ade towell

Ah that could be cool for on a gimble I guess if there's no lag

You'll need to buy the monitor as well to get touch DPAF but yes seems a good deal...had a play with some of the mp4 c200 files https://cloakroommedia.digitalpigeon.com/shr/-OA1sEmuEeeZtgbiYUDn_w/qLRcnaMmCLYfe_7L74Exeg the UHD 25p file looks nice but clog3 falls apart fairly quickly with the 8 bit - think you're going to need RAW to get any more DR than my c100. The 100p is quite soft relative to the 25p, 50p maybe a tad soft too but definitely would cut ok with the 25p

I thought the c700 sensor was bigger than the c300 mk2 sensor? Now I'm confused....

I hand the footage over to the production company, they edit it and for the better jobs ask for 10 bit - they don't want RAW, it's not part of their work flow for obvious reasons I love playing around with RAW on my own projects and I can see how for you having got a taste for it with the 5d, that the c200 would be the obvious next step. I've got a kid to support, need to earn money with the camera and so have to give them what they ask for

Hey no worries am not offended just putting over another viewpoint - to me the price of the 2 cameras in question is fs7 territory which has been gobbling up the mid tier market for a while now and so their 4k 10 bit XAVC codec has become well established and often asked for - mainly production companies with in house editors in my experience - and going forward it would be foolish of me not to buy a camera that offers this. If you've ever played around and pushed log footage in 8 bit and then 10 bit the difference becomes fairly obvious. Admittedly Canon clog in 8 bit plays nicer than Sony's 8 bit slog2 and especially slog3 - but times have moved on and we are now talking about clog3 with the c200, and hopefully more than 12 stops of dr. 10 bit would make this so much easier to work with

Your obsession with RAW has very little basis in how 95% of people are going to use this camera... no production companies I know will touch RAW, but the mid tier ones do want a decent 4k 10 bit file (If the Canon c200 had 4k 10 bit I would be seriously considering that too). They are both great sounding cameras but are aiming at different folk with different needs - no need to keep trying to think of ways it's not as good as your beloved Canon... And until they actually announce the actual price we don't know for definite how much the EVA is. It was mentioned in another thread that Panasonic said the hvx200 was going to be under $10k when 1st announced and it came in at $6k...granted that is an extreme example but let's just wait and see. Am excited for both cameras, they both have their strengths and weaknesses

Yes exactly I don't need RAW I need 4k10 bit. For me the c200 wouldn't be thousands cheaper at all, and would probably have less dr as it's limited to 13 stops in 8 bit. Don't yet know the Pannys full sensors capabilities but dual native iso and true vlog with v.gamut and Varicam colours are all hugely promising to me. Of course we need to see some footage before any of this is relevant

For you maybe...obviously depends what your needs are but for me spec wise the Panny is way ahead. I'd have to spend $1k to record 1 hour of 4k footage 10 bit footage with the Canon - that is prohibitive to me Both great looking cameras though - exciting times

that works both ways with Canon fans too....every bit of info Canon has released says it's 8 bit and apparently the delay for the XF-AVC codec is due to the complexity of re-engineering a 10bit codec to play nicely in 8bit. I've got a Canon c100 and was really hoping the c200 would be my next camera - but the kind of mid tier corporate stuff I'm aiming for is asking more and more for 10 bit and 4k. They don't care about great af - I would be foolish to ignore that - the Panasonic is looking more likely for my needs

Yes I think this is going to be a popular camera amongst the existing c100 and 300 crowd - Canon are being much more aggressive with this camera and its specs and that is to be appaluded but the perplexing lack of 10 bit 4k is unlikely to get any Sony users to move over, even if they do have Canon lenses. Internal RAW is nice to have but 95% of its likely customers will have little use for it and so are in essence spending $7500 in 2017 for an 8 bit 420 camera....

Varicam sensor and a decent 4k 50p 10 bit codec would be enough for a lot of folk. The 10 bit is a given considering the gh5 has it - fingers crossed for the sensor

UHD is still 8bit

no 4k 10 bit out by the looks of it, bummer

Am really hoping Canon's clog3 can handle 8 bit better than Sony's slog3 can... The c200b looks tempting but I think the touch screen monitor for af may be really useful

Can you shoot RAW internally on the Sony fs5?

exactly

sorry was being a tad facetious - mainly doubting the reliability of any af system - if it was an important paying job and I needed to get focus 1st go I would put my money towards a focus puller rather than rent another camera and hope af worked everytime

hire a focus puller

i'd be interested to know as well - there were reports of the 18-105 having bad distortion particularly at the wide end in 4k on the Sony fs7 as its processor wan't able to correct this by software in camera. Was fine in 1080p though. Is this also the case with the a6500?

Ha - Mitch has nothing to do with the GH5, he's looking after Varicam and DVX200 and presumably this new camera. He's not prone to hyperbole and is super helpful fella, but I get your point

back on the dvxuser thread, Mitch Gross who is Cinema Product Manager for Panasonic USA says that it will be an innovative camera...make of that what you will....

dvxuser source has added "The info I have says this wont be a particular innovative camera. It's more a mix of already existing functions and features. Plain vanilla these days at a decent price. Look upon it as a competitor to the FS5 or C100 MKII with the added 4k functionality compared to the C100 MKII. The camera will use Panasonics 10-bit codec and a Sony sensor specially made for Panasonic." was hoping for but not expecting the Varicam sensor...

I'm talking £3-4k not $, I'm in the UK, and no I'm not looking to buy the latest and greatest - I tend to wait a year and buy used cameras once all the initial glitches are sorted... Have no idea how much this new Panasonic will cost or what features it will have - this is all speculation on my part - am not sure where the EIS suggestion has come from, IBIS is a great thing and to be honest Panasonic's version of it is a lot better on the GH5 than Sony version I tried on the A6500. Sony are on catch up there. The DPAF on the Canon's is really useful at times and they have a step up on panasonic there. Is great there will be another choice in this price bracket - the FS5, C100 and I'm sure this new Panasonic will all have strengths and weaknesses - choose what suits your needs more from the fella at dvxuser "The specs I was given is from a trusty source but hey it can contain a few faults for sure. The codec is a 10-bit 4:2:2 format with lower quality options at hand. There are a few similar features to the DVX200 also"

I would be amazed if they put the Varicam sensor in at that price, is mainly wishful thinking on my part - but I guess if they really want to get back into the C100, fs5 territory they need to come all guns blazing...I have no worries over Panasonic reliability, have had their dvx100 through to af100 and gh cameras and never had an issue I use c100 as my main camera still and as you say it just works - am sure their next iteration c100 mk3, c200 or whatever will be good and integrate well with their new zooms - but I also expect it to cost a lot more. I'm not going to spend more than £3-4k on a camera again, what we have already is good enough for most work, and tend to rent if I need higher frame rates...still not been asked to shoot 4k yet

If they can somehow squeeze the Varicam sensor into this camera and sell for $4k - the price of a Canon c100 mk2 - then it will blow everything else away...Canon won't offer anything of comparable spec at a price anywhere near that, that's not their way.