Sony a6300 4k

[mikegt]

10 hours ago, dahlfors said:

The part of the image that is in focus here is the fence closest to the camera. So, what you are looking at here is lack of detail because of everything except the fence is out of focus, it's not the D750 that is soft. Also looks like you might be diffraction limited, shooting at a very tiny aperture. 

No, the fence is not the point of focus.  It just looks slightly sharper because it's closer to the camera.  If you look at the detail on the fence it is not sharp, so even if it was the point of focus it would not be very impressive.  In any case, focusing was done manually, and carefully set on the trees, not the fence.  The camera was also mounted on a rock steady heavy-duty Bogen professional tripod, so motion blur was not a factor.

In regard to diffraction, the aperture was set to F8 (ISO was at 100), so diffraction was also not a significant factor.  The lens used was Nikon's standard kit model, the 24-120mm F4.

[Nikkor]

29 minutes ago, mikegt said:

No, the fence is not the point of focus.  It just looks slightly sharper because it's closer the camera.  If you look at the detail on the fence it is not sharp, so even if it was the point of focus it would not be very impressive.  In any case, focusing was done manually, and carefully set on the trees, not the fence.  The camera was also mounted on a rock steady heavy-duty Bogen professional tripod, so motion blur was not a factor.

In regard to diffraction, the aperture was set to F8 (ISO was at 100), so diffraction was also not a significant factor.  The lens used was Nikon's standard kit model, the 24-120mm F4.

Yep, the nikons don't like foliage. 

[mikegt]

16 hours ago, Mattias Burling said:

Nope, biggest photo retailer in all of Sweden, and possible Scandinavia.

I went the opisite way, sold the G7 and got the D750 for its imo superior video

Couldnt live with the low DR, colors and firmware quirks. Lowligt was of course very bad as well. Still a decent camera and very cheap.

To ad to earlier conversation the G7 has dropped to 50% for a brand new one at the big retailers. So a good deal imo.

(cant answer for Amazon and such, rumor says they are ripoffs  )

As I said previously, the D750 with it's full frame sensor does have an advantage in low light.  However, in good light, recording in 4K, the G7 just blows away the D750 in regard to sharpness and detail.  I can (and will if needed) post tons of comparison shots that prove what I'm saying.  If the D750 could record in 4K it would likely beat the G7's video quality, but it can't so it doesn't.

I think there is a perception here that cameras that cost more will automatically do better than the "cheap" models.  This is not always the case.  And big sensors don't automatically make better movies than small ones (in fact the tiny sensor in my iPad Air 2 makes sharper more detailed movies than my Canon DSLRs).  What the camera maker does with the data coming off the sensor is perhaps the most important factor - pixel binning and line skipping will turn even the most perfect image into a blurry mush.

> low DR, colors and firmware quirks...Lowligt was of course very bad...sold the G7 and got the D750 for its imo superior video....

You must of had a defective G7.  Or perhaps you didn't know how to turn 4K mode on (by default out-of-the-box the camera records in HD, you have to go in the menu system and select 4K recording). I haven't encountered any of the issues you mentioned with the G7.  Like any camera the G7 is not perfect, but I have been very happy with the sharpness in 4K, colors are good and reasonably accurate, and I have not seen any firmware "quirks" in the four months that I have had the camera. As for low light, it's no A7S but up to ISO 6400 it's pretty clean in average room light.

I will say that the D750 makes better movies than my Canon DSLRs; but it just can't match the detail and sharpness of good 4K cameras such as the G7, GH4 or any of the Sony 4K models.

[dahlfors]

2 hours ago, mikegt said:

No, the fence is not the point of focus.  It just looks slightly sharper because it's closer to the camera.  If you look at the detail on the fence it is not sharp, so even if it was the point of focus it would not be very impressive.  In any case, focusing was done manually, and carefully set on the trees, not the fence.  The camera was also mounted on a rock steady heavy-duty Bogen professional tripod, so motion blur was not a factor.

In regard to diffraction, the aperture was set to F8 (ISO was at 100), so diffraction was also not a significant factor.  The lens used was Nikon's standard kit model, the 24-120mm F4.

Sorry for the doubt. Haven't ever seen footage from D750 looking so soft. Guess the high detail scene brings out the weaknesses.

[mikegt]

1 hour ago, dahlfors said:

Sorry for the doubt. Haven't ever seen footage from D750 looking so soft. Guess the high detail scene brings out the weaknesses.

Thank-you - high detail scenes are indeed the problem.  The Nikon has a 24 megapixel sensor and 1080p HD video is only about two megapixels.  So 90% of the sensor data has to be dumped which does tend to kill fine detail.  With a powerful processor you could interpolate the image data down in a way that would preserve the detail, but it appears that most DSLRs don't have the computing power or sufficient cooling to do intelligent interpolation; instead they just dump the extra pixels.  Hopefully the next version of the D750 (the D760?) will have 4K recording.

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

I could get much sharper and higher resolution images from the Nikon (D810 and D5300, - D750 identical). Your sample is so muddy, identical to 600D/5DII resolution with in-camera sharpening ON. Perhaps your scene or our subjects differ in actual sharpness in real life (air/heat-waves/foggish/dirty-lens-filter?).Or 0 PP sharpen SOOC? 

Key is: poper DOF that covers the subject, pin sharp focus on it (not easy with a nikon SLR crappy magnification. and lack of any focus aids) and super sharpening in-post, it's a clean codec and responds to sharpening wonderfully. Plus super super sharp lenses (at ideal aperture/focal length) make the most difference even when I thought it would all be equal at 2mp.

Here two 50mm G @ f8 and one 24-70 2.8 @ f8 , Standard PP, default contrast (contributes to higher sharpness), zero sharpness, and global sharpening added in-post (here Vegas Pro set to 50+ ''Sharpening'', not ''Unsharp-mask'' plug-in which just emphasizes edges/halos like in-camera algorithm). Colours turn out this punchy straight off the Standard PP with +2 saturation (was going for that colour look and Nikon knows how to do saturated!). No grading except for sharpness.

I have personal terms I give to each camera much like a film stock to choose which one is best for mine/someone's project: Nikons give a ''happy'' look, best way I could describe it. Canon ''warm'' look, Panasonic/Red ''reality'' look, Samsung ''modern-future'' look, arri/f35/BM ''film-stock'' look, Sony, well, I'd rather not say Sony's it on an new exciting Sony camera thread :D

Nikon is absolutely inferior to any 4K camera in resolution/sharpness, but even these Nikons are too sharp/realistic for me, so in actual shoots I add 10-20+ post-sharpening for an organic authentic hard-edge free look.

Again, any UHD/4K camera's sharper, even my old Note 3 (god it's SHARP and detailed), but the Nikons have higher dynamic range, larger sensor aesthetic, greater line up with VR/AF, higher lowlight performance, less imposed in-camera sharpening (nx1/gh4/fz1000 I am looking at you), less rolling shutter, strangely cleaner codec, and better colours than many of these 4K ones, plus its downside (resolution) isn't that bad, it does a pretty decent HD/2K output, organic if needed and quite sharp if wanted..

I advice, look into the type of video you'll shoot as it's the only factor determining what's the ''better'' camera. Use these higher resolution smaller chip 4K cameras for landscape/fine-art/city/stock videography and the Nikons for narrative/music/beauty/film.

I think of them as different camera types for different jobs, that can, with effort, closely replace one another (GH4 + SB + FF lenses + colouring + some diffusion to get a Nikon look & a Nikon with super sharp lenses at restricted narrow apertures and post sharpening to get a GH4 look - both get close to one anothers' image benefits but not quite)

Actually a Nikon s35/FF for close-ups/ and a gh4/g7/fz1000 for the wides is a very good combination in the same project and inter-cut fluidly as far fetched as it might seem, taking advantage of both image benefits. Wide daylight exteriors with the GH4 + super sharp native m43s glass and actor flesh-tones indoor close-ups with a D750/810 + FF glass. 

Or if this a6300 has it all (no in-camera sharpening, reliable recording, nice colours, great FF-like lowlight, no codec or aliasing artefacts, not excessive rolling shutter), with a SB XL at hand it would carry both jobs as a wide sharp and FF organic close-up shooter. 1000$ + 600-ish$ EF SB it would be a steal to replace the FF + m43s 4K set-up I do.. And without a SB, the next t3i budget defacto for stills & video.

The selfie LCD is an extremely helpful feature for many new Youtube S35 4K channel upgrades too. Smart move. 

 

Just now, mikegt said:

Thank-you - high detail scenes are indeed the problem.  The Nikon has a 24 megapixel sensor and 1080p HD video is only about two megapixels.  So 90% of the sensor data has to be dumped which does tend to kill fine detail.  With a powerful processor you could interpolate the image data down in a way that would preserve the detail, but it appears that most DSLRs don't have the computing power or sufficient cooling to do intelligent interpolation; instead they just dump the extra pixels.  Hopefully the next version of the D750 (the D760?) will have 4K recording.

***Could you share some more frames from the D750 showing the resolution you're getting & share settings/grading/lenses so maybe we could offer help to readers?

[Mattias Burling]

6 hours ago, mikegt said:

I can (and will if needed) post tons of comparison shots that prove what I'm saying.  

No need, I did plenty of side by sides with both cameras to prove to myself that I liked the D750 way more.

 

6 hours ago, mikegt said:

You must of had a defective G7.  Or perhaps you didn't know how to turn 4K mode on (by default out-of-the-box the camera records in HD, you have to go in the menu system and select 4K recording).

Lol!

Whats happening here is the same old story. You have to understand that you cant "Prove" that a camera is "better" than another. It all depends on what you use it for and your personal taste.

All it proves is that its better for you. That doesnt make it better for me.

Price had nothing to do with it since Ive used cheaper cameras that I also thought was better. Either way, this is all OT by now so lets just enjoy our cameras or start a D750 vs G7 thread.

[mikegt]

2 hours ago, Ebrahim Saadawi said:

Perhaps your scene or our subjects differ in actual sharpness in real life (air/heat-waves/foggish/dirty-lens-filter?).Or 0 PP sharpen SOOC? 

No fog, and yes the lens was clean !!!  Settings were out-of-the-box, nothing customized. Also no post processing whatsoever.

I do agree with a lot of what you said, thank-you for posting a lot of info on how to get the most out of a D750.  In regard to your examples, obviously you have taken considerable care with both camera settings and sharpening the image in post.  Your results do look better than what I got out of my D750; but they are not 4K quality, as you said.

BTW, the G7 I think is improved over the GH4. The G7 is about one stop better in low light performance, and rolling shutter in 4K mode has been reduced.  I compared the D750 and G7 for rolling shutter; the D750 was a little better but not by much. I would not consider either camera really suitable for recording super fast action!  Also it's not an apples-to-apples comparison: The G7 is recording a lot more pixels (four times more) in 4K mode than the Nikon is in HD, if we could get the Nikon to record 4K it's rolling shutter would probably be worse than the G7 due to the sensor being double in size.

While you appear to be very happy with the D750, I'm not sure we should advise someone shopping for a film-making camera that the two cameras would be equally good for that purpose.  For one thing, with no custom settings and no post-processing sharpening, one can still get sharper more detailed images out of a camera that does 4K than one that does not, all other factors being equal.  Also, as you mentioned the less expensive G7 and the Sony 4K cameras have a lot of video features (focus aids, an EVF, etc.) that Nikon doesn't provide with the D750.  Full frame sensor cameras undeniably have a definite advantage in low light, but does that fully offset the shallower depth of field that can make keeping moving subjects in focus more difficult?

My other concern with the D750 as a film-making machine is value-for-money as far as it's video feature set is concerned; you can buy a Sony AS7II for just a bit more money, or at least three G7 cameras with lenses for the price of one D750 with it's kit lens, and these cameras give you 4K which the Nikon cannot do.   If low light were a priority, to be honest I would tell someone to not buy either a G7 or the Nikon, but instead to consider the Sony A7SII.

I spent $3K to buy a D750 and had high hopes for it; I really wanted it to work out but for film-making it became clear that at least for what I wanted out of it, this camera was not going to be the best solution for me.

I believe the most important thing I learned from having my D750 was that I had made a mistake trying to get one camera that would be equally suitable for stills and video.  IMHO it is better to get a mirrorless camera for video, and keep your old DSLR around for taking stills.  Then take the money you saved and buy some nice lenses...

 

[Mattias Burling]

"I'm not sure we should advise someone shopping for a film-making camera that the two cameras would be equally good for that purpose. "

You're right, that's why I advice the D750.
Again, there is no clear answer/winner here. Its all down to the users needs.

 

[mikegt]

16 minutes ago, Mattias Burling said:

"I'm not sure we should advise someone shopping for a film-making camera that the two cameras would be equally good for that purpose. "

You're right, that's why I advice the D750.

> Again, there is no clear answer/winner here. Its all down to the users needs.

There is no one solution that fits everyone and every situation, but that does not mean that there is not a solution that would be a better fit for most situations and most people.  I'm only writing advice here, take it or leave it as you wish.

[Mattias Burling]

12 minutes ago, mikegt said:

I sincerely hope that no one takes your advice, for their sake.

Why don't you just stop? Why is it so important to you that you go through all this trouble when you know that people are different?
Why not just accept that users have different needs? Otherwise, why isn't Hollywood using the G7? Or skateboarders? Or fashion photographers?

You like the G7 for its 4K, detail and price. I don't.
I would rather shoot 720p or SD if it meant higher DR and better colors. The D750 has that but in HD. That's what's important to me. I could care less about 4K.

If I wanted the most digitally sharp image available I would get the NX1.

Here is a side by side. The D750 is cropped waaay more than the G7, and still the G7, has some sharpness in the closest leaves but it all turns to mush in the shadows. To me that is more important than the 4K.

 

But most of all you need to stop thinking me or someone else liking the D750  is the same as us saying that you cant like the G7. You need to grow up and accept that we can have different tastes and needs.
Do you go on at restaurants and tell people they are "wrong" for not ordering the same as you? No, because that would make you insane.
Guess what, this is the same thing.

You like the G7, fine, good for you, I can see why you do, have fun with it.
I didn't like it and sold it, good for me.

BTW, here is a 4K vs HD side by side.
IMO, if your just using it for youtube, why bother.

 

[mikegt]

Mattias:

Obviously I have upset you.  Let me be very clear where I'm coming from here: If you are happy with your D750 then I'm happy for you and will not say that you made any kind of mistake in buying one.

But telling folks shopping for a film-making camera that the D750 is superior for video compared to cameras that can do 4K, and telling them they are better off without modern focus aids, EVFs, etc., is a bit misleading and is not IMHO just a matter of personal taste.

 

[Mattias Burling]

25 minutes ago, mikegt said:

Mattias:

Obviously I have upset you.  Let me be very clear where I'm coming from here: If you are happy with your D750 then I'm happy for you and will not say that you made any kind of mistake in buying one.

But telling folks shopping for a film-making camera that the D750 is superior for video compared to cameras that can do 4K, and telling them they are better off without modern focus aids, EVFs, etc., is a bit misleading and is not IMHO just a matter of personal taste.

 

No Im not upset, not even a tiny tiny bit
(I will take is as a way of dodging the questions)

Let me be very clear here: If you are happy with your G7  then I'm happy for you and will not say that you made any kind of mistake in buying one.

But telling folks shopping for a film-making camera that the G7 is superior for video compared to cameras that can do great DR, and telling them they are better off without great colors, large sensor, etc., is a bit misleading and is not IMHO just a matter of personal taste.

Do you see what I'm trying to tell you here. I made that choice. And in doing so I am 100% evidence to you that there are folks out there that value different things in an image. That's why pretty much everyone in this forum would rather shoot a 2K Alexa over a 4K G7 or 4K Red.

People are different, you're values aren't everyone else's.
And that's not an opinion, its a fact and its not for you to buy, but face.

Again, this is OT, lets drop it.

[mikegt]

2 minutes ago, Mattias Burling said:

No Im not upset, not even a tiny tiny bit

Well, your previous post did seem like a rant, so I think you did get upset.

> But telling folks shopping for a film-making camera that the G7 is superior for video compared to

You are getting a bit fixated on just the G7; I was speaking in more general terms in regard to other cameras compared to the D750.  If you want a big sensor then get a Sony A7 series as I previously said; don't get a G7. I really don't know what you are talking about in regard to color, the D750 does not appear to have any particularly overwhelming advantage in that regard.

Obviously you have invested a lot of money and faith in your D750.  Perhaps it would be better if you did not read my posts, because having owned one I will never say that it is superior to all other cameras when it comes to video.  

[mikegt]

1 hour ago, Mattias Burling said:

That's why pretty much everyone in this forum would rather shoot a 2K Alexa over a 4K G7 or 4K Red.

The Alexa is in an entirely different league from the cameras we have been talking about.  The body alone costs as much as a brand-new BMW 5 series, it's built like a tank and records at a much deeper color depth than anything ordinary mortals can generally afford to buy.  This is why 4K makes so much sense on the cameras we can afford - not necessarily for making the final product in 4K, but for being able to intelligently (a computer is needed) interpolate down to very high quality HD.  Mathematically at least a proper interpolation of 4K down to HD can give you 4:4:4 color depth.  You also reduce the picture noise as well (since you are making it four times smaller).  In many ways you can say that 4K is the best thing to ever happen to HD.

I'm sorry that you are not able to see the virtues of shooting in 4K.  Like it or not though, it is the future.

[Cinegain]

It's not about whose right or wrong. Sure, you could nitpick and fight over who is the 'most right', but really? You're both saying the same thing about something else and it's all good. People like the 1D C's 4K because it looks filmic. That's it. Quite capable of shallow depth of field, massive datarates, thick material to work with in post, excellent color. It just looks organic. Still 4K. Now you've got that D750... also capable of shallow depth of field, decent material to work with and excellent color here as well. Maybe not 4K, but also an organic look. It's not about not embracing 4K or getting along with the times. It's about the look... the quality, not the quantity. Take a look at MFT and we have Blackmagic and Olympus quite capable of nice organic rendering as well. Blackmagic even in 2.5 and 4K. But 4K on Panasonic and Samsung crop sensors, it looks modern and digital, contrasty (not amazing dynamic range) and sharp. The Panasonic GH4 in 4K has a 2.3x crop, sure you can speedboost it. And a lot can be done still to make it look more filmic, perhaps just by using the right filters.. Samsung has no focal reducers availlable/possible, so you're stuck with S35. Not that S35 is a bad thing, I mean, c'mon, but a lot of people will contribute a filmic look partly to a shallowish depth of field. Colors on the Samsung are definitely nice. On Panasonic it takes a little bit of work using the right settings, profile and post-production.

And Sony, to get back on topic, well, Sony has always had awesome features... on paper, then the ergonomics/design, battery life, menu fiddling and most of all: color, left wishing for more (F35 though!). E-mount does have focal reducers, so you can actually narrow the gap between APS-C and fullframe. Never really looked that filmic or too modern, just looks like... Sony, for lack of better terms. Their fullframe systems are nice, but I ain't looking to spend that kind of money on a camera body. And I will mostly want to shoot with S35 glass, fullframe lenses are too bulky for most applications when travelling a lot, but with versatile E-mount, you could still adapt some to an APS-C camera though when on close-by location and feel like rigging up.

The A6300 inherits a lot of cool stuff we've come to seen on the likes of the RX10M2, RX100M4, A7RII and A7SII. Which kinda makes it an excellent choice, as now we have APS-C 4K in a mirrorless body with the option to use focal reducers (else I could've included the NX1). It packs most of the important features mirrorless cameras nowadays have and just seems like an excellent tool with good value. Sure I could see where they've could've upped their game even more... vari-angle touchscreen, headphone-jack, better ergonomics, better battery life, in-body stabilization. They could've included that easily and still come in at around half price of an A7SII/A7RII. Wouldn't have been a problem here. Now it's still exciting, but not as exciting as it could've been. Yet, for the money... being the only current 4K APS-C mirrorless on the market it should prove an interesting option for people who want to step-up from Micro Four Thirds and try the little up in performance on APS-C. I'm sure the sensor's new infrastructure will prevent overheating and should have nice usable lowlight performance up to and including ISO3200; ISO6400 perhaps? Then there's possibility to get closer to fullframe and get shallower depth of field more easily. As well as more choice of wide (adapted) lenses.

We will have to see how it will pan out. Seen quite nice things with both A7RII and A7SII, if the A6300 is anything like the A7RII S35 crop mode, we're in for a treat, I'd say?

[Fontao]

1 hour ago, Cinegain said:

And Sony, to get back on topic, well, Sony has always had awesome features... on paper, then the ergonomics/design, battery life, menu fiddling and most of all: color, left wishing for more (F35 though!). E-mount does have focal reducers, so you can actually narrow the gap between APS-C and fullframe. Never really looked that filmic or too modern, just looks like... Sony, for lack of better terms. Their fullframe systems are nice, but I ain't looking to spend that kind of money on a camera body. And I will mostly want to shoot with S35 glass, fullframe lenses are too bulky for most applications when travelling a lot, but with versatile E-mount, you could still adapt some to an APS-C camera though when on close-by location and feel like rigging up.

I just wish ergonomics would be better...

Just came from a Lumix G7 to a Fuji X-T1. Just needed much more photo IQ than Video. I guess most of us, rookie/amateurish people, want a camera that just works. That's what i felt when switched to the Fuji. G7 ergonomics are great, X-T1 also, a6000 (and predictable a6300) not so much. This is just my opinion, sure, but i guess Sony APS-Cs would sell much more if they were in a mini a7 body. Or do they gave us the choice of which ergonomics to choose.Fuji gives this to photographers (X-E2s vs X-Pro2 vs X-T1) as do Pana and Oly to video-photographers.

Features look great in this camera though. It´s a Lumix G7 and many mid-level dSLR (d5500, 750d) killer, if buyers want to stay with few or adapted lenses.

I guess most m43 and Fuji users won't switch or use it as B-Cam due to the costs of good lenses for Sony. 

This will be for new buyers or b-Cam for a7s/a7R users...

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Cinegain]

Yeah, I'm a little bummed they're so eager on having a relatively thin camera profile. I don't find the E-M1 or GH4 too big for example. Or the NX1 or A7-series for that matter. If you want to go compact, the thing that really matters is the lenses. I mean, you could pick up a Panasonic GM1 and then adapt the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8, but if you want to shoot the Sigma, you might as well have gotten the G7, since a sizeable lens will dwarf any camera.

I like Nikon's D5300. You'll often find yourself struggling a little with Panasonic MFT, it just doesn't have the same lowlight performance and organic rendering as APS-C, not to mention 24MP is awesome to have for shooting stills. It's just a shame the D5300 isn't mirrorless. But basically the A5100/A6000 kinda share that same sensor. But I think when they rolled out, they were aiming for the average consumer, not expecting people would want to shoot a little more serious video with... so I wasn't really interested that much. Now though, the A7S has proven people do care about video and there's quite a market there. Then they upped it in the video department with the cameras I keep on mentioning: RX10M2, RX100IV, A7RII, A7SII. 4K. HFR. S-Log. And now have transferred that kind of tech to APS-C mirrorless! So... although mostly a MFT shooter, I wouldn't mind a piece of that APS-C mirrorless pie. And chances are... if you're shooting video with the GH4/BMPCC/D5300, you already have Nikon mount lenses that can easily be adapted to E-mount.

If you'd ask me to design the greatest camera to date with tech that's out now, it would probably have the Olympus E-M1 overall look and feel, with the grip, dual dials and everything; in-body stabilization too. Would probably have to be A7-series sized in order to fit all the things I want on it, haha. Then we can take something similar to the E-M5II vari-angle touchscreen and throw it on there. From the GH4 the WB/ISO/+/- buttons and battery life. Fujifilm XT-1 or Leica SL EVF. From Leica SL as well the OLED top LCD tech. Gotta have mic-in, headphone-out, fullsized HDMI port, dual memory slots. Sony's FS5 built-in electronic variable ND-solution and their E-mount. 20~24MP APS-C sensor. NX1's chip infrastructure for insane readouts and no overheating. Blackmagic internal ProRes/DNG RAW. Maybe a battery grip with some kind of mSata Speeddrive storage solution built-in when shooting 4.6K with it. You know, the good schtuff like that. (^^,)

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

My perfect camera would be a C100 II body, with all the fans & unlimited recording,

with the 1DC sensor (has a great 1.3x 4K and C100 like s35 HD mode)

on an Sony/Olympus IBIS motor.

and Sony E-mount, Canon Log,

Instead of MJPEG the 1.3x 4K is recorded to ProRes/XF-AVC 10bit,

and a BlackMagic 3:1 Cinema DNG option, (keeping 1DC image the same just with thicker colours)

generic SSD slot and an SD slot for small 4K 100mbps 4:2:0 h.264 recording option (or ProRes LT).

C300ii/1dxii DPAF,

and a super slowmotion mode from the sensor (say 120p, even HD),

Sony FS5/700 batts, or C100's batteries & grip & UI & Colours & XLRs & top handle & side grip (with iris wheel on it like 5D and two extra top buttons)

add the FS5 Variable ND mirror.

and 18mp stills from the 1DC sensor with a mechanical shutter (C100 without top handle & folded screen is a very manageable stills shooter in size, very 1dx like with a top notch Quality and tilting EVF)

Shipped with four adapters: Metabones Active EF-E mount SB & Normal - Metabones Active Nikon-E mount SB and normal (do it somehow),

 

Do you think any company would ever provide us with such complete camera solutions? Canon/Sony? or would they have a massive sales followed by 5-6 years of stagnation? 

I mean who would need any other video camera for 4K delivery for at least another 5-6 years when 8K comes along or something? (other than smaller B-pocket pocket body - the One @Cinegain just mentioned!)

[Blue Fox]

About the perfect camera:

I would be very, very happy if they did add an USB 3.0 port. USB 3.0 is capable of speeds up to 625 MB/s, while 4K RAW video (with Sony RAW compression) is around 500 MB/s for 4K60 (!). And internal prores recording too for when we don't want those insane file sizes :). That way we would be able to record really good quality video on cheap cameras. Just plug in a fast external hard drive over USB and get started. A 512GB SSD would give 2048s recording time (for 4K30), or more than half an hour.

Good 4K cameras exist (a6300, GH4, NX1, a7sII) and most computers have USB 3 ports. Can't these technologies be merged? Imagine the possibilities... Wouldn't 4K30 12bit RAW on the a6300 sensor blow away most of the competition, for a fraction of the price? Handling will never be comparable to professional stuff like the C300 II of course, but... if the image quality is there...