Yurolov

I liked it.

Internal 8 bit cinema dng is possible. What struck me was how he wanted/dreamed of this camera and they just made it. Rather than it being some exercise in market segmentation.

Wait so no internal raw?? Edit: so no. Looks to be pretty shit specs and inferior to the canon. Does not bode well for the a7siii.

Rigging it up is not a problem for most people. The image quality is still worlds better than anything you can get from something like a gh5. And there are a lot who do use it for paid work. More importantly, it levels the field for indie film-makers like never before. I'm sure the Gh5 is a better in a lot of things, like corporate work (if that is your cup of tea), but image is king imo. Get a T5, external monitor and a power solution and you are good to go. It will still end up being more compact than a lot of other cinema cameras.

It is easy to cherry pick stills from a scene and say look at how amazing this camera is with this lens. In reality it isnt. You will actually get a x20 better image with the bmpcc and a cheap vintage lens than you ever will from this combo (and it will cost you a whole, whole lot less).

Nah you're wrong.

Still shit skin tones but.

https://youtu.be/53GwFPaWWv4

The fact is that Sony has only ever offered crappy 4:2:0 8 bit 100mb codecs. The delay in the A7siii has everything to do with the fact that they don't want to give you anything better than that to protect their cinema line. I would wait until after they release their updated fs7 and fs5 range before we have any hope of getting the A7siii. They refused to use the sensor in the xt3 for this reason. It is all segmentation bullcrap. One year ago @Andrew Reid made a post titled: "If high mirrorless video specs hurt pro cinema range, why does Sony do it?" I disagreed. Back then I said they will only ever give us shit codecs and that is exactly what they have done. Wait for the fs7 and fs5 first and then the A7siii may come out with undoubtedly worse specs.

I don't know, with the sales on the s1 making it really affordable to own, if you only shoot 4k then the s1 seems the more value proposition. Really all you have for the s1h is the promise of raw which you have to shoot externally. Also, super 35 is one thing to manually focus, but FF is a different ballgame. If you are putting it on a gimbal, you are even more limited. Focus matters to a lot of people and it will be a continual stumbling block until they can sort it out.

Wow. Sad when you make canon look good. I don't understand the point of these upgrades. The a6500 had plenty good autofocus. I doubt they will have made the ibis any better which means it's practically pointless for video.

I had this problem with the xc10. They have been screwing people around since long before this on the 24p issue. But I am sure that canon know more than the likes of Nolan and Scorsese - why would they go to the trouble of pushing a filmmaker mode on the public when you can just shoot 30p - https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20190827005822/en/UHD-Alliance-Brings-Filmmakers-CE-Companies-Hollywood "Filmmaker Mode will allow viewers to enjoy a more cinematic experience on their UHD TVs when watching movies by disabling all post-processing (e.g. motion smoothing, etc.) so the movie or television show is displayed as it was intended by the filmmaker, preserving the correct aspect ratios, colors and frame rates."

Yeah...I just condensed what he said. And the example he showed was in the 4k full frame mode and it was like jello. Some people might be fine with that. They can look at it for themselves. I just think it is a shame because it will put many people off at that price point.

Jordan Drake says the full frame modes suffer from bad rolling shutter. Didn't look nice. Shame. With the S1 dropping in price that might be a better value proposition.

I think specs might not be 100 percent. But the date seems to be confirmed and the image is real.

https://www.canonrumors.com/here-is-the-canon-cinema-eos-c500-mark-ii/ Canon Cinema EOS C500 Mark II rumored specifications: Full-frame sensor RAW internal recording (both 4K and 2K). 4K is up to 60p, 2K up to 120p. Optional XF-AVC recording in 4:2:2 10 bit (4K up to 60p, 2k up to 120p) User interchangeable lens mount Optional modules with EVF, genlock, timecode, 12G-SDI, etc EF and PL mount available at launch Power supply with BP-A series batteries, an optional module for V-Mount batteries Optional module for 4x XLR inputs Backwards compatibility with EVF-V70, LV-M1 and some other peripherals from previous Cinema EOS cameras New media usage: CFExpress cards for faster readings and writing speed WiFi and IP Streaming capabilities Do you think it will have 24p??

https://www.l-rumors.com/l5-panasonic-s1h-will-have-6-stops-in-body-stabilization/

People forget that they did this on a quote unquote cinema camera when they released the xc10. In the PAL variant you couldn't get 24p. You were locked into 25p. That camera was marketed as a sort of B camera to the c300 which could do 24p. Can someone please tell me the rationale for that?? This sort of segmentation is unforgivable to me in a time when they are losing market share to phones at a rapid rate. My only guess is that they might think that most consumers could care less about 24p. And they may be right. I did a Europe tour recently and went to all the big tourist spots across a lot of countires. 95 percent of people used phones. Of the people who had DSLR/mirrorless cameras, 80 percent were Canon, 15 percent were Nikon and the remaining 5 percent was a combination of Sony, Fuji and Olympus.

Not many went J on here. I'm happy with having gone F haha.

F is the most balanced between the two images in terms of giving you a good look straight out of camera. For me, skin tones are the most important so I would have chucked someone's face in there as well - might have helped those of us on the fence. But yes F is the most pleasing to me because it is able to retain the classical softness of film while not being as faded or garish as some of the others.

That image is a fake.

Not sure where the game change is meant to be. Doesn't look like it does 60p 10 bit internal. The AF will presumably be the same as the S1. I think it is a weird pricing.

So basically Huawei is the leader in 5g but without american components that tech just can't be used. How is this not a good thing for the americans? 5g is the future of tech. I don't think the short-term loss for these chip makers matters compared to the advantages of being no 1 in 5g. And if you think the americans aren't playing fair then the same can be said about the chinese. Just consider how they got to this point.

It isn't just about the trade war; it is about the stealing of intellectual property for the purpose of out-competing american companies. In the short term Intel may suffer but in the long term it will be beneficial for them to have a level playing field. Huawei is state-sponsored. Its technology piggy-backs off american innovation. The americans invested in the tech at considerable expense. It is easy for the chinese to offer items cheaper when you don't have to pay for the r&d. To say that Foxconn would close its books is unrealistic. For one, it would take a massive hit to its revenue; it would have to sack an untold number of people; and other international companies would also pull out for fear of the same thing happening to them. In fact, China has little leverage because it is so reliant on the american consumer to purchase its goods and to provide its citizens with employment in manufacturing. The biggest detriment to tech innovation is IP theft. If their has to be some short term pain then it is warranted if the playing field is leveled; the americans can withstand it much better than the chinese. You see it time and again with innovative american startups going bankrupt because there is a cheaper chinese alternative that copies their tech. So yea, I would say that a stand needs to be taken.

Forward progress in terms of aesthetics is relative. It is why people still use the nearly decade old alexa and pay a premium for early CCD s16 cameras. Sony may have the tech but the images are lackluster. Not sure why Canon would give up the very thing that makes their image unique and special.