Arikhan

@Andrew Reid That's the point. And - as you have mentionned - it's not the first time this company lies. Confidence is important too...And there are people who don't want to give their money to companies they don't trust. Instead of investing in blatant marketing lies and spreading noncredible, bullshit advertorials, Canon could invest money in a real 1080p resolution in their DSLR cameras...Brave new world...

@Davey So, you BELIEVE that the guy sold his pro equipment and shoots now with the 80D? Sorry, when Canon states things like this, I have to laugh. We own over 60 (!) Canon major lenses, ALL Canon Cameras since 2001 (excepting the new 5D IV and 1DX II) and I love Canon. But this statement is bullshit and a sign, that this company is on the wrong way. That's why now we are changing (for stills) completely to Nikon, after 25 years + of Canon. Enough is enough...Vastly overpriced products, poor dynamic range and the ultraconservative attitude make Canon unbuyable for us. The 80D? A good camera for 2003. Simply 3 years too late and - excepting DPAF - no reason to buy at this price. And some morons state, they would sell exceptional cameras for filming with the 80D... Of course... :-))))

@Tim Sewell Very good description of the problem. "There's honor among thieves" - that's not a special DPReview problem...It's the problem of 90% of publishers. That's why I like the "affiliate links reviewers". Transparent claims and a mostly clear business concept: people liking their reviews and tipps, can help keeping the service free by buying items through affiliate links. The advertorials / paid editorials visualize the problem, that classical advertitzing is dead. People simply hate unsubstancial and unrealistic marketing bullshit. "Sponsored posts" is the last best hope of a completly sick marketing industry. Nothing wrong about making money: but please stop crying out incredible marketing buillshit. Just try to inform and not fool potential customers! BTW: Take a look at the users comments on YT. ZERO credibility for this Canon video post. Z E R O

@Kisaha I live in Germany near Frankfurt...As I understand, you are living in Greece. But in Greece (let's take my example mentionned, a guy with a FS7) a FS7 surely costs about 11.000$ (without needed basic accessories or lenses) too, there you have also to pay a rental or the costs for a house or appartment, alike costs for medical insurance, pension, etc. too. So, 100.000 would be income, not profit. The earning would be about 35% of the income (please consider costs and taxes). Considering the skills a good camera man / DOP has to have and the entrepreneurial risk, I don't think that 34.000$ is a exagerated high yearly profit... ;-) To compare what other people charge, take a look here...It's about wedding photography, but in this industry people bill reasonably calculated prices more than in other creative industries... @fuzzynormal If your creativity is a strong asset and your unique selling point, that's the way to go. My experience during assisting projects: Clients always take used gear in consideration. The bigger the used cameras and more spectacular the gear, the better - clients consider you as a "pro". Clients do NOT associate DSLR cameras with professional filming. Only "serious" camcorder or shoulder cams...I hear many people saying, their clients don't care about gear used by filming team. I can not confirm this statement. There are such clients too, hiring the famous DOP XYZ because of his/her fame...but 95% of clients take a look at your gear and project their perception of film making on your gear. Big cameras, lenses, etc.... The industry denies this aspect, but it's the reality....Clients are not evil, they just don't have any clue, that a today's 1.000$ DSLR camera would deliver better IQ than a 25.000$ cam from 2008. And most clients still think, filming is mostly a matter of gear (mainly camera) quality...

@Kisaha Nope. The money is neccessary to survive (as said, there are many additional costs for a one man band as medical insurance, pension, gear costs, etc. pp) and pay bills. As already said, I know people offering their FS7 camera services for just 75, EUR/hour. These are mostly people who have to sell camera and gear to pay a repair of their car. Kisaha, I am still scholar...and wanted to make a carreer in filming. My father said "Never, ever!". And he was right. He gave me the possibility to take a look at the media and filming industry. And I took a look at the reality...sometimes I had to vomit (sorry for the drastic words but this is the truth)... It's much better to practice filming as a challenging hobby, without the need to sell my ass for pennies. For sure I am not a experienced camera man, but I can do basic calculations. The filming industry is for many people "hunger games"...because they can not calculate their costs, spendings and earnings. Perhaps they are more artists than economists, but to survive we all need to earn money. Though I am young, I am not naive, so I will go to university, and get a master in engineering...With a good salary or good earnigs in a "realistic" firm, I can afford every camera I dream about...without having to work in slave conditions, only for paying gear and costs...without prostitution and carrying so many risks for just a few bucks... Till two years ago, I did just stills...with the best Canon equipment possible, owning the major best lenses Canon ever made...BUT - all this was earned by my father with a six figures salary per year...All this very good gear is NOT earned in the media industry, but in a classical industry. If you don't have to care about return on investment, you can simply afford very good gear (as scholar I can NOT, I just have to use my family's gear) and have fun with filming....without having to care about people only interested in ROI, marketing and business. I think, artistic filming is a luxury and not just a job. As job, it's a mostly very bad paid job (not for all, but for a majority of market players)...If not, you have to calculate better than then guys doing FS7-jobs (plus audio, plus DJI Ronin, plus sliders, plus, plus, plus...) and charging only 75 Euro an hour... PS: I talk about quotes for a ONE MAN band (with camera, lenses, simple stabilizer, slider. basic lighting, basic audio)...For assistants, you have to charge minimum of 75 Euro / hour...It's not insane, that's economic reality. And for sure, if taking a closer look, that might be too cheap...

@HockeyFan12 If you are self employed and complete all the work alone, people I know charge about 125 Euro/hour (taxes, pension, medical assurance, gear money, etc.) - my experience when assisting. Agencies charge much more than this and pay camera men, cutters, colorists, etc. much (!) less....It's always the best to handle the clients directly and not via agencies. It makes sense to invest substancial sums in your own marketing / promotion. Before assisting in many projects, I never would think, that it would be better to invest (eg to visualize ratio of reinvestment) 5.000 bucks in marketing and only 1.500 in gear. But that's what I've experienced in assisting projects from 3.500 to 70.000 Euro. More than 70% of filming business is about self marketing and clients management and not about filming...At least in my eyes...

@Andrew Reid Andrew, it's NOT about "advertising-free". It's about autonomy and independence. If you would use here affiliate links, I would be sure you would use them for every reviewed device, independent from manufacturer name. But when working with "sponsored posts" directly from manufacturers means, authors are involved directly with manufacturers money. That does not necessarly mean, manufacturers can buy author's general opinion, but it leaves a quite bad taste in my mouth...Never trust paid morons, expressing manufacturers marketing bullshit...

@Andrew Reid Though I do not always agree with your points of view, that's why I read your blog and trust many people here: a kind of "autonomy" (in my eyes) and friendly help, independent of camera or gear brands. "Sponsored content" is a calamity for the internet as a magazine or blog taking money from firms for publishing their articles, loose completely their editorial independence. It's not about money, it's all about independence and credibility - now lost. But no problem, there are enough credible alternatives for DPReview and the other paid henchmen of the camera review industry...

@Axel Though I like the NX1, this camera is in my eyes just "poor man's RED"...I know about it's flaws and weeknesses, but there is no cam wthout weeknesses and quirks, even at a price range of 20.000$ +. The NX1 is in my eyes affordable quality (IQ, AF, etc.) for a one man band or small teams. Nothing more...It offers a very good (native, not downscaled from 4K) 1080p and slomo (120fps) IQ, only beaten by about 3 DSLRs in the industry. Working with the NX1, it's face detection (AF) on dynamic shootings and a gimbal is in my eyes a charm, only beaten by Canon DPAF and the a6300/a6500/RX100v. But...it's far away from a "ultimate answer". THIS is (in my eyes) an "ultimate answer": It's just impressive and beautiful. In hands of professionals (cameramen, colorists, conceptioners, DOPs, etc.), a weapon. The NX1 is far away from a weapon, even in hands of serious pros - it's just affordable HQ. BTW: I don't like junk food.

@Axel For sure I am not the most experienced filmmaker, but now I care for years about impact of film / video clips on audience. And as more than 90 percent of current productions are documentaries, narratives, commercials, etc. (and NOT productions for film theatre), every filmmaker should care about the requirements of his audience...and not about the requirements of an "inner circle" of enthusiastic freaks. At least, if you want a growing audience to watch your films. And that's the point, at least in Germany. NO ONE cares about "filmic look"...People care much more about "beautiful" colors (and this is VERY subjective, as one loves vivid colors, the other one likes more pale and decent colors, etc.), contrast and a sharp look - on big screen displays. On mobile devices, the content is the most important, as optical perception of a film on smartphones (crispness, colors, balance, etc.) is a matter of second-tier... So, in my experience, neither in photography nor in films, the audience cares much about specific colors. Nikon colors vs Canon colors (photography) and Canon color science vs. Sony (just an example) is more an artificial "war" between fans of a color science than a matter for people (average Joe) watching photos and films. People like tack sharp and well composed photos - that's what everyone immediately sees. Colors is for most people a secondary matter... For now about two decades we live in the digital age of film...filmmakers should consider, that we have to point out the advantages of digital film: blatant precision, crispness, detail, flexibility in post, etc. The run on the "old filmic look" is more a matter of nostalgy of a few geeks, as the definition of film and film look and audience preferences are constantly changing. There are though elements of the old filmic style to adopt, but there are many elements to be revoked too - because we are in 2016 and no more in the 80s...Filmmaking has just to consider the diversity of audience preferences. Please don't misunderstand me: if one wants to massacre his 8K footage to a soft 1080p footage because of "cinematic look", OK, each to his own. BUT than we could throw away all 4K + devices and the technical progress of the last 10 years...

@Axel People criticize Canon for "soft" 1080p IQ. OK...When getting very sharp footage (eg out of the NX1), they soften it artificially. I've often seen many mushy pixel soups out of the NX and I ask myself about the sense of shooting sharp and detailed footage (people like crisp sharp 8K footage out of the RED too...) for ruining it in post...If one likes soft and grainy footage, one just need to use a 6D. Perfect soft and undetailed footage out of the camera...Please consider, I am still quite young and unexperienced, but in my eyes that's quite absurd... I never met a person saying: "What a beautiful mushy footage...". People around me say: "What a beautiful crisp footage...". OK, people saying this are not filmmakers but spectators - and still I tend to trust them... @ricardo_sousa11 The Aflatis-Films footage out of the NX1 is gorgeous...Your friend handles the Samsung and its colours very well....

@Andrew Reid Andrew, as you tested and reviewed the XC10, I would like to hear your evaluation on the low light capabilities of the camera - compared to one of the Sony RX models (same sensor size 1") and finally compared even with the GH4 (I know, it's a bigger sensor but cropped MFT, as the GH4 was not known as low light monster). Thank you!

@dbp Yeah, my wedding and other filming assistance was eye opening for me - from economical point of view. Nobody (under 15.000 Euro budget) cares much about grading, color science, etc. Because they all (not only wedding people) say, it's a business and any addtional hour spended on it, costs much money....BTW: The hired wedding camera man (freelancer) worked with a C100 ii. Cheapest Sony FS7 guy I've meet charged 75 Euro an hour. In my eyes, a joke and quite impossible to survive with these rates...

@dbp I've assisted this year 2 weddings in Germany. For a wedding photography pro firm. Very clever guys, charging minimum 2.500 Euro /STILLS) per wedding (they have 5.000 EUR packages too). Till this year, they didn't work on wedding videography, but then from may on they started to offer videography services. How they do it? Very simple: they hire a (in my opinion) very good, experienced camera man for 65 Euro per hour. He films totally about 6 hours = 390 Euro. Then he gets 150 Euro "gear tax", that is 150 Euro per day. So now we are at 540 Euro (+ 19% VAT in Germany) in total. Therefore he delivers the whole clips and sells the firm all rights to use it (without crediting!!)... Then a freelancer who acts as cutter / colorist gets the clips. He works on them about 12 hours - for color grading editing, audio, etc. and delivers the end version of the film. He charges 47 Euro per hour of work. 47 x 12 = 564 Euro. OK. in total, there are 540 + 564 = 1.104 Euro for filming, editing, etc. Their advertising / marketing / PR budget per wedding is round about 200 Euro. As clients don't have much clue of films, etc. and just wanting to get a nice film, there is not much talk on settings, sequences, etc. The company charges 3.900 Euro for the 5-minutes-wedding-film. A great business: 3.900 - 1.104 - 200 = 2.596 Euro. Sure, talking with clients, organizing, etc. takes time. BUT, this is a business. Payment is best for top marketers, not for the working jobs (film makers, etc.). The guys owning the firm know how to do business without ever buying or caring about any filming gear...They want to scale this in 2017, as they are pretty sure, there are people spending 5.000-10.000 Euro for a wedding video. They say: "It's not about pricing, it's all about marketing, positioning and promotion..."

@Parker Parker, even with a 1.2 lens, sometimes we want - depending on composition and set - to film with 4.0 or even smaller aperture. So, in such cases a "fast" lens doens't help anything. In such cases, it' s a high ISO performance of a camera and image processing and handling in low light witch helps. I've made some tests in very decent light and very low contrast which shocked me...OK, it were tests about stills at 1/200 shutter, where the NX1 broke completely down...much worse than the old 7D, for example...Broken colors, noise, etc. And this with 45mm 1.8. I'll post next week some comparison with 5D III, 7D II, 7D... I love my NX1...but - in STILLS - it's a miserable failure in decent light and low contrast. Also it often fails focusing in low light. After getting my new D750 in the next days, I will post some comparative images. Please note, I speak about STILLS... It has curious behaviour: For example in "candle light tests", it gets enough contrast (with the bright candle light) and performs not so bad (in STILLS). But without contrast, it's more than bad...

@jacoblewis How do you handle extreme low contrast and low light situations with the nx1? I just ask, because I use the NX1 too, and in low light + low contrast the camera falls apart...For example quite dark church, additional lighting NOT allowed?

@tugela Talking about h.264 and 4K and more: h.264 is for >4K, demand for more IQ and the requirement in easier and affordable editing a "no future codec". It's h.265 the codec to go when having visions of 6,5K and more, while preserving IQ of compressed footage. You are right! They have intelligent and creative egineers and developers, but just don't want to invest money for additional resources and fundamental changes (R&D). From economical point of view, they just want to ride the "h.264 horse" to death. It's just a matter of profit, as simple as that. That's why the NX1 was a revolutionary camera. The Samsung engineers just broke with existing rules - with fantastic results for enthusiasts and freaks. But though, Samsung retired after that... Manufacturers are conservative and don't like dramatic changes. The only hope of independent or enthusiatic filmakers is still the competition, companies that brake existing rules and "standards", just offering their clients a little bit more for money than competitors...And that's the point bringing us back to Northrup and Andrew Reid's article: Does the film gear industry really want the "democratization" of film making by availability of affordable cameras and gear with great IQ for masses? Or should "serious fimmaking" stay in the hands of experienced companies / people with some REDs, ARRIs, and endless possibilities in lighting, editing, special effects, etc. - people with high-end gear and deep pockets, unaffordable for normal Joe?

@jonpais Yeah...BUT when Samsung presented the NX1 with h.265, self proclaimed experts blamed this (talking about "downsides of the NX1"), though it was revolutionary at that time. The truth is, there are only TWO possibilities to handle footage: compressed and non compressed footage (RAW). For people aiming to work with compressed footage, there must be efficient codecs on the market. And the h.265 is doubtless an efficient codec and (from current point of view and technical knowledge) probably one of the best possibilities to handle compressed, high quality images in 4K and above. Not perfect, but at the moment a very efficient (IQ <-> compression rate) possibility... So far the theory...But many camera manufacturers refuse the implementation of h.265 in their devices, and offer consumers low end or shitty codecs for their cameras... Sometimes I think, buyers WANT to be kidded...One funny example: There is no Panasonic "professional" camcorder up to 3.000 Euro offering by far the same image quality as the 550 Euro GX85 - an affordable consumer hybrid camera...Guys, that's an unacceptable joke. And it only works because buyers ("professional users") just accept overpriced devices and kidding wish-wash argumentation...Best review and the only client side argument manunfacturers understand, is NOT BUYING their devices (in this case, the camcorders)...

@IronFilm Yes, but most people I know, just downsample the 4K footage to 1080p NOT because for crop / zoom / pan, but for benefits of IQ in downscaled sequences. The lack of honest 1080p is still a shame for all manufacturers declaring the mushy something their cameras deliver as "Full HD"....The race to more and more resolution is just a blatant marketing lie, if manufacturers aren't capable to deliver the resolution they claim when selling their devices. So, the "1080p lie" is just the same as the coming "4K lie": for honest (real) 4K the manufacturers will tell us, we need 8K footage...WTF? Why do consumers have to handle 4K, when just needing 1080p? For sure, shooters who want to crop, zoom, or pan around are well with 4K. These possibilities are doubtless benefits of the high resolution footage. But the lack of real 1080p forces camera users to shoot in 4K. I don't like people forcing me to buy a Porsche Cayenne, when I just need a car for modest mobility purposes only...Many manufacturers don't care about our real needs and requirements - they just about caching technical lacks in their overpriced devices and care much more about marketing wish-wash... Look, I shoot 4K too - because I love tack sharp footage. But this is my hobby. Beeing realistic, I NEED "real" 1080p only...Just because it's much easier to work with on a "normal" laptop, doesn't need much storage space as 4K, etc., and because a vast majority of today's consumers watch footage on small mobile displays or TVs with a maximum of FullHD resolution. Without any doubt, 4K is useful and "real" 4K well shooted is really beautiful...BUT: Why do consumers have to handle 4K, when just needing 1080p?

@Damphousse DSLR camera manufacturers (and some camcorder style manufacturers too) simply didn't really care about an excellent 1080p IQ over the years. They sold people cams with soft & mushy 1080p - nothing to do with a "honest" 1080p resolution. Now they all offer 4K - for a realistic 1080p (by downsampling from 4K)...It's simply a joke and nothing but marketing bullshit. There are not many affordable DSLRs out there being capable to deliver a honest 1080p resolution (Nikon with the D810, D750, a7s ii, some Panasonics...). Canon doesn't care about a realistic 1080p quality and this is a mistake. They have very solid cameras and I think aomething like the 80D with a 1080p IQ of the a7s ii will be great and for most film productions perfect. That said, please consider that the upscaler of modern UHD TVs are quite fantastic. I've took a look at some sequences filmed with the C100 II in 1080p, and the IQ on large display TVs is awesome. No considerable difference in viewable resolution (about 3,5m away from a 135cm TV) between 4K (filmed with a Pana) and excellent 1080p images. As said, NOBODY but only pixel peepers put their nose 10cm close to highly calibrated quality displays or TVs, commenting on 300% crops. That might be neccessary for movie theater or Hollywood productions, but how many percent of films are made for this? A honest 1080p resolution (affordable to work with in post) and a pleasant color science should be fine for more than 98 percent of film productions...but at the moment this is an exception... Before marketing 4K and HDR, manufacturers should be able to produce solid cameras for 1080p. But most of them are not or simply don't want. Wait for TWO years and then they will deliver the same lack of quality in 4K and will try to promote their 6,5 or even 8K cams. Never believe the marketing morons! No doubt, 4K & HDR are the next big moves. BUT it will take 5-10 years to get the market coverage in people living rooms or PC desktops...AND, staying away from the big display for about 3m (as people mostly do when watching TV), the "ultimate" quality will never be noticeable for most consumers....

The Fotodiox Nikon lens 2 Sony camera lens adapter seems to NOT work very well. What a bummer! But it demonstrates that manufactureres marketing skills are by far better than the products they offer and sell us. Catchpenny promises...we are not customers, but beta tester....

Interesting for news makers, documentary style shooters, etc. and the growing mobile audience for video / consumers not owning 4k TVs: http://www.newsshooter.com/2016/11/25/bbc-news-app-launches-vertical-video-is-the-joke-on-us/ My questions again in this context: Who needs 4K (even downscaled 4K to 1080p) on small mobile devices? Who cares about the "ultimate" IQ as color science / contrast / sharpness on small mobile devices? 2014 there were only 2.5 percent of consumers owning 4K TVs (in Germany) --> http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/4K-TV-Ultra-HD-Geraete-verkaufen-sich-kaum-2349085.html (German language) - I know, in Japan it's much more, but worlldwide, 4K display market coverage is still a joke in comparison with marketing claims of manufacturers and distributors My opinion: Till 4K and highest quality videos will get popular and viewable on bigger displays than just now, it will take years - if not a decade. Till then, it's just a matter for a few geeks and enthusiasts. From a realistic point of view, there is NO RELEVANCY and NO DEMAND for higher resolution / quality films (from point of view of IMAGE QUALITY) for web and TV at the moment...it's only relevant for a enthusiastic minority / avantgarde...

@mercer and all Nikon fans: Fotodiox just announced an adapter for Nikon F-Mount lenses to Sony mount...adapter supports AF and lens stabilisation (VR). So, for me - as I just ordered a D750 - and other Nikon still shooters, this will be great, as the Nikon lens collection could be combined for 4K video shooting with Sony cameras as the a6300. I've tested the D750 (stills) and it is an excellent camera, "seeing" and focusing in the dark...Great dynamic range too. And NOW one can use the good 1.8 / 1.4 primes for 4K- shooting in very low light with the cheap A6300...(hope this works as good as the FotodioxPro claims this...) https://www.fotodioxpro.com/products/nikg-snye-fusion

@Andrew Reid I disagree. The gear and technical skills is/are tools, not the message. It helps to express your idea, the kind of "atmosphere" the filmmaker wants to create and illustrates a special mood... With all due respect, NOPE. In my eyes cinematography (as YOU define it) is only a shell, trying to tune up / help express content / ideas / emotions / informations. Cinematography ending in itself with nose 10cm close to calibrated 4K screens is just useless and matters only for probably 0,0x percent of enthusiasts or gear freaks. Cinematography / film making for a relevant audience is the projection / illustration of a story, emotions, or even just some information....Gear is only an illustration tool. If films fail, and that's often the case in my eyes, you can not blame or insult the audience. Lack of an interesting story, of concept, of direction, of good actors, of adequate lightning and poor audio cause much more fails than imperfect camera gear or poor resolution or "smooth" footage.

My experience: "Pro" means in fact 70% very good marketing and sales skills,,,Only 30% is about filmmaking skills. And marketing skills means, try to impress customers with technical assets, specifications and "spectacular" or expensive looking gear. Professional and successful work (from the point of view of the customer) has nothing to do with stellar expensive gear - but this is something, most customers don't know... ;-) At the end of the day, the story is quite simple for filmmakers doing paid jobs: the result should be the most important criterion: acceptance, views, sales, reactions and impact of targeted audience...But after failing, many film providers try to perform lame excuses by pointing to technical criteria as excellent resolution, contrast, color and image quality...I never saw a RED shooter admitting, his work was worthless for the client... :-)) The gear doesn't tell any story - even an 8K RED is useless as storyteller. And it's all about a story and emotion...