Tim Sewell

My guess would be that this camera will be priced considerably above $3000.

Eric Naso (who's had a look at the covered dummy/prototype at the show) reckons the lens has the red canon band and suggests it may be the 16-35 2.8L. http://www.newsshooter.com/2017/04/24/panasonic-teases-new-cine-camera-at-nab/

This. It's quicker, easier and much more professional if - when you meet someone with whom you wish to develop a business relationship - you can hand them a neat, simple card with all of your contact details.

An area of relevance to us lower mortals not using C300 mkiis is that (if it does indeed have the same provenance) the issue may well get cleared up on the XC10/15 as a side-benefit from pressure to fix being exerted on Canon by angry pros holding 5-figure cameras exhibiting ghosting like this.

"If I offended anyone please accept my sincere apology." You didn't, but it takes a big man to post that. Peace and love.

That may or not be a 'good thing', but I don't think it will happen to any great degree. Movie stars are movie stars and, no matter what you think of them individually, each have a 'something' that most people don't (and I probably include a few vloggers in roughly the same category). My point is that those very rare people will continue to command vast fees, which means that professional, talented, experienced production people will always be in demand - to be entirely sure that you'll get exactly the right stuff in the can in the amount of the talent's time you can pay for, you can afford those people more than you can afford to go auto-everything.

Excellent!

Pretty convincing.

Mt two-pennorth - I use computers all day, every day (I'm a software developer). My last 2 machines have been Macbook Pros because that's the environment they use on my current contract (when I bought the first one, at the Apple Store in Covent Garden, they guy found out it was my first Macbook and asked me, as we headed for the till, if I was excited! - heh). My previous contract was in a Linux-based shop so I carried on using my 15" stuffed-to-the-gills Dell XPS (which is still going strong for my wife) that I had bought at the beginning of the previous Linux/Windows contract. They're just machines. FCPX is my NLE of choice at the moment because that's what runs best on the machine I have. Hopefully (I bought my new Macbook late last year - don't like the look of the new ones) my next job will require a Windows machine as you can just get a lot more grunt for your money. If I move house and get the space I'll probably build my own desktop for video/photo work. I can't really get excited about either system. You buy what's best for the job you're doing and you learn to use it.

Best explanation of organised Abrahamic religion I have ever seen! And the ones started by religion are really about the money too. The religion just helps to get people riled up and ready to kill.

This camera has an annoying habit, if you use HFR, of maintaining the actual shutter speed, rather than the angle, so if you wind up to 60fps you have to re-adjust the angle back from 360 to 180 (if that's your bag - it is mine) and likewise, in reverse, when you return to your normal speed - so this is a great little update (and was much requested, I believe)

http://www.newsshooter.com/2017/03/31/canon-firmware-updates-march-2017/ For me - C100 mkii shutter angle priority is a lovely little gift from Canon!

Love your reel!

Not that I can see.

Also, the cheaper the ND, the more likely that it will produce a weird cross effect across your image at its darkest settings. After trying a couple of cheaper ones I went to the next level up, buying the SLR Magic variable ND, which is excellent with none of the aforementioned issue and very little IR pollution that I can discern. There are, of course, other, more expensive, solutions available!

They'll look like full frame with the top and the bottom lopped off.

Left me wanting to see more (well, maybe not more rolling shutter ;-), but definitely more of the story!).

I searched under both 'egg crate' and 'honeycomb'. My problem is that it's an inexpensive softbox, so I don't really want to spend more on the grid (see what I did there) than I did in the first place. Thanks for the suggestions, though - I'll have a look.

Hi - I've got a 120x100cm heat resistant softbox for my redheads, but buggered if I can fine an egg crate of similar dimensions for it - any ideas, anybody?

That looks interesting - does it do the face AF as well?

Hi @hijodeibn - DPAF and IS work great on the 17-55 2.8 but the noise is sufficient to register with the onboard microphones (both the scratch one and the handle ones - I haven't tried it yet with a camera-mounted shotgun) - in fact even the iris changes would be too loud, I think, for critical work. I don't have the 18-55 STM, just the 18-135 and the 55-250. DPAF may be slightly faster on these lenses (and is noticeably excellent on the longer zoom) and face recognition is also very good. They are near-silent in operation. In summation, if image quality/low-light was my priority and I was recording dual system or MOS I would opt for the 17-55 2.8 every time; otherwise it would be the STMs.

Wish I'd kept quiet now. Tim out!

If you're so familiar with the world outside YouTube you'd be aware that OBL was a highly educated Saudi civil engineer and that the majority of the actual hijackers were also Saudi graduates. You'd also be aware that the much-vaunted defence infrastructure was, quite rightly, not ranged against the possibility that airliners making internal flights would be converted to use as missiles. As they say - to be successful the security services have to get it right every time, the terrorists only have to get it right once.

So, this is developing:

Had a look around Google and it could be a fungus or mould. Various people suggest trying something called a UVC sanitizer wand - something like this: https://www.amazon.com/Verilux-CleanWave-Portable-Sanitizing-Travel/dp/B00144I3ZU/ref=sr_1_1_a_it?ie=UTF8&qid=1490088025&sr=8-1&keywords=uv+sanitizer. I guess it's perfectly possible that there's something in the air at that location that hasn't been there other times you've visited.