EduPortas

Hey, Andrew. Long time no see. As other posters have said, YouTube has become a massive marketing tool. It started as a place to spread knowledge. But now its 99% marketing. More specifically "Content Marketing". For charismatic youtubers, this is a godsend, even when their analytic perspective is....cuestionable. As you've astutely noted, it would be impossible for the average person to buy the gear big video-centric channels feature each month. That's where content marketing comes in. Canon, Apple, Sony, etc. provide the gear and the YouTuber provides some semblance of "journalism". But, as with all marketing efforts, it's a controlled voice: said YouTuber will seldom ever criticize the gear they have received. They weasel out by saying "it's good, but this other model by Canon/Sony/Fuji" is even better" because they have already "reviewed" and placed the corresponding Amazon link to that other gear. So basically, they never lose. They will never destroy the camera with a scathing review. Never. That would mean no more camera review trips to Hawaii and being thrown "out of the loop" by electronic companies.It's always "it's very good but maybe spend a little bit more and get X gear and X lens". Most of the time, they already have newer and better gear under embargo. Weasel tactics. The marketing wheel must be pushed forward to newer, better, more expensive gear.

Can you use punch-in focus during recording? Now that I mention it, is there any DSLR that allows you to do this?

I respect your position, JP. I really do. You obviously prefer newer technologies to solve your video-related problems. There's just a small concern with that: these new hybrid MILC/DLSRs are not a mature technology. There will be problems with video AF because that's not their primary function. Yet, it's remarkable just how much they have advanced in the last five years. For that, I commend savvy engineers at Canon, Sony, Pana, etc. For ME, for my personal work-related needs, they are not usable. Yet. I still prefer a trusty video camera that does not hunt around in AF mode and is easier to operate. They are a much more mature technology. Hope that was clear and we can agree to disagree. Cheers.

Go ahead, enjoy your MILC/DSLR. I can't see how's that arrogant, I'm just a pragmatist. As I said before, my own personal experience with one of the best and most advanced cameras in the business in terms of video AF (Canon's 7Dm2 with DPAF) showed me that even though DLSRs have made huge steps in focusing performance, we are still far away from the average AF performance of a dedicated video camera. You know the answer already: the industrial design of a video camera is very different from a DSLR. Use the best tool for the job. If you live inside a studio, take your time to focus with your cool MILC/DLSR. I can't afford that. I can't have any AF mishaps. Not in the middle of covering a protest and your ass (or your life) is on the line, for example. For journo work, at least for the moment, I'm sticking with video cams.

Of course there are times when you would use AF: when using a dedicated videocamera, not a MILC or a DSLR! That's the way I roll, my friend. Not condescending at all, just stating that pros don't let their gear get in their way. And by that I mean not trusting AF systems on MILCs or DSLRs. Have we become that lazy?

So much controversy around a MILC that never promised earth-shattering video AF performance. We've become lazy. Either move your wrist around the barrel of the lens and make the enormous effort of +focusing+ like pros have done for DECADES or buy a good videocamera and see your AF problems melt away thanks to its inherent design nature. This coming from an owner of a 7Dm2 which has, arguably, one of the better video AF systems in the industry (DPAF). Even them, I rarely trust the camera to do the focusing for me. I can't afford even a single AF hunting second. So I go full manual. You know, like a paid professional!

Last week I updated my sister's 2010 MacBook Pro with an solid state drive sold by OWC (assembled in Mexico, btw). The machine has completely revived! It's now a monster. Sadly, Apple lost a considerable amount of customers when they decided to hard-wire their components to their motherboard. For me, that's when they crossed the Rubicon (I still use 2012 machines. Good enough for me)

I agree. I prefer the dual-pixel focusing system on my 7D MII, but the 6D is no slouch. Definetly a different "look". If you can jump for C100, go for it. Seems like a much better deal now that the newer version is available. Maybe even the XC10, as other users have said. Big increase in overall quality.

Cheers, I'll try to post some before and after still shots of the graded material of my last visit to the woods. You'll get a good idea of the latitude of the 7D MII. However, I would strongly advise you to test your particular camera-lens combination with both of the camera's you mentioned. I've found that Canon lenses make a huge difference in video. Every fault of the lens is magnified in video, as well as its attributes. This is specially true for skin tones and the overall detail you wish to obtain from the human face. Right now I can't shoot without my 17-55 or a decent prime (not necessarily L primes, though).

Hello, happy owner of a Canon 7D Mark II here. Also, buyer of Andrew's picture profiles. Tried them the other day in the woods and got a very nice image after 1-click grading with FilmConvert. Easy as pie. I shot at 60p with my F2.8 17-55mm. Most of the shots were at 17mm and F5.6. My ISOs were pretty high. I specifically decided to record some clips in the Mexican woods because of the complex detail of the leaves, sticks, etc., and the strong contrast between shadows and well-lit spaces. In years past, I've visited the same woods with my former 6D and my Fuji X100. The Canon 7D Mark II takes considerable better video than both. Hope this helps.

Have you considered Sony's RX10? It's below your budget and from what I've read has been improved since its release thanks in part to a new XAVC-S codec via firmware.

You are right. I wasn't aware of that. Still, he is not exactly the most critical figure of video or photo gear, right? That's what I meant with my original statement "PR stunt". He is a public figure known mostly for his acting skills, not his online community. Nice move, Samsung.

I agree. Image looks nice and flat, but I can't trust the origin of the project. Seems like well designed PR stunt by Samsung with the cool actor of the moment.

This is important, right? I understand it's different from the original C100 or is this just PR-speak? From Canon: " (The Digic DV III ) processes the RGB representations that originate in the single CMOS sensor of the camera into three channels (Red, Blue, and Green) to maintain the rich resolution and clean color fidelity formerly possible only in three-chip sensor designs".

Very nice, Gonzalo. I'm also obsessed with proper skin tones and relieved that the A7s can deliver natural looks (I'm planning it as future purchase). I also see you used a third-party lens and got great results. Couple of questions: Have you used Sony's native FF lenses? Do you believe they can render similar results? Thanks! (Saludos desde México)

Thanks, E. I was expecting that :[

Hello. First post here on this fantastic site. I would be very nice indeed if someone could test the new clean, uncompressed HDMI video output in 8-bit 4:2:2 of this camera. It's not 10 bit, but hey, a lot of readers of EOSHD have been asking for this upgrade at the entry-level of Canon gear for quite some time ( I ignore if you can do this with a 5D Mark III and if it's worth the hassle) Maybe then the 7D Mark II will it seem more palatable vs Sony and Panasonic?