Mattias Burling

Who gives a crap about sponsorship. Go to any biog sports event anywhere in the world and look at the 99.9% Canon being used. And that is NOT sponsorship that is the preferred tools of sports photographers. And that includes the Olympics. That 99.9% of the photographers there use Canon is because they like it the most and think Panasony sucks. Thinking the reason they don't use a m4/3 mirrorless is because of some deal is naive at best.

Here its still peanuts.

Its just classic spolied kid behavior. He clearly said april 1st. If its true or not doesn't matter, thats the date. But some just can't accept that they have to wait for things. They instead try to provoke, debate, etc.

I sure hope you will have to eat those words.

This.

And since the thread is mostly speculations one can also speculate that the crop, crops out focus points making the DPAF not as good as Canon wants. Fixing all of it means a different bigger design, or another sensor which means more money. The choice of sensor is probably like every other component. Weighted against how many they can use to get the cost down. Its no coincidence companies tries to keep as much components the same. If they can use them in two-three generations they can bulk buy three times as many. Blackmagic are experts at this. They reuse knobs, contacts, screens, etc across everything. Same components in cameras as studio equipment.

"The cost required to introduce [features like 4K] into cameras dictates the kind of features that we can introduce [in products of different classes]."

It sounds like he is talking about size and price. The balance is, "sure we can put in anything you want but its gonna cost you and make it bigger. And that's not what this camera is about."

Magic Lantern released their update on april 1st so my hopes are high

An employee of Leica developing once was asked what was best. Leicas imbedded raw interpretation or Adobes. His answer was something like, "they built the raw develop software so Im sure they do a better job with the raw files." I keep that in mind since then.

On my computer Adobe and the in camera simulations ends up 100% identical with zero effort. So for me its raw or nothing. But I can definitely understand the appeal of good jpegs. It depends on what parts of the images making process one appreciate. Same thing goes for video. If one loves shooting but hates grading, then a bmpcc isn't exactly a killer camera. But if one enjoys the post process a low bitrate stills camera might feel underwhelming.

Yeah I dont think they ever tried to emulate exactly with Acros, velvia, etc. Its more a naming thing with a hint of those stocks character. And I also agree on the less need for post to save skin approach. I gave up dialing down contrast and saturation a long time ago. My philosophy is that someone have spent alot of time and money on the baked in curves. And they are probably a better starting point than what I can get. On fuji I usually pick a look in camera and only do minor luma tweaks in post. Looks great imo.

If I can rent one I can compare to the rolls of s16 Eterna 250D I have in my freezer (stocked up when it was discontinued)

I will try, first attempt there was no difference and with the XT20 they where also identical. But with your source material I didn't peep that much because I didn't have time. But like I said, I will try again. You really don't have to spend more time gathering "proof", Im just curious but its not the end off the world if I can't replicate it. The footage from our X-T20 looks good enough anyway. Thanks for your help anyway, really appreciate it.

I agree, the IS in the XC10 is sweet and one of my favourite features with it. Many volgers however use the punch in to make jump cuts when they are blabbing to long or get side tracked. And for that HD is fine imo.

Yes, but it contains the same information. There are no crushed blacks thats not recoverable with a simple preset. After a quick adjustment (one click) I see pretty much the same image. What Im trying to determine is if the -2 shadow gives you information that otherwise is lost. Because that was what I doubted from the beginning and that spurred this hole thing

Cool, thanks When quickly comparing shadows -2 and shadows 0 I see no difference but I will have to take a better look later when I get home. Just to make sure, these where exact same aperture/shutter/iso/ND/etc? Identical exposure?

True, depending on how much one wants to peep, you can punch in on HD for youtube and no one would ever know. I know plenty that have done it for years including myself (I believe in 99% of all my videos), no complaints so far. On standard HD DSLR footage I go 80% punch in without thinking twice about it I will of course go further with 4K, but for a blog it would be sufficient imo. BTW, After watching Kais sample footage this camera got very interesting imo. I don't need it right now but maybe after the summer when it can be found used I would consider it. I always liked the original M and M3 for stills so this should be about the same plus really good looking video, at least to my eye.

Could someone with the camera shoot a second or two with for example Eterna in default and then the same scene with lifted shadows and different DR setting. And then share the clips? Would be interesting to see if there truly is a difference or if its replicable in post.

Me too... keep us posted

Maybe he hooked it to a recorder? EDIT: or is it internal @Arikhan ?

Anyone tried the Canon 20-35mm f2.8 L? I just bought one at a good price. I was actually after the 5D rear cap it came with but might keep the lens to use for a Canon with video in the future. If anyone used it with a 5Diii and ML raw I would love to see the results.

I will take a look later and see what I can figure out. Ive quickly eyed the article and one thing stood out to me, "These tone controls are not that easily replicated in Adobe Camera Raw, or lightroom using the shadow and highlight sliders and they look subtly different." Im can't agree to that but guess its again depending on the user and their experience and definition of "easy". Its not as of topic as other parts of the thread but I will PM if I find something out or have further questions.

On some cameras I would have too agree. But over all having more features never hurt nobody. The interesting question is if someone have found credible info on how it would change the price. Most of those folks are thinking that adding video has contributed to a higher price of the camera. I can imagine it has some impact but never seen any facts showing exactly how much/little.