Faking sensors is quite common for product shots. Whether that is because it is hard to shot, or using rendered models or just to make the sensor look larger than it actually is, I cannot be sure ...

I doubt it is different than the GH5 sensor. It would be so expensive to produce with a tiny market for it. Also that would be a very awkward button placement for changing crops. G9 looks like a E-M1mkII competitor at a similar price point. If there were any changes on the sensor it should be adding PDAF, but even that is unlikely. The most interesting part of it, other than the fairly large EVF, is the on/off switch which looks exactly like the Nikon. Maybe they started a collaboration? Top LCD is great as well.

Yep, shooting at 1/50 will digital stabilization of above average movements, can be a very good way to induce a headache. This solution will be good for systems that is hard to get stabilization otherwise and it should be superior to any other software stabilization.

10bit output more likely. Maybe FS5mkii will have internal 10bit.

I don't have any experience with outer bodies.. but here is how I would go about it: Green screen + opacity blend for the translucent body moving around. Another long blend between the ceiling and a starry sky + the previous layer of the translucent body. If you don't have the budget for hanging the actor then he/she can lye down on the floor mimicking the upwards motion. Does that make any sense? I can recall several translucent bodies moving around but none up in space.

Worked fine with 14 beta for me, only problem was that you couldn't do anything while the proxies were generated. I feel you

I just noticed that EVA1 is in VBR and I am trying to figure out whether the ALL-I is in VBR. @Vesku can you check the actual bitrate on the static vs moving scenes in both IPB & All-I?

? I find the video side of A7rIII was improved far more than the still side. The A7sIII will only add 4k 60p, better 4K FF quality and maybe a 10bit output.

Cool I was thinking of doing that on the RX0...

For editing/grading, it doesn't matter so you are better using the proxies to optimize performance. Only for the final render you should use the original media. The Optimized media workflow in Resolve takes care of that. Yes

Transcoding will almost always lead to information loss. Depending on the codec it can be tiny or very large. Thus, if you are working with Resolve I would use the built-in proxies: Generate optimized media. You can control which clips are transcoded, the quality of the proxies & have them removed at the end. Also the final render always runs on the original media optimizing quality.

I have been using the VideoMicro since it came out and I am very happy with it. If you plan to boom it and have it close to the sound source it will work great.

@Vesku I tend to agree that the differences are pretty small. Have you seen any differences in the noise when shooting at higher ISOs? Also my impression is that the Prores files from the BMPCC are vastly superior as far as codec goes (see a post here).