jax_rox

What the Phantom Miro is to high speed shooting, this looks like it will be for low-light shooting.... Be interesting to see how this gets prcied at rental

You can push the ISO 4 stops more than the A7s. One would think that just like 409,000 ISO on the A7s is pushing the realms of usability, then maximum ISO on this camera might also be pushing it (you can go to 12,800 ISO on the RED, but I'm still going to use it almost exclusively at 320-640). That does mean though that 1mil or even 2mil ISO might be useable, and certainly one would think that 409,000 ISO will be much cleaner than on the A7s. That being said, it's all speculation at this point - I can see this being used on docos, but will be interesting to see if this actually finds a market other than really specialty niche applications

Custom sensor design is very finnicky. The image is affected even by how each element is wired to each other. There's a lot that goes into it, and that's why the Alexa costs the price it does. Sony are pretty responsive in regards to their camera divison - the big difference being that their professional camera division adds features into the already existing cameras, the consumer division simply brings out a new body. Sony will fix the issues you have with your consumer camera - but you'll need to buy a new body to get them. That's been the way even as far back as the NEX series. In my opinion, if you've worked at all with the F5/55, FS7 or F3, you won't be 'shocked' by the colours in the A7s. They're not wildly different (to any camera for that matter), so if you think the F5 has great colour, and the A7s has terrible colour, I can only gather that it's purely operator error... The A7s is slightly different looking, but it's pretty similar - and definitely has that 'Sony' colour. The F5 and the C300 look very different - if you want to compare Sony vs Canon colour, try the difference between those (both can, and do, look great though) The only time I've had issues on my A7s with colours is if the white balance is wrong (which is going to give you funky colours on any non-raw camera anyway, and is pretty easy to fix), or if skin is under-exposed it can struggle to hold up to extreme grading because of the 8-bit codec.

This is also very true. The specific log curves are designed for each camera, which is why the specific Slog2 on the A7s, for example, is actually a different Slog2 to the one you'll find one the F5. They're similar, but they're both designed for the different cameras. The A7s Slog2 is much closer to the F3's Slog2 (and to be 100% honest, I find the colours to be very similar between the two). I've also found grading Blackmagic log footage to be much more annoying than any other camera, even thought it its 10-bit ProRes It's not insane. It's actually totally fine - you just need to know how to grade it. XAVC-S is a lot more malleable than H.264. The one thing that initially put me off the A7s was the 8-bit Slog thing (I said to the guy - do you really think it's a good idea to shoot Slog in an 8-bit codec?). It's pretty good though. It's no 10-bit XAVC from the F5, but it can still be pushed a fair bit. Personally, I prefer to shoot to a Shogun or similar in ProRes 422HQ, which gives you a much nicer base to start with (and also gives you a waveform so you're not guessing about exposure, or needing to pull out your meter for every shot).

Haha - yes exactly this. Most people don't realise that colour grading is something that really can take years to master. The colourists I work with have been working for years as colourist, and one of my go-to's spent a year and a half observing before being allowed anywhere near the wheels. The whole 'democatisation' as they say, of the film industry, with better and better technology becoming cheaper and cheaper - has lead to a subsection of the market who expect to not have to learn or do anything, and yet still get the same/similar results to a Hollywood film. I've seen some utterly horrible skin tones out of Canon cameras - and yet people here talk about how much 'better' the Canon colours are. There are terrible grades galore all over the internet. IMO, knowing how my A7s behaves with skin, it becomes pretty easy to pick which is which - however, that's not to say that the A7s is awful at rendering skin tones, and certainly I've gotten some great skin tones out of it. If you light it right, you can get incrdible images out of it. IMO, the general public wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the two cameras in general viewing. I think it really is a matter of people being overall terrible at colour grading - and that's fine, it's a whole extra skill, and if you've shot and attempted to grade 10-bit codecs, then you can deceive yourself into thinking you understand colour and grading, when in actuality all you've done is add a curve here or there, and the fact that it is 10-bit ProRes or raw means that it's a lot more forgiving and easier to get at least a 'pleasing' look. It becomes obvious if you read through the 'history' of the A7s colour issues - first the A7s was too green, then it was too yellow, now it's too plasticky.... I often shoot PP off on my A7s for real quick turn-around stuff, and it's great. Even when shooting Slog2, I haven't really had any issues with colour - even skin tones. That being said, if you under-expose skin on the A7s, it can start to disintegrate relatively quickly.

it really depends on the type of work, and clients you're shooting for. Corporate clients? 100% gear will make a difference. For narrative work? It's much less likely to make a difference to whether you get hired or not (again, depending if you're talking low budget or high budget). Friends of mine who do own cameras like Alexa's are hired because of their work, and then they book their own camera on the job so they can make more money - they're not hired because they own the camera, the production has budgeted for camera hire anyway. also, most people don't talk 'all else being equal' because it is rare for that to be the case.

XAVC is a Sony development, and so there wouldn't be a Panasonic with XAVC implementation. If anything, you're more likely to see some flavour of AVC-Intra (which I believe is something they should do - along with a log picture profile; even if it's in a more expensive body than the GH4). Panasonic's problem is they're kinda flailing. They were way too late to the party with their large sensor cinema camera - Varicam and the Sony F900 were the digital cameras of choice, particularly for episodic television (or any production that was shooting digital and couldn't afford a Viper, Genesis or D21). Then RED came along and changed the game. Sony were able to push cameras like the F35, capitalising on technology that already existed in the F900/F950 (and assumedly what they learned in collaboration with Panavision). Then they brought out the F65 and discontinued the F35. The F65 didn't really catch on as most people had already decided on RED or Alexa (which Arri capitalised on their technology in the D21), both of which were smaller, lighter and easier to use with a similar (or better, depending on who you ask) image. Sony then brought out the F3 and then eventually the F5/55, which now has found a market, despite strong initial competition from Canon. Panasonic, meanwhile, during the time of change, has been almost nowhere to be seen. They brought out the Af100, which was a step in the right direction, but was not really even a competitor to the F3 - now it's discontinued and finally after many years of speculation and waiting, they've come out with their digital Varicam. Is it a great camera? Yes. Will it catch on? Who knows. Does it offer that much over REDs, Alexas, etc. to really help it catch on? That remains to be seen. I'm not really sure that Panasonic really know how they're structuring their camera line. At least, they don't have the structure that Sony, or even Canon do. They had such an opportunity, with the DVX100 and HVX100 that were so, so popular - and the Varicam at the top end of town and they seem to have just sat on their hands and let other companies take over their position in the market. Pansonic make good cameras, I hope they can get back into the dominating position they were in in the DVX100 times. I'm yet to hear of the A7 line overheating, but even Canon DSLRs overheat in video mode (and much moreso than the current crop of competitor DSLMs). Sony's prices are pretty competitive, IMO. The A7rII is the first camera body to come even close to the price of a 5DmkIII, and it's paper specs absolutely smash it out of the park (of course we know paper specs aren't everything). They're more expensive than Panasonic, but I'm not really sure they see Panasonic as a competitor, at least not in their full frame line. IMO, the m4/3 line will always be a stalwart of consumers and prosumers, as well as video shooters (simply because the video features they provide you with). Most photographers are going to be drawn to at least APS-C, if not full frame. I couldn't care less, but there are many photographers (and video shooters) who think full frame is the only thing worth shooting. I agree about more lenses. I don't think their agreement with Zeiss will be a hindrance - there are many SOny-only branded lenses, and for their other mounts (even APS-C E mount) there is relatively affordable decent glass available. I personally think both Sony and Panasonic need to re-think the way they market their cameras. Sony do it a little better than Panasonic, but I'm not sure that the Japanese doco-style shoots as their launch videos for new cameras are really the best way to do it. Even the F5/55 launch had some pretty terrible launch demo videos. They need to send some freebies to some decent DPs and get some really ncie footage happening. Maybe Panasonic and/or Sony should hire a really great crew and shoot some beautiful short films? Imagine a beautiful looking 3 minute short film online, or before a film festival screening for example. You look at it and think 'wow this is beautiful'. You get caught up in it, and then right at the end it comes up with 'shot on Sony A7s'. Much more effective than tests or Japanese garden videos IMO.

See - I never looked at 'test after test'. I've actually shot pretty extensively now with both systems. The Canon glass is pretty good, don't get me wrong. But I prefer the look of the Sony/Zeiss glass that I've used to the equivalent Canon Ls that I've used. There's a lot of Canon L glass out there, and it is good. In my personal opinion though, having used both, I prefer the Zeiss glass, and I think it's much better. I just prefer the look. I've never really been a huge fan of the Canon L look, but it can and does deliver great results for those that are. The fact that Sony/Zeiss don't have a competitor to every single lens that Canon has does not mean Canon make better lenses. Canon have a much wider range of native lenses for their cameras. Sony have very few, and to be fair - their full frame E mount is pretty damn new. They have a better (though still perhaps small) selection of A-mount, and APS-C E mount lenses, but their whole full frame E-mount system is very new, so it's probably to be expected that the lens selection is comparatively small. The reason is they're attached to Canon cameras. Canon have been making cameras and lenses since the 1940s Sony, by comparison, have only really been making serious cameras for what? 10 years? Canon are still #1 seller for stills use. The lenses you see at those events are probably the same lenses that specific photographer has been using for 5-10 years. Meanwhile, the Sony FE 70-200mm (which is also white, btw) only came out maybe a year ago? Of course - and this has always been true, and honestly is likely what's held Sony back in the past. It's also why there are many people buying Metabones adapters for the Canon glass they already own and buying an A7s or similar. Sony have released some really great bodies in the A7 line, but don't have the same lens line-up that Canon or Nikon do - and that will be the reason they won't penetrate the market in the same way. At least right now. Eventually, when they build up their lens line-up, both cheap and expensive, and continue to push the boundaries in their body iterations - that's when they'll start to edge closer and closer to being a #2 to either Canon or Nikon.

The Alexa has a 3.2k sensor that gets up-ressed to 4k and many DPs still prefer it to the RED, which ends up downscaling 6+k to 4k! But then there are DPs who prefer the RED. Or the F65. Okay, maybe not the F65, but you get my drift. Camera choice is pretty subjective as each different person has their different needs and wants from a camera - and most importantly, each different project has different needs. THere's no point arguing over which camera is objectively better, because you'll never really get an objective answer. Some people still like to use their T2i's because they're cheap and they prefer the colours. Others will buy an A7s because it's better specced and gives them a sharper, better image than a 5D. Do we? Personally, and I've said it before, I prefer the Sony/Zeiss glass to any Canon L glass I've used. And I've used the 50/1.2, the 85/1.2, the 24-70/2.8 etc. etc. Again, it's personal preference. You may like Canon glass and you may think it's superior to both Nikon and Sony. I disagree, and I personally think anyone who honestly thinks that the Canon glass is that much (i.e. significantly) better than the combined collection of Sony and Nikon glass probably hasn't actually used either Nikon or Sony glass. They may not have an 85/1.2, but they do have a Batis 85 1.8, and I know I'd rather shoot with that than any Canon L lens... Really? I've used my Sony pretty consistently since I bought it and not once have I had a lens fall off its mount (though I have had a Canon lens fall off a RED EF mount, but I won't hold that against Canon, because the RED EF mount isn't made by Canon). Never had an issue with my flash... Plus, I use my XLRK2M with my A7s and the hot-shoe. Love to see you do that with a Canon. Love to see you bypass the sh*t internal preamps on the Canon.... Natively? There's also a 25mm f/2.0 and an 85mmf/1.8. And plenty of others around that speed. Now, I'll accede that there's no f/1.2 or f/1.4 native E mount lenses, you're right. Honestly, though - I often use Zeiss Ultra Primes when I'm shooting F5 or Arri Alexa and they only open up to T/1.9. Maybe you think your 50mmF/1.2 is better than a Zeiss Ultra Prime 50mm T/1.9, but personally I beg to differ. The speed of a lens is not the only factor that affects performance, and in fact considering I've found many Canon lenses to be quite darker wide open than their advertised f stop, as well as the breathing when changing focus on lenses like the 85mm, I can quite honestly say I prefer a lot of other glass to Canon glass. I'd rather shoot on Zeiss Superspeeds from the 80s than Canon glass. At least when you get breathing on vintage lenses, it kind adds to the vintage characteristic... Plus, I can still adapt pretty much any lens that ever existed to my A7s (assuming it covers full frame) so.. The Canon's good glass - don't get me wrong. But it's far from the best glass in the world. Sure, but I haven't seen any 4k 1Dc footage that really impresses me. You can shoot 6k internally on the RED, but I (generally) prefer to shoot Alexa... PLus I can use my 4k recorder/monitor for any camera I shoot on... But okay I'll concede this one. I don't shoot sport, so I don't particularly care (again this is your personal preference) - the Blackmagic URSA can't shoot photos! Does that make it worse than the 1Dc? Again, the personal preference of someone who is used to shooting Canon... I have zero issues with the colours out of my A7s, and much prefer them to what I got out the Canon DSLRs I used to use.. And the A7s has two official ones, plus Clearview zoom. I can shoot 4k in full frame without cropping. But if you prefer the way your 1Dc works - that's also fine. It just doesn't mean it's objectively better. I know you love your 1Dc - and so you should, you spent a lot of money on it. But just because you own it doesn't make it the best camera in the world. It might in your eyes but I'm not attacking you personally just because I prefer my A7s. Would be great if people remembered that from time to time...

If I was only shooting stills, then I would use a Canon if only for the little things like autofocus, lens availability etc. etc. For video though, why would you go with a Canon DSLR?? Perhaps I have the virtue of coming here to learn more about the A7s, but I've shot with a lot of cameras - not just Canons and in my personal opinion the Canon colours are incredibly over-rated on here. Nowhere else, either when I'm out working, or on the internet, is there such a cry of 'oh man the Canon has the best colours in the world'. Maybe it's because a lot of people here have used Canon for a long time, or in some cases, only ever used Canon and so are simply used to the image and colour you get out of it. I'm sure if the A7s was the 5DmkII of its time, people wouldn't have complained about the supposedly 'strange colours' (which I'm personally still yet to replicate on my A7s). You can get nice colours out of almost any camera - the point of colour grading is to get colours you like. Personally, for day-to-day usage (i.e. not studio use), I'm looking for a camera that's light, easy to use and gives me a great picture. I've used 5Ds, 7Ds, and Rebels and not once was I happy with the picture straight out of the camera (and even after grading etc. it still looked meh). Now, you can say 'well you get great results if you shoot flat, reduce contrast, reduce sharpening, or use ML raw' - and that's true. But I can also get great results (if not better) by doing the same with my A7s. Except all I have to do with my A7s is turn it to Picture Profile 7. I continue to be amazed at the quality of the imagery I get out of my A7s, especially paired with the Shogun. I don't want a camera that's going to work against me, or that I have to hack to oblivion to get a half-decent image out of it. The 5D3 raw is nice, but it's not 'mind-blowing' as half the users here would have you think. I've had friends tell me they prefer the RED image to Alexa because Alexa is 'way too green' (at least it was until I pulled the green ND filter out of the matte box). In this day and age of colour correcting and grading every shot, colours start to matter less and less. Yes, they matter - but one person's dislikes an Alexa because it's too green, another dislikes RED because it gets really red noise in shadow areas from time to time, another dislikes the F55 because it can be over-saturated (or whatever). Do colourists say 'man you should have shot this on a Canon because the colours are oh so much better?' No. They correct the green out of the Alexa that the person operating forgot to take the ND off, they correct the red out of the RED that the operator under-exposed accidentally (which is why there was noise there in the first place), and they correct the saturation out of the F55 that was there because the operator didn't check the saturation setting when they picked up the camera, and the previous shooter had bumped it up. Imagine the outcry on here of 'it must have been operator error' if I said I'd seen some terrible colours out of a Canon! But you use a Sony and suddenly it's Sony's fault! In regards to the OP, if the only thing the Canon 1Dc can offer over the A7s is marginally better colours to those who have spent most of their time shooting Canon anyway - and it still costs more than 3x that of the A7s, then Canon have got real problems.

It depends on the 'client' you're talking. Producers hire Cinematographers based on talent, knowing full well they're going to have to hire a camera system. This is usually budgeted for. If the Cinematographer in question happens to own their own camera that the production can use, in this case it's generally used as a win-win for the production and the DP - the production pays a discounted rate for camera hire, and the DP gets more money as a camera hire rate. At this level, the DP is rarely chosen simply because of the gear he owns (and I have many friends who were making good money before buying cameras - they realised that 9 times out of 10 they were hiring Alexas for jobs, so they decided to buy one and take the camera hire rate themselves). On lower budget productions, having a decent camera can sometimes help to secure work. However, in this case, clients are generally looking for someone with a full package - usually camera, lights, lenses. A friend of mine is a Gaffer who works on high budget films, but also owns a RED, and tries to shoot low budget stuff (decently paid), and his gear always gets a hammering on the low budget stuff as you just can't afford the crew you regularly work with, and the general wear and tear that happens on every shoot is less likely to be compensated for than on something that has a bigger budget. He shoots quite nice looking stuff, but a DP he works (who also worked their way through as a Gaffer) said to him 'if you really want to work as a DP - sell all your gear'

To be fair - as has been pointed out - the 1Dc is $8k new, the A7s is $2.5k new. I could take almost any camera that's nearly 4x as expensive as the A7s and talk about how much better it is than the A7s. Even the FS7. Regardless, it's crazy that you can get quality that rivals (or betters) an $8k camera in a $2.5k body. A lot of what you've said is subjective opinion. But anyway, I'll bite for a few of these: This is a personal preference. You like the EF mount, and the glass that comes with it so for you, you are more likely to choose a Canon over another camera. I could just as easily talk about how a Nikon is better because it has a native Nikon mount and there's a lot of Nikon glass available. Or I could say that because I prefer the Sony E mount glass, I prefer the Sony as I can use glass that is of equal or better quality to Canon L, but is smaller You can't really say this a plus or negative for either camera. See my points mentioned above. In addition, the small FFD on the Sony means you can adapt pretty much any lens you want to to the camera, including PL glass. You like your Canon glass - that's great. The fact that the Sony can even work with the Canon glass at all is great. This point is like me complaining that when I try and mount my Sony lenses via a third party adapter on a Canon EOS-M, it doesn't work very well, and every now and then I have to disconnect/reconnect. Surely the first thing you would say to me is 'if you want something that's going to work all the time, you're better off buying native glass. You can't buy a Canon and then complain when it doesn't work very well with Sony lenses.' The reverse is true as well. And my A7s is compatible with all my Sony flashes/adapters/teleconverters without the need for adapters And I can use any of my Sony E mount lenses full wide open without fooling around and mounting in some random mode too That's the body design of the 1D series. Is it better than the 5D as well because the 5D isn't designed in this way? It's strange to talk about the 'extra expense' of a grip, because an A7s + grip is still cheaper than even a second-hand 1Dc. In fact, a Sony A7s + grip + Canon adapter is cheaper than a second hand 1Dc. With the A7s, I can take my grip off as well. I have the choice of shooting with the grip/portrait mode, or small, lightweight mode. And I like my EVF with zebras, peaking etc. for shooting video. Horses for courses. I'll take your word for this one - but I find it unlikely that Sony have dramatically less service centres. But the Sony beats it in low light performance I'm glad you like both cameras, but c'mon pretty much every single one of these is a personal preference thing.

I get it - it just seems overly Canon-bashing to me. I have nothing for or against Canon, but they're also not the only company to try and bolster sales with certain marketing ploys. ​This I agree with! Though, as was mentioned, I see this being more a Father or relative buying it as a gift, moreso than someone buying it specifically for themselves. Hey - if it works, it works! And if it sparks a passion in someone, all the better.

​I know the C300 found its market, but it's not quite correct to state that most cinematographers use the C300... ​I often wonder if Canon and Arri (and RED to some extent - at least in creating hype) are the only companies who really know how to market a camera. Sony tried their darndest with the F5/55 and it ended up with little short films that had clipped highlights, an average grade and squashed dynamic range - not at all reflective of how either camera actually handles. Panasonic's Varicam reel was nice looking, but I haven't seen or heard anything since. The latest demo shoots from Sony (for FS7, A7rII etc) are average, and do little to really show off the cameras abilities. Even the official A7s demo footage I saw was so-so. Why weren't Sony the first ones to go 'let's shoot a short film at 2am using moonlight as our only light source to show this camera off'? Why not send out some pre-production models to some big productions and see how they put them to use? Sure, the Canon 5DmkII revolution kinda grew organically, but times have changed!

Is it? I can tell you that the Cinematographers shooting Hollywood films aren't sitting around looking at specs comparisons between the GH4, and the A7s. Cinematographers test the cameras they want to test against each other and pick the one that's going to work the best. They're not basing their choice of camera off of a camera box, or an internet article or forum. ​If they really have a talent for film, the fact that they choose what people here think is the 'wrong' camera should not make a difference as to how successful they are. Have you forgotten about the films that were shot on 7Ds and 5Ds that were released in cinemas? Sure, there may be better cameras out there - but if all they're using it for is to learn then why do they need the best camera out there? Yes - but this box is not marketed towards those who might call themselves semi-pro or indie or whatever is the word of the day. It's marketed towards people who think it would be cool to shoot some video, or who might be interested in video, or who just wants to shoot some holiday/birthday videos. For them, a 750D is great/fine. It's pretty easy to use and the workflow is pretty easy. It's easy to get an okay image out of the box. Tell your amateur to go and buy an A7s and shoot in Slog and over-expose by 2 stops to get the best image. Please let me know if what they come back with is any good (it won't be). It may be better value for the price compared to someone who's looking at a 5D as their first camera ('isn't that the one that's really popular??') but is this first timer, this amateur, this person who's interested in a few happy snaps and a bit of video of the family, really going to get all that much out of an A7s or Gh4 or whatever over something else? If someone's really interested in filmmaking, I'd rather they pick this exact box off the shelf, put the rig together, go out there and just shoot as much as they can. They'll learn heaps. I'd tell them to study light, and the way light interacts within the world etc. The worst thing someone can do is spend all their time talking about what may or may not be better, at the expense of actually doing anything - which is I think what a lot of people on internet forums do. A lot of theoretic talking, and not a lot of actual shooting.​

Not sure where you've gotten this idea from, but it's not really true. This is also incorrect. H.264 is sometimes used as a delivery codec for web and the like, but H.264 is the wrong choice as an acquisition codec. The most popular acquisition format amongst people who are high-end professionals (and not just amateurs, or 'souped-up amateurs') is ProRes, closely followed by DNxHR/DNxHD. ​He's the guy who hacked the GH2 - why not use him? He obviously has a following amongst Panasonic users! You could easily say the same thing about Blackmagic and John Brawley. John Brawley is a great DP, and pretty well-known in Australia, but do many know him around the world? You could've easily said 'why did Blackmagic get John Brawley to test the BMCC instead of Andrew Reid or Philip Bloom'. You're right about Sony's lens ecosystem. It's not too bad if you have the money to invest in the Zeiss glass (and it is great glass), but there's not a lot of cheap full frame options (though in saying that, there's not a huge amount of cheap full frame Canon glass). I personally think the Sony/Zeiss glass is much better glass than Canon L, but I do think the fly-by-wire focus was a mistake. It sounds like an engineer's decision (how good would it be if...) rather than a professional shooter (either video or stills). Your points are more hearsay and subjective opinion than anything. Canon are not 'top dog' in the professional film industry. They make pro-sumer cameras that are pretty good for docos, and a cheap options for productions that simply don't have the budget for much else. There's not a huge amount of Hollywood films using a Canon camera as their A-cam. Canon are top dog in the stills world because of the history of their name, and the fact that they still make very good stills cameras. They may be completely outspecced by other manufacturers in regards to video - but if I was choosing a camera solely for shooting stills, I would be looking at Canon vs Nikon, rather than Canon vs Sony, Canon vs Panasonic etc.

​Real filmmakers test any cameras they're interested in, and choose the right tool for the job. That includes lensing etc. If you're the kind of 'filmmaker' that gets taken in by a new box... Well you're probably not the kind of 'filmmaker' that's going to care anyway. ​They deserve to be bashed for being smart about their product line? They deserve to be bashed because the 'pro-sumer/indie pro video demo' (who make up a tiny percentage of their sales to begin with) are happier shooting with other cameras...? You're right about the C300 though. The C(x)00 series has always been over-priced for what you get.

​I already addressed this - yes Canon cameras are outclasses by their competition and can't compete on a price vs spec basis in comparison to direct and non-direct competitors. Does that mean they should just shut down their factories, recall all cameras from shelves and say 'welp, that's it for us?' Are their sales declining as much as we like to think they are? Do you think it's ridiculous that Apple use marketing to sell their devices, when for the most part they tend to be out-specced by Androids? ​Not really. It'd be like putting together a pack with a portable gas burner, a pan and a couple of utensils and marketing it as a 'cook like a chef' pack. Is a chef going to pick up that package and go 'yeah this is what I need'? No. They're not. But someone might pick that up and spark a new passion for cooking. They might pick it up and just use it for the occasional meal here and there because that's all they need. Should the company selling it to them be drawn and quartered for doing so? I know we all love to hate Canon - I personally have never been a huge fan of Canon's cameras. But if you're going to attack Canon for this, you may as well attack any Alexa advertising that boasts the shows it's been used on because it's outspecced by RED.

Eh - I mean, who really cares? There are people who own RED cameras who have no clue how to expose an image, let alone light an interesting scene. There are people who started shooting on Super 8mm, or Hi-8 video who are now making quite good movies (even Hollywood ones!) Whether or not someone is taken in by the marketing ploy or not - does it really matter? Sure none of the Canon cameras can really compete on a price vs spec level. But does that mean you can't get a great image out of them? I've seen 7D and 5D stuff blown up onto the big screen and intercut with Alexa footage. Does that mean my A7s couldn't give a better image than both of those cameras? Of course it can. So what? I like the way the A7s works, and I like the image I can get out of it. I love that I can use it as a B-cam for an F5, or Alexa or whatever. I prefer the ergonomics, the usability and the image to the Blackmagic pocket (and honestly, even the Blackmagic Cinema Cam). Many would think me stupid for having such an opinion ('haven't you seen the colours from the A7s?!!) and yet there are plenty professional filmmakers (even Hollywood filmmakers) using the camera day-to-day and producing beautiful images. Yep - the lines of cameras they are trying to push are outdated, and outspecced by any of the current DSLMs. Doesn't mean one can't get a decent image out of it - and it doesn't mean you can't tell a good story with it. Look at Tangerine. While everyone here was busy arguing over which camera had the better dynamic range, or colour rendition, a bunch of filmmakers went out and shot a film on an iPhone, told a great story and got into Sundance, and is now opening in cinemas across the world. And you laugh at someone who buys a 70D... Maybe Canon are having their Kodak moment - though Kodak never had cinema cameras to bolster their line up... Pretty much every camera company uses this kind of marketing to push their cameras. You can laugh at the fact that their cameras are overpriced, but can you blame them for trying to push their product (which may or may not be declining in sales) as much as they possibly can?

​I get the feeling that they may have been 'floaty' because they weren't sure whether they'd be able to get the licenses to take advantage of, for example, ARRIRAW or if Sony would be happy to play ball to implement raw with the Fs7/FS700 etc. I sincerely doubt the A7s will get raw output.

​I opted for the native glass purely because it's smaller and lighter (in addition to autofocus/exposure performance for stills). The downside to the native glass is it's all 'fly-by-wire' focusing which is not necessarily the greatest for video - just takes a bit of getting used to.

My prediction is that it will be announced somewhere towards the back end of Q1 2016, or early Q2. It will essentially have most of the features of the A7rII except with the super low-light performance of the current A7s. I imagine somewhere around 15-17MP, with clean full frame internal 8-bit 4:2:0 4k and greatly reduced rolling shutter. I'm thinking along the lines of 4k60p, 1080p240. I think you'll probably see Slog2 able to go down to ISO1600. It will have a killer feature that makes everyone here want it over the A7rII and A7s. Maybe a combination of 4k60p, 1080p240, and a stop or two sensitivity bump to take it over 1million ISO. 10-bit HDMI output and Slog3 would be nice, but I doubt it will happen. 10-bit 4:2:2 might be an HDMI thing, but I'm doubting it. The A7s won't be in competition with the FS7. I imagine it will be priced around $3500-3999

There's really not that much that is a 'must-have' for the A7s - you can shoot relatively comfortably out of the box. I would say you should get at least 2x more batteries, and maybe the battery grip; the battery life is not awesome. Also, you can only shoot XAVC-S onto SDXC cards. Forward of that though, it will really come down to personal preference. My favourite 'walk-around' lens is the 24-70 f/4.0. I also really like the 70-200 f/4.0 but again will depend on how you like to shoot. I like using primes on it, but for holiday shooting, I'm more inclined to use the zooms. Really depends - do you want more than one lens? Do you like to shoot wides or CUs or both...? The 16-35mm f/4.0 is also a really nice lens, though I don't own it as I don't shoot wides all that often (and have a 14mm Rokinon Cine prime if I want to). Your 35mm will be a 35mm. Sony A7s is full frame, just like your 5D mkiii (leaving aside the fact that a lens actual focal length doesn't change based on the sensor you put it on).

Use the camera's spot metering. It will tell you when you're '+2.0'

100% fake. It doesn't even look like Sony footage (not to mention why would you mke a big deal of '4k video' and then only upload 720p footage to YouTube).