Mattias Burling

All my s8 cameras shoot 24p so its not totally out of place just sticking to that.

So far I have never seen any FS7 10-bit footage with more usable DR than Canon 8-bit C-log.

Why speculate on what I think when you can just ask me? But yes. Because of money. Mercer already gave an answer on one theory far more likely and what some rep said. That leads to money by selling more cameras. And you are never gonna convince me that they asked a DP if he/she wanted ibis and they said no. More likely they asked if they wanted ibis if it meant consequences A, B, C and D. For example price. So yeah. It is about saving bucks. What, you really think Canon asked people here on a forum if the C200 should have a middle codec and they said no? See what I did there?

This I don't and won't believe no matter who said it

Since 4K still isn't even close to be more spread than 1080p, let alone 720p. I too think it will be a few years before its any sort of standard. 5 years if Im very, very, veeery generous.

If I need to grade so much that Canon 8-bit clog doesn't hold up, then I need raw. 10bit mid codec wouldn't save me. In my experience 8-bit from Canon can be pushed alot and looks gorgeous. I totally respect that people want a mid codec. Im not judging. Im just saying that for me personally it would never ever be needed and Im glad Canon did what they did. Hopefully they will do the same in more cameras so if I end up buying it one day, I won't have to pay extra for some prores license.

Im not really on board this lust for a middle codec. And I never really got it either. On a bmpcc I shoot raw or proxy. Lightest or the best. No in between or half ass. Imagine talking to a client. "So Mr Penisburg, do you want the best of the best? Or do you want to prioritize time and money? Or do you want something kinda expensive and I guess decent quality that won't take that long but not exactly fast either?" The C100 is still good enough for anything I ever get involved with (TV, webb, jumbotrons). So I could definitely live without some "mellanmjölk" codec Remember how we used to joke about Canon actually making a great camera and forums still finding flaws. You know how many cameras today have everything we asked for two years ago and we promised that would be "it". All happy. But we then turn every single rock in search of something to be unhappy about. I of course expected it to happen when I posted the first thread about the c200. But I didn't in my wildest dreams expect it to be such weird and odd request as a "middle" codec. I was literally speechless

I didn't agree with the earlier mentioned reasons like ssd and I don't care much about the new list of reasons. But thats just me. If that stuff is important to you then thats how it is. For me this camera is to late to the party. BMD, Canon etc already had us covered. Sorry for the OT, I will stay away from the thread now since I have little to no interest in the gear at hand.

No need imo.

I would still get the Canon if money wasn't an issue. I see little reasons to get the Kinefinity over it besides cost.

Prices are really bananas these days. For example, I can buy a C300i with PDAF for less than a used GH5. Travel back and tell me that three years ago and give me a good laugh

S35mm sensor.

Your right. They are just the largest and most successful manufacturer of both mirrorless and DSLRs with huge profits. But this announcement must appeal to a OliKMIA or they are done. Because they are one single customer short of bankruptcy.

No speedbooster for the BMCC EF camera.

You forgot to say "imo". I know its just your subjective feeling but some wouldn't and it would just lead to unnecessary arguing.

Probably. I have a memory about them not carring about paying for prores either.

Sub forums kills forums.

The RX line already had competition with the mark ii and LX15. And in some respects the lx100. I recommend at least five people to consider the canon mkii over the rx100xx. All of them choose the Canon after trying both. Imo that says something about appealing to regular people. Personally Ive bought the rx100, ii and the iv no less than 4 times and been disappointed. So if Canon makes this it will be on my radar.

For an expert he really sucked at using the reflecta. Any who, pro labs sometimes sell out their pro printers and they dont cost anyway near $10k. Not even $1k. And one can always DIY. Or.. send to a lab.

I don't. No-one does. I have developed regular E-6 reversal in s8 and s16mm. If one can live with some gritt, low framerate and more gritt then s35 widescreen is very easy to shoot and develop. The camera is like $50 Starts at 0:45 ish Or if you can get your hands on a D16.. grabb it and don't let go. And that includes the Monochrome imo.

The definition of usable is highly subjective. If the standards are that high one should be looking at at least s16 anyway. And movie scanners.. I see them maybe 2-4 times/year locally on classifieds. Always free in exchange for pickup or a symbolic figure. Its the buyers market.

Yes. The e-mount is still protected as well. So far they allow e-mount lenses from third party but no cameras. Which is a major bummer.

They have already brought back reversal film. And others companies kept selling it. I can buy both color and b&w reversal film at my local store. Chem to develop it as well. It never went away. Kodachrome looks great but is very expensive and annoying to develop. And it could be archived more than 30-40 years before it started to fall apart. Btw, s8 scanners are now $500 used. So the entire production chain is totally possible at home for very little money.

Sigma will not be allowed legally to start making lenses for the Z mount unless Nikon says so. Its not the F mount where talking about, this will be patent protected. I have no doubt Sigma will make lenses. But it will be with Nikons blessing.

I haven't tested the new gadget that brings AF for manual focus lenses on gimbals but if it works out the need for the AF might go down.