Arikhan

If you kept the receipt of the shop where you've buyed it, the seller gives you 2 years warranty (that's German law). If you registered the camera with CPS, just call Canon Germany and discuss with them a solution (if you don't live in Germany). Canon has a quite good service... Click here to go with CPS. Good luck.

@cpc Just beeing curious: How does the 1080p-ML-footage looks, when upscaled to 4K? Is the look better when A. You upscale to 4K in post or B. When you display the 1080p-ML-footage on a 4K TV (as most 4K TVs do a very good upscale of FullHD footage) ?

@Fritz Pierre That's absolutely true - and the seller is a British company... @DaveAltizer Thank you for sharing your experience. Unfortunately my budget for this matte box is max 800 EUR. I understand, the Bright Tangerine products are well made and in carbon fiber - so pro DP use them very often, but they are simply not affordable for my needs in this case.

Thanks! Are outside there smaller ones? (As the tech specs of this model say "220x147x94mm")

Hi guys, I would like to buy a affordable, small matte box for DSLR/DSLM. That should be a real decent/small matte box (I would prefer a swing away solution), to keep the cameras portable and not that intimidating. "Regular" matte boxes are a little bit oversized for my NX1 and A6500. Anyone some good ideas? Thank you!

@Cinegain Hmm...I have to contradict: ONLY some people do it - mostly self proclaimed "cinematographers", copying "cinematic look" from other test video posters. More than 99 percent of users who buy modern cameras are still very happy with their choice...People needing 100% cinematic look just out of a camera and maximum of control and maleability, work witk RAW cameras, as they know, even a 4.2.2 10bit is only a compromise and - in the hands of a good filmmaker & capable colour grader - will never touch the IQ level of RAW footage. In my eyes, over 90% of "test footage" is simply massacred footage...Trying to get a "quick & dirty" cinematic look with bad lighting, no clue of what one is doing (simply trying to copy settings of other clueless amateurs, workflows and dumbly buying LUT packages) doesn't lead to good results. but it's simply awkward. Better to use the camera with original settings and profiles... Most of today's cameras (completely independent of manufactures name) have a good resolution (excepting Canon's ancient 720p BS) in 1080p and 4K. But obviously people CAN'T or don't want to handle high resolution (4K+), so they "go vintage": the post-world-war-2-720p mushy Canon BS...And declare it as "cinematic". But - as said - this is only a minority and the claim is a completely irrelevant myth. A vast majority of todays audience simply doens't care about such called cinematic look simply uses small smartphones/tablet screens and so subtle color grading and 4K & Co don't matter at all using bigger screens (PC, TV) LOVE high resolution and high contrast footage (HDR) "Tarantino in 2 minutes" is quite hard to achieve...So the few guys "begging for high-res and keep hammering down footage has to be sharp and detailed" should put their money in RAW devices, as noone cares really about their excessive requirements for a under 2.000 USD camera...People wanting to do real cinematography should raise money for some serious artistic and technical education, a serious RAW camera, a truck full of lighting, some good actors, directing and postproduction knowledge etc., etc....At the end of the day, most of us are ambitionned enthusiasts/amateurs or small business filmmakers without time and budget to produce great Hollywood cinematography - and that's completely OK. Some of us should just stop miming the 100 million $ Hollywood producer... There is clearly a big discrepancy between pretense and reality out there...Nothing to get worried about, just try to do your best and have fun...

After the DVX200 came out, I bought it. To be honest, I wasn't experienced at that time with settings, tweaking and getting the best results of a more advanced camera, but my experience was a desaster: horrible, piggish colors when speaking about footage out of the camera ("as it is"), though Panasonic advertized the device as good for news gathering and documentary shooting though I am not a pixel peeper, the DVX200 had horrible - and visible - noise even in daylight footage and good lighting (without contrasty situations like contre-jour), e.g. in tree bark and leafs... After seeing in some forums many other people facing the same problems and a Barry Green first claiming the people complaining "have to learn to handle the camera" and - after many complains of pro and broadcast shooters - claiming, that filmers have to use V-Log to get usable results, I was shocked by such brazenness when speaking of a camera (that time) costing about 4.500 Euro in Germany, advertized for what I did. I returned it after 6 days and I was not the only one who did this. Never looked back. After some firmware upgrades, they made the DVX200 better, noise got less and the color science (OOC) got more pleasant indeed. The attitude of companies pocketing immediately buyers money, but claiming to deliver the advertized features with an update later or in "next future" is unacceptable in my eyes. Though I still use two Panasonic cameras, I am done with this company in regard of buying a professional film or video camera from them without testing it excessively. Buyers are NOT beta testers for impertinent PR morons and marketing liars... @Marketing morons: Don't praise too much theoretical specs and bells & whistles - show me the advertized features, ergonomic, handling and results first, and then I'll give you my money.

@Kisaha ...and automatically fill my bank account with a six figure amount (RAW USD - uncompressed) every month...

@JurijTurnsek May be...the A9 will get a fresh wind to the market + increase competition. BUT I know very man pro photographers with ten thousands investments in CanoNikon gear - and 99% of them will not enter the Sony ecosystem at the moment. Some of them have a A7R ii and 2-3 Sony lenses as B/C body for portraiture and studio work and like it. But CanoNikon gives them in Germany a quite good support (and in case of defective units, loaners to continue their work till repair) and very many lenses, mostly more affordable than Sony long tele lenses. Point 1. Point 2: The low-light focusing with a mirroless camera vs. good DSLR is critical...It's not all about good ISO capabilities in low light...First you have to get a accurate & fast focus - that is the most important when shooting moving objects in very low light wedding scenarios, where not allowed to use flash or any another addtional lighting. So, even if paid "artisans", fanboys and Sony marketers claim, the A9 would be the "dream camera" for wedding photography, we just have to await approval for this promise (electronic shutter + flickering lights = banding?)...Till now, normal "pros" simply don't trust mirrorless AF in low light scenarios with moving subjects... Point 3: Most pros (guys who make a living out of their profession) I konw simply don't care about new announcements at the moment. They care mostly about bad rates for their work and acquiring nicely paid, additonal photo jobs to survive...

It's not so simple to say good bye to Premiere CC because of two simple facts: There is a bunch of very useful and well done third party plugins for Premiere, not existing for another kind of software than Premiere Familiarity - most people are already used to the GUIs and workflows. Getting the same abilities for another software takes time and efforts (and at the end of the day, every piece of software has its weeknesses and flaws) In my eyes, there is no "holy grail" in this market...

I am quite sure when the A7R m3 / A7S m3 (or A9R / A9S) will be announced with improved ergonomics and features will cost 3.900 - 4.500 USD... there will not be 4.2.2 10bit internal recording (4.2.0 8bit only) Improvements I wish: Battery life, PDAF on the A7S-version, touch screen (tiltable), usable LCD-Display in daylight, improved IBIS. But hey guys, let's await the cameras - at the end of the day all of us (mostly) already have decent devices to shoot with at the moment and nowadays are great times for shooters, as there are many camera options from 500 USD to 70.000 USD (and of course more) on the market, already covering all requirements, needs and wishes...

It seems impossible to get some info on HSS capabilities and some details when using flash. I ask me WHY? Oops...I hope, this guy is not right: This guy is aware about some critical situations, where marketing speach would not be enough...Wait and see...

@Phil A Exactly...and for independent reviews on low light focusing capabilities.... Meanwhile a Sony rep told me: "same like A7s ii & A7r ii"...I know, in such cases (even when working with Canon or Nikon) we have to rely on their good will... There is no "classical" sports photography only - and even in this area, many pros (e.g. doing stock) work in post on some of their stills...There are other events (like meetings, weddings, anniversaries, etc.) where to shoot burst and pick up one of the best takes for post - e.g. a interesting portrait mimics... And...I hate lazy pro photographers refusing to deliver best quality pictures, because refusing post work...It's the kind of German-Canon-post-World-War-2-shooter complaining every minute about customers not willing to pay much for their poor, out of question work in 60s style... Please consider the reality (at least for ambitionned / well paid quality work): Today's photography is 50% post...I know, some news agencies require JPEG nowadays, but as they pay poor prices, there are not many economically successful photographers who sell to them... BTW: In reality there is no much visible difference between "compressed" and "uncompressed" RAW. It's more a topic for bored pixel peepers, self proclaimed keyboard experts and Sony haters...

@Mattias Burling Personally, I don't care about wins & losses of any manufacturer. Adapt and make profits or burn money and retire immediately or in some years. At the end of the day, we don't know Sony's strategy (burning money first for getting considerable market shares at long term?)... Much more interesting for ambitionned stills shooters and pros are some other questions needing clarification: How well will the A9 nail focus compared with its direct competitors 1DX m2 and D5? 20fps means nothing if it doesn't nail focus better than competitors... Focusing reliability and speed in low light, compared to its competitors/low light still cameras (D750, D5, 1DX m2)? Some of the A6300 and even some A7R ii overheated sometimes when shooting stills (after firmware upgrades no more) - hope the A9 doesn't overheat when shooting stills because this could be a deal breaker for many potential buyers (I would immediately return the camera and want my money back - no waiting for a firmware upgrade to solve overheating issues when shooting stills) What does "dust and moisture resistance" mean? Is this a little better than junk consumer cameras, or is this a claim to rely on when shooting outdoor (with all manufacturer warranty commitment implications?) Personally, I don't believe that it could focus fast and reliable in very low light on moving objects (like its DSLR competitors), because no mirrorles can do this until now. I would be very surprized, if Sony disabused me with this point... There is also a point, nearly noone speaking about: the 20fps burst rate is 12bit RAW. You can get full 14bit RAW only when you considerably slow down your burst rate...so 14bit RAW will be the same burst rate as the ancient NX1 from 2014...

@Kisaha For sure, but with if you mount it on a appropriate rig and use it with a IS-E-mount lens, it's definetly usable on your shoulder. It will not be stabilized like a modern shoulder camcorder, but it works. I tested also the La-EA2 adapter with a A-Mount lens, the AF worked impecably without hunting (because of the used phase detection) and I was though wondering about the good AF of a that "ancient" camera. AF and spot focus ("tap to focus") worked too (with E-lens --> only contrast AF), though they were tested by daylight in contrasty scenes...So, not bad for requirement Nr. 1 - quick jobs, many times as one man band... Yeah, the LS300 is at the end of the day much cheaper than a FS700-package (FS700 + 7Q+), BUT it has no RAW option...And I'd like to get in using RAW... @IronFilm Sorry, no, IronFilm...It was HIS footage, not mine. This cameraman is just an long time and very experienced Cinealta user and an excellent grader, not only with Sony footage. I was simply impressed by the RAW quality and his "quick grade". I just was very happy to see the work of an experienced pro...Not that I would believe, I could do the same after 2 days of use, but he will help me to get in (S-LOG x shooting, grading, etc.), if I buy the FS700 + 7Q+...I'm aware of the fact, that the RAW S-Log shooting and post are much work for me to learn and get used to...

@Kisaha 4k RAW footage with the FS700 it's a complete different universe than the on camera 4.2.0 - but I even like the 4.2.0 when shooting ENG Run & Gun. Small bitrate, easy to "quick grade" (for quick jobs)...The RAW option is only for "extra shots" I need. After looking of some RAW footage graded out of the hand of an pro and compared with F55 footage, I was blown away by the IQ of the ancient FS700... I need two identical cameras for 2-camera-shots without the necessity to tweak and adapt & match too much in post. My budget for 2 cameras (including or not external recorders) is about 13.000 Euros (without rigging, lenses, etc.)...only cameras & recording devices (if needed)...

@Kisaha You are right...I just took a closer look at it (LS300) and it has some very good points for its price. It could be the ideal camera for ENG shooting and quality footage...During the few hours of usage I saw, the OOC footage is somehow comparable with the NX1 (crisp image, neutral nice colors) but probably nothing to use, when you are on "cinematic look" without much work in post. Personally I don't care, because the camera has really strong points as prime zoom (very practical to shoot with - focus once and you'll get somehow a parfocal lens without the need to refocus) and it has a respectable AF with Pana MFT lens 35-100 2.8 and others...Much better than my FZ1000, because locking on without hunting in daylight. It focusses with this lens similarly as the XC10. I would call it "reliable" (for contrast AF)...A very flexible and versatile camera for my needs... It was a charm too shoot with it with a Tarion + Steadycam and it worked very well, considering that I shot first time with this kind of gear. Perfect stable footage without wobble. BUT it was camera only, without any external recorder attached. If NAB doesn't bring us any interesting camcorders, I consider to buy two LS300 or two FS700 + 7Q+ this summer. Both devices have strengths and weaknesses, but we first have to wait the NAB...

@Kisaha LOL...Thanks for clarification Kisaha. It seems, originally I was right about assuming that 4K 60p works only with an external recorder and then...I didn't read their new press release careful enough and assumed, the LS300 would do this internally. Oops...

@Geoff CB Yeah, this is another interesting technical aspect of the A9: Sony seems to dramatically speed up readout performance, so they are on a good way to a global shutter... I am curious to see, if the A9 could focus and lock on (for stills) in very low light as fast and reliable as a high end FF from Nikon or Canon...Wait and see...

@Eric Calabros Sorry, that is not true. You can shoot 20fps on a stills camera and download the photos to your laptop/computer. Even with an old Win-PC you can edit every RAW photo without problem. Try doing the same with 4K 60fps video footage. Most of this kind of data is high bitrate and more than a challenge for a (normal) computing system. A vast majority of German journalists I know, works on quite modern computers, but far away from capability to edit 4K 60fps footage. That's the reality (simple and very affordable office PCs in editorial offices)...But it seems, reality is not an recognized basis for building an opinion... There is enough data (surveys, statistics, etc.) for researching computer usage...Just take a look at it, it will confirm my claims...

@BTM_Pix Full ACK. Fast long prime lenses (300mm 2.8, 400mm 2.8, 600mm 4.0) are crucial for sport pros at this level. OK, they will not be cheap, but so what? Sony can only get in this niche with the appropriate lenses - or/and with a LA-EAx adapter which allows high HFR with Canon lenses and the A9. As already mentionned, a spec beast is by far not enough for an "enthronement" in this area... And it seems, the A9 will be only dust and moisture resistant (but Sony claims, there is no warranty for this) - so without a convenient weather sealing, like market leaders Canon or Nikon. That said, Sony has only done the first step, there are still some miles to go for keeping up with the established pro sports photography competititon. Main points to go are real weather sealing and appropriate long primes... @Trek of Joy My claims don't contradict your points at all. What I mean by "enthusiasts" are selfish gear heads careing much more about spectacular (and in reality for 99,9 percent of real scenarios useless) specs like 8K 100fps 4.4.4 in a 2.000 USD device, than reflecting on valuable/informative content and audience preferences. There are hard times for some journalists and free lancers who buy own gear, yes. Full ACK. There are many I know in Germany buying the D5/1DX m2 and not knowing how to pay back - because of the horror low rates they get for their photos from newspapers, magazines or news agencies. BUT there still are very successful people out there, making an excellent living out of their job. You have just to do more networking and self market yourself to get well paid jobs, but this is nothing new and completely independent from the industry you work in. Complaining IS NOT enough to get the right jobs... It's more important to make profit out of your job than complaining about costly gear...Even cheap gear is useless, if you can't make profit with it...(When speaking about pro work)

@Alt Shoo Wow...Obviously the LS300 is capable to record 4K 60p internally. It's evident that I misunderstood this apect in the rumored announcement, as I assumed that it could do this only on an external recorder. So 4K 60p is 4.2.2 and can be recorded internally. Great!

@webrunner5 Hmm...Never underestimate Canons and Nikons power in journalism or wedding market. Their brands as still cameras are very strong and they have very good and reliable devices. Sony is very innovative but though it has to learn built quality & usability from its competitors. Innovation and technical excellence are only two aspects in a very complex and competitive market hardly damaged by the "smartphone revolution"...Just my 2 cents...

@Ken Ross (Photo)journalists don't care about the unrealistic phantasy or parallel universe of "enthusiasts". Dreaming around doesn't make profit. Only sharp photos/1080p footage with decent compositon and unique selling points - ready to send and immediately published - are profitable. It's all about capture the moment - and publish it, as fast as you can. Neither place nor time for dreaming or tweaking around... Just try to find some reliable (not lunatic) infos about bitrates and quality requirements for US- or European broadcasting, relevant for photo- and video journalists. You'll be very surprized: there is no 4K 60fps. Just try to quit a phantasy world and dive for some moments in reality...

@Ken Ross Hmm.. @noone says There is NO photojournalist needing 4K 60fps. This is an enthusiast overrated requirement. Try to send this amount of data from Burundi to your editorial office in New York, Berlin or Paris. Even in Kaukasus, LTE (4g) doesn't work constantly...These requiremets are just a parallel universe for journalism and documentary...Nothing real/useful or needed...