Leaderboard

I really love M43. My first interchangeable lens camera was the GH2 after having seen the Philip Bloom Christmas Special and Zacuto Shootouts where it punched well above its weight. I had considered the Canon 600D before, but I settled on M43, of which a big reason as well was that it was mirrorless and had a 'tiny' sensor, meaning lenses could be kept really compact, which was and still is a big thing if you're traveling around (and I'd rather have lenses be small, than shaving a few mm off a camera body, something I didn't understand about the APS-C E-mount line-up that had it all wrong (and then some)). Naturally progressed with the E-M1, BMPCC, GH4, G7. Then previously we had seen built-in sensor stabilization, but regarding Panasonic cameras it was really only used for stills. The GX80 changed that and with the tiny kit zoom (that still fools me with its ring, that I keep want to focus with (it only has a zoomring)) or Leica 15mm f/1.7 had the almost exact same formfactor of the premium compact LX100. The G80 gave you a mini GH5 before the latter was actually out and about. Still a very awesome hybrid camera, I doubt we'll see such a good value package again. Now the flagship stills shooter is the G9, which I have as well. It's a pretty awesome camera and does a lot of the basic video stuff as well, sport that huge EVF and extra push of hybrid IS. Of course I had to get the GH5 that ultimately was a video production beast, with all the bells and whistles. That's what I love about Panasonic. Where else are you getting a camera body with weather sealing, dual cardslot, vari-angle touchscreen, fullsize HDMI, complete audio interface, great batterylife, nice buttons/dials/joystick & customization options? Then internally, some of the best sensor stabilization, 4K60p, 10-bit options, limited rolling shutter, V-Log L, HLG, anamorphic mode, all the focus and exposure aids and overlays, incl. like waveforms/vectorscope. It's pretty dang crazy! I doubt you can fault the camera bodies or the system itself. There's so many lenses to choose from in all kinds of sizes, budgets and quality. And the shallow flange allows for adapting third party lenses easily (the E-mount is better though). So... as a system I believe in it a whole lot. But it has gotten a lot of hate for its 4/3" sensor. Cameras were never all that great. But the A7S really rollercoastered things up. Pushing a GH4 beyond ISO800 was a crime against noisemanity and damn how convenient would it be to have a clean ISO1600, 3200, 6400? Dynamic range was never really up-to-snuff either. Always had this contrasty look with blown-out highlights and crushed blacks. Colors tempted to go orangey. But you have to admit that the recent developments are hella impressive on the post-GH4 generation cameras. What people are complaining the most about now is C-AF... yeah, I feel like Panasonic placed a bet on the wrong horse going with depth from de-focus. They should just admit their wrongdoings and change things up with the next gen. But it has to be said... C-AF never was great and it certainly wasn't as great as it is now. Yet... we always made it work. Think DualPixel AF has really spoiled a lot of people. Of course I applaud anything that's extra on a camera, the more the merrier and can be super practical at times (e.g. on a gimbal stabilizer), but to me it certainly is no dealbreaker. ISO sensitivity and noise performance is getting there. I think colors are about where they should be as well. Dynamic range is I think still one of the biggest issues with these cameras, although highlight roll-off and recovery has become much better already. One other thing that bothers people about the MFT system... the depth of field isn't as shallow as you'd get with fullframe. Well, that's a given. But honestly, we've got so many epic lenses and there a focal reducers. It's at a point that criticism is more like bokehwhoring. And you don't always need to have silky and creamy backdrops. Give your scenes some goddang context. People have become way too obsessed with blurry backgrounds what I'm concerned. Get any nice f/1.4 Sigma lens on MFT and you shouldn't need to wish for much more. What would I like to see in the future? Well, it's healthy for the system if it got some more love from other people. So, it would be great to see people loving C-AF with it, rather than hating on it. Dynamic range and further improvement on color and sensitivity, combined with sensor stabilization is something I'm personally looking forward to. Not sure how far along they are with the organic sensor and global shutter developments, but such implementations would be interesting to see. Would also be interesting if they could work in some kind of ND-trick. Maybe set-up photosites as such that they have multiple base levels and never allow to clip or crush data (no need to protect highlights or shadows, get 'em both!). That they can drop sensitivity like an ND filter, a low and clean ISO band (ISO8-128 or some shit) if you will, without the need of optics. There's also still the possibility to pull something like we've seen implemented on the JVC GY-LS300, pairing the MFT mount up with an APS-C sensor behind it. So... I don't think MFT is done for quite yet. I actually think it has improved significantly over the years and is an amazing piece of kit. There's already very little to complain about, so the future must be completely nuts. I do not care that the A7III is coming in at just below $2k for the camera body. If anything it will no longer have it make sense for Sony themselves to bother with the A6x00 series, that keeps camera bodies so small there's a lot of problems I have with them and neglect a dedicated line-up of compact lenses for the system (forcing you into mostly using fullframe E-mount lenses). Why would you get a 1799 A6700 when you can get an A7III for 200 bucks more? Because the crop works like a teleconverter? Well, you can use these FF cameras in S35 crop mode and the sensitivity and detail nowadays hardly gives the dedicated APS-C sensor an edge there, if any at all. Nikon and Camera mirrorless systems will likely only be fullframe and hella expensive, so don't just count me in there either. I like MFT. To me the G9/GH5/GH5S/E-M1mkII are the finest camera bodies on the market, that makes it fun and easy to shoot with. Mostly I love the fact that you have the option to keep lenses really dang small. Maybe it's the Laowa 7.5mm f/2 MFT, the Leica 15mm f/1.7, Olympus 17mm f/1.8, Lumix 20mm f/1.7, 42.5mm f/1.7 or Zhongyi 25mm f/0.95... that's just so awesome. I wouldn't be getting that with the A7III. At the same time of course I could opt for bigger and more quality lenses, that's just another option you have. Olympus PRO, Sigma, Leica, some really good stuff can be had. And you can frankenrig things up as you see fit. Throw on any lens you want and make full use of the sensor stabilization! Throw on cages, rails and have at it. I don't know, personally I haven't lost excitement for the system. And there's not just Panasonic and Olympus anymore. There's DJI, Z Cam, YI Tech, et cetera putting their own spin on things. We certainly haven't seen the last of it! Most of all I'm excited now for the BMPCC4K. How awesome is that going to be? Cinema MFT FTW! ?

$2000 for a cinema camera that has XLR, cLog, DPAF, internal NDs, with a really clean 1080p image downscaled in camera from 4K... that cost $6000 new only a few years ago... yeah that’s dirt cheap.

Of EXCITEMENT!!!11ONE

I guess while this Site is called Eoshd.com, it was the GH2 (and its various hacks) that really got things going, and the various models of M43 cameras that got most indie filmmakers excited around here. The Sony A7iii seems to have ruined the party for a lot of people, way more than one could imagine. And the below $2000 price tag has suddenly made things harder to sell, for almost everyone (Including Sony's own models that can be easily replaced by the A7iii, due to its price advantage, and plethora of superlat8ve features for the price). It was the 10th Anniversary of the birth of the M43 and Mirrorless format, last week. While the GH5 and GH5s, and the Olympus OMD 1D are great cameras, their (former) $1999 price seems a lot, especially for Olympus. What all areas do you think Panasonic and Olympus need to work on, to push the Mirrorless advantage for Mirrorless, now that Nikon is also finally crashing the party? Suggestions could be anything from the high bitrate (with no noticeable advantage except in very heavy grading) to the low dynamic range of VLog (between 1.5-2 stops below that of the sensor's in RAW), to the Lack of 14-abit RAW to lack of PDAF (on the Panasonic) etc.

I shot with a set of 3 C100's exclusively with a past employer. When I left and the company was looking to offload them, I begged to buy one because I'd grown so fond of them. There is not a better get-out-of-your-way camera with a high quality image at a low datarate than the C100. If you don't absolutely need 4k, I wouldn't hesitate to pick one up at their current used prices.

Derr... that’s the point. This happens way too often on this site. People ask opinion between A and B camera and somebody goes off on some G option. Yeah, typing too quick.

Oh they have a great look no doubt. But the viewfinder, LCD, first gen DPAF, it, well it is just old and outdated. It is like the PMW F3, AF100, sure they are, well were great cameras at the time but their time is gone now, with heck mirrorless cameras that are 500% better overall. I know he has a ton of Canon lenses but what can't the Sony A7 mk III do, and he can adapt all them on a Metabones SB I would guess, and 50 things more than the C100 other than built in ND filters. How often do you really have to use them. And they sell variable ones, or singles if you do need them. This is 2018. We have new stuff with IBIS and great AF that fit in your coat pocket. Why buy some clunky big outdated cameras for the same or more money. I don't see the reasoning. Heck this new Nikon may be ground breaking. Same with the new Canon ones. It just seems like a step backward in a day of magical cameras we never dreamed of. The OP to seems to need a camera that is the jack of all trades. And the Sony A7 mk III is that camera. Now if he wants it to look pro get a rig from hell for it LoL.

A Good Samaritan has kindly helped me out and done some side by side recordings of the FF 1080p mode and 1.7x 4K crop mode both recorded via the HDMI output to a BMVA4K. The results are basically as I expected, the 5D IV looks much nicer in that downsampled 4K mode and does seem to work in that way. I think with C-Log and DPAF using this recording method makes it a pretty killer option and am definitely looking to add one to my kit now. As an aside, the in camera 1080p does IMO look a lot better than Canon’s earlier efforts, like my 1DC (1DX) and 70D.

I'd be thinking WOW!! if they have enough room to make a speed booster version of the adapter. Faster versions of their back catalogue of already fast primes with full AF when shooting in Super 35 mode would be a bit of an OK thing.

Maybe the guy is a Lithuanian basketball center turned spontaneous hipster moment catcher... It's all matter of context.

Foreplay. It's almost the best part. You know, bit of teasing here and there, but nothing's coming out yet.

You’ll smile when you read this. After a brain spasm of a meeting today - the choice has been made and has gone ahead. It’s the EVA1, GH5S and GH5. The Atomos Sumo will join the EVA1. (@Sage will love this). We also need to update our gimbal. At the moment it’s a toss up between the Ronin-S and Tilta G2X? Tough. After all is said and done, I’m going to cry for week as I’ll be living on instant noodles and cheap biscuits for a while! ?

I just installed a new Rawlite OLPF into my UMP, mainly for IR cut purposes, but also to take the edge off of sharpness. Take a look at the before/after below. Skintones are much improved under tungsten lighting. Here is a moire test on Rawlite's site: http://rawlite.com/olpf-for-blackmagic-ursa-mini-pro-4-6k/

Wow, Thanks everyone for your thoughts. I should have been more clear about absolute needs and workflow. When I arrived at this job, all I had was the XA10 camcorder and two 720 handycams. I did the best I could. I started bringing my 70d in to do all the run and gun stuff, and finally after a while convinced THEM to buy me an 80d with the 18-135. That was the max budget I could get out of them. I couldn't just "save" that 1000 so I went ahead got the 80d. I personally have always had DSLR for my family, music, and travel and the 6dmk2 clicks my boxes there so then I was a 2 DSLR show and the old XA10. Now with a little more money and possible selling the 80d, I am looking for real video. 1. No 4k needed, and not wanted really. I do things like Go to Kindergarten while the paint pumpkins. Take real quick B-roll of all the actions, cute shots of them together. Super tight, super wide shots, mostly on mono pod (Gimbal in future) head up to my office and turn around a quick 1-2 min video in an hour. 4k would crush that workflow. And I do this all the time, a few times a week along with all these other videos I'm doing. 2. Need a "no time limit" camera. This is why mirrorless won't work for this camera. Maybe one day, I'll dump the 6d for canon's new mirrorless or something else, but that's not the question right now. 3. Much better picture in low light, mostly situations where I don't have ANY control of the light. Better than 80d or 6dmk2. 4. Oh, I also need to stream 1080p HDMI out which I know both c100's do. I feel like the mk1 could keep me with the 80d/6d for the 60p and run and gun work and maybe that is just stupid. Just go for the mk2 and use it for everything. Then I wouldn't have to worry about changing cameras all the time, just adding cameras for performances. Cheers

But they're 2 very good tricks ?

Well with his 1800 dollar budget he would be in business then. And I agree OOC footage is hard to beat.

It's a 2 trick pony.

My C100 mk1 (w/ Dual Pixel AF) is by far my best camera investment ever, and still goes strong in 2018 imo. so much so that i cancelled my C200 order at last minute. As much as I want the C200 i know it's going to sit on my shelf collect dust 95% time. I'll just rent one when need comes. C100 is already max size for most of my run & gun needs. Hell i hardly bring my DSLRs out aside for day long events. MILCs really got us spoiled!

Auto focus is a necessity, not so much for me but for those that have become obsessed with it. The GH5S showed that good low light is possible, and even the GH5 showed that low light capabilities are improving over previous cameras, so that's not a major issue these days, but narrowing the gap in low light performance is obviously something they need to continue with. I think exploring a APS-C sized sensor might be something they should look more into. With adapters it can get you very close to full frame, which is another thing people seem to becoming more and more obsessed with. Overall though I think Panasonic has done a good job developing the system. Nearly 2 years after release I think the GH5 is still worth every penny and is still the only camera in its class capable of doing so many things.

Ok, interesting. Especially considering its like 1/4th the bitrate and 10-bit 4-2-2 vs 8-bit 4-2-0. Dave Dugdale did a video where he pushed the A6500 (I think that was the Sony model) against the Panasonic GH5, and he didn't notice very serious advantages of the Panasonic over the Sony. Also the 400mbps bitrate is just unnecessarily demanding on the space (and processors and cards). The XAVC codec seems to really have some secret sauce. Plus the lower forceful limitation on dynamic range in VLog L seems to be a bad idea?

It helps to have options though, something you never even considered might be a fantastic choice for your described uses.

Oh yeah... and he said he wants a Canon and never mentioned the a7iii.

Looks a lot less ridiculous than this imo..

Fuji film simulation in 10bit. Yes please. I bet the AF will be pretty handy as well. Still enjoying X-H1. Personally I would be tempted to wait for the update to that rather than X-T3 though.

Rumblings that Olympus is doing similar in the near future as well.

Well, the OP also already said that he is pulling triple duty as director, DP and operator... so anybody who has ever done anything similar would know that one less thing to worry about is useful. So I would say AF is important in this scenario. I never used Sony PDAF but I know Canon DPAF has been described as having a Hollywood focus puller following you on set... to me that sounds pretty damn useful if you’re also worried about lighting, camera movement, composition, actor’s performances. Hell, the time saved marking the floor is worth its weight in gold in that scenario. The good thing about AF is you don’t have to use it, but if you don’t have it, you can never use it. With that being said, AF doesn’t automatically beat codec and codec doesn’t beat AF. Now if he/she were to come back and post that he is making a feature film to try and get distributed, then codec would probably win. If he is working on some short films for festivals but mostly for the web, AF may be more important. Personally, if I were him/her, I’d go with the GH5. Since he/she has shot with the DVX200, possibly in vLogL, the GH5 may be a logical transition. It will give a good beefy, 10bit codec for grading and it will offer some AF that could be used for tracking shots. It’s not perfect AF but in a pinch it can help with difficult shots where movement, composition and performance are also critical. The IBIS is another plus.

Yes @UncleBobsPhotography I have something for you to memorize 8 focus points with selectable transition speeds. It will be out shortly-ish after the BM4K camera (as it will support Panasonic/Sony/BM). Or if you switch to Leica you can have it earlier. Though that seems a bit extreme ?

Thanks @Aussie Ash and @BTM_Pix - I was definitely fooled!! I was thinking WOW!! ???

A bit more context here with it mounted on what looks like a D850 or D500 you can see how much of the rear taper behind the controls is still the lens so it suggests that the actual adapter is reasonably compact. Again though, even if it was a native mount, that is a far, far bigger lens than you would be expecting them to be illustrating the benefits of a compact mirrorless setup with Not to mention it being £11K !

Cheers! It still looks a little darker here than it did in FCPX or in the exported still before upload. I was using the Sigma 18-35 at f2, ISO 800 with a Tiffen Black Pro Mist 1/4 filter. Used Neat Video to process the noise, dropping the high frequency noise reduction to about -50% to avoid that plastic look and added some sharpening. Neat Video is incredible. @HockeyFan12 You've inspired me to do some more tests in the same spot and mess around a little with the exposure. I'll report back later this week.

It thought the pic was the new lens adaptor but it is the 180-400mm with built in x1.4 Teleconverter weighs only 3.5kgs !!! will she take the strain ????

Cool. I've said it can be useful in some situations, you've said it can be useful in some situations. I'm just not sure how any of that added up to the below....? Unless it was autocorrect and you meant to say "yes, you raise valid points, but have you also considered....."

All of us our-country-is-also-a-continent people over here have a club, one of the main things is cool names. The US says "across the pond" about the UK, but actually that was started by the UK, because they are technically a member of the club too, and we let the US use it because we're all very nice. That's part of the club rules too. All you have to do is start being nice, and to merge with Canada, Mexico, and all the South American countries and we'll consider your application ???

Yes, but I'm not recommending that people start out with their first wireless be something which is over 8 times more expensive than a RodeLink. Not at all, I recommend instead better products (Sony UWP-D11) which are still in the same general price bracket.

OR just buy a REALLY wide angle lens and leave it on F8, set to infinity, and have a Big stick with a nail in it to beat people that get closer than, eh say 8 feet from the camera, especially if this guy is close!!!

Assuming that during filming: you're not too busy operating other equipment to operate the camera if you are operating the camera then you have control of focusing (eg, gimbals often prevent MF) if you could do MF that you're not too busy doing anything else with the camera you can see the image well enough to actually see focus (screen bright enough, focus assists are good enough, etc) and also assuming that the time spent learning to MF (which is a skill that isn't easy to pick up) isn't better spent doing something else. Remember, the object of all of this is a high quality finished output, not mad MF skills. It's better to tell a good story and use AF than to use MF and tell a shitty one.

Those shots are so hard to expose. So you have no choice but to let the sky blow out. Pro DPs would light those trees, but I know I don’t have those kind of resources. In Resolve, in the Raw Tab, there is a Highlight protection thing you click on and it really helps to retain some information in any blown out areas. With my 5D3 raw files, I love Resolve for basic color correction and to transcode to ProRes 444. I then bring it into FCPX for edit and color grading... I know I should grade in Resolve but I just can’t wrap my head around nodes and don’t feel like learning it.

It looks very underexposed to me but I wasn't there. And I haven't seen the ungraded image so I can't say. I found my light meter correlates pretty well with the C100 and C300's internal meters in Canon Log 1, and produces results similar to what Canon's white papers would predict, but that does result in a significantly darker image than most people shoot, and I wasn't very scientific about things at all. Pro DPs have informed me my meter (758 cine) might as well be junk, and the pros either use Pentax digital spot meters or Spectras. Regardless, it matched pretty well, but I found myself underexposing significantly more than online sample footage. Looking at Canon's white papers: https://learn.usa.canon.com/app/pdfs/white_papers/White_Paper_Clog_optoelectronic.pdf (page 6) The original C300 has a 5.3/6.7 over/under at base ISO (850) in Canon Log. So 5.3 stops in the highlights, 6.7 in the shadows. The C300 Mk II (and C200, presumably) has an over/under of 6.3/8.7 in Canon Log 2 (at ISO 800): So it gains a stop in the highlights, and gains two stops in the shadows. Not sure I buy it. The C300 seemed to have 12 stops for real, but the C200 doesn't seem to have 15 stops for real... Arri Log has a 7.4/6.6 over/under, at 800 ISO on the Alexa Classic: I don't trust that either. The Alexa Mini in my experience has FAR more highlight and shadow detail than that would indicate, and Arri's newer charts show 7.8 stops over at 800 ISO (and internally but not publicly Arri rate the Alexa Mini's sensor at 15+ stops, not 14+ stops–even 15+ seems conservative to me.) I'd guess 7.8/8+ for the Alexa Mini based on my experience with it, and with a more aesthetically clean noise pattern than the C200. That said, the Alexa has very noisy shadows, much like the C200, and much noisier than non-cinema cameras with noise reduction or highly compressed codecs like dSLRs, and possibly noisier than would be acceptable to most on this forum, especially at 3200K. Based on what I've seen online (tests at CML), the C200 at base appears to have 1.5 stops less highlight detail than the Alexa Mini at base, but shadow detail is similar, which correlates with the numbers above. And based on my own experience shooting with the Alexa Classic and C300, this seems pretty consistent with that. What I'm getting at, is when you rate the C200 two stops slower to get cleaner shadows, you might get more shadow detail but you're moving your over/under to 4.3/10.7. That's 3.5 stops less highlight detail than the Alexa Mini, which is the gold standard, and which still has far less highlight detail than 5219. I know this is all complicated/unscientific since I'm trying to dig up random figures online from sources that get them in different ways and I also think Arri is super conservative on their shadow detail numbers, so I'm throwing my own bias into it. But for me, a 4.3 over seems about accurate for the C200 overexposed two stops or shot at 200 ISO and for me it's unacceptable. I know there are DPs who can light their way around this limitation, and many on this board do all the time, but I'm not one of them. I mostly work in post, for me this is hard! I think it's also a matter of taste. Online, it seems there's a big aversion to digital noise. Whereas with film, grain was an aesthetic choice, and it doesn't really bother me, and it seems to be less of a concern on the tv shows and features I've worked on because those are being viewed in theaters or on tv, not being pixel-peeped. I'm a bit old school and come from a film background so for me I would probably just rate at 800 ISO or 640 ISO rather than ETTR, and embrace the noisy shadows, while realizing the C200's image is too noisy for most at base ISO. And definitely noisier than I wish it were. Pick your poison I guess. For me, I'll take highlight detail over clean shadows, and I can't think of anything else other than the EVA1 maybe that would work for me. That said, what you posted looks much more underexposed than I'd expect. I wish my meter were better calibrated and my lenses had t-stops rather than f-stops so I could investigate this myself in a way that might be useful to others, but I don't want to spread any misinformation online if I can avoid it. So while I plan to get my hands on a C200 and see how it works when I meter it with my 758cine, I'd rather not draw conclusions for others based on that experience, as I am biased and my equipment improperly calibrated for meaningful tests. But you've inspired me to run my own tests to figure out how I'll meter in the future, since it's all internally consistent within my inconsistent ecosystem at least. Thanks for the measurements on the screen. Looks like the Kinotehnik loupes will be a bit too small. The Hoodman loupes are much worse but their 4" riser might work and still be cheap.

I think they have confused themselves about the type of difference a fresnel element will provide. I have the Nikon 300 f4 PF which has the fresnel element in it. It enabled Nikon to make it roughly a third smaller and half the weight of the previous version and it is a hell of a lens. But its still an f4. My suspicion is what they actually meant its that it can make an f1.4 lens have the weight/size that you would expect of an f1.8 just as the 300 f4 PF has the sort of weight/size that you would expect of a 300 f5.6 lens. So, fast primes that are smaller than you'd expect is the headline there rather than slower primes which are faster than you'd expect

Exposure is a funny old thing with this camera in RAW so far. I took it out for a walk last night around Friedrichshain in Berlin, tough conditions. The max ISO I'm wanting to push this too at the moment is around 1600, and when there isn't enough available light to overexpose the image you're going to have noisy shadows. Here's a screengrab before and after noise reduction – it's most obvious in the car windows. The noise reduction did an incredible job. Either way, while middle grey should be exposed at around 38% with CLOG3, I'm tending to want to overexpose and bring down the exposure in post. The highlight retention is really impressive, and it helps combat the noisy shadows. edit: The upload seems to have crushed the image a fair bit, but the noise is still visible.

Here's a quick test from tonight. The sequence labeled GHAlexa is PRE and GHa Daylight LUT only, no luma adjustments. V-Log L, Full-HD All-I, 60p & 24p, 400 ISO, auto white balance SLR Magic Anamorphot-40 1.33x + Polarizer Panasonic Lumix G 25mm f/1.7 De-squeezed frame is 2560x1080.

My Samsung NX1 is still rocking strong in 2018.

Hey! Where are the NX votes?!!

Here is another statistic they dominate after +3900 votes. And thats on my channel where Sony is getting constant praise.

This one is worth an eye roll. Another clickbait headline with a leap of logic that makes no sense, and runs contrary to everything Samsung has done since whacking the NX line. The smartphone market as a whole has plateaued in the last couple years due to a number of factors including market saturation, no growth in China, people holding phones longer, little innovation year-to-year, more competition from smaller companies like Huawei and so on. Last year was the first with no year-over-year growth, this year is forecasted to be flat as well. Are they really going to tie up sensor production for a small piece of a shrinking pie or are they going where there's growth - like automotive, security and industrial? All of their reports say they're focused on growth areas and mobile. Samsung still sold 310 million phones last year while making a tidy profit and half the worlds population lives in places with much lower market penetration like India, Africa and Latin America - compared to areas of high saturation like the US, China, Europe and the rest of Asia. 5g may spark another boom, but it won't be widely available until 2020. 25% of the total camera market is only about 3 million units at 2017 sales levels - and 5 years from now that will be much lower as compacts (half of least years dismal numbers) continue to evaporate. It would take them years to gain any meaningful market share. Even if they released a new APS-c sensor today, it would be a couple years before they could even get into a single camera. They're smartly hedging their bets by boosting sensor production capacity with the stated goal of toppling Sony as the #1 manufacturer, but its not for large sensor cameras. http://english.etnews.com/20180315200002 #fakenews Chris

Totally disagree. The GH5 is possibly the best value proposition video camera out there. Its overpriced and oversized for an m43 photography camera but that's why they have the GX and other lines.

The latest development with ML and the EOSM is that one can shoot raw with the full height of the sensor -- and it looks fairly clean (minimal moire/aliasing). The resolution is 1736x1120, and I think that the pixels are binned 3x3. Here's @Alpicat's test at 14-bit lossless raw: Here are the instructions on how to setup the EOSM in this new crop/resolution.

Happy to share any useful info. Like you, I was looking everywhere for people's experience with the 5D4. There's a very talented Cinematographer/DOP who has several music/model videos on YouTube, where he uses the 1Dc and 5D4 cut together. I found it difficult to tell them apart in the final edit. And in the comments section, people asked which he preferred or would buy if he had to make a choice and his response was to go with the 5D4.... As for my own experience.....I realized that I needed a hybrid. Was going to go with the Sony Full Frame until footage was released online. I can't get past the shitty skin tones and the ridiculous noise reduction=mudd. And I'm just not in the position or place in my career to warrant a dedicated video cam. Otherwise, I would probably go for the C200 or something like that. And I know I sound like a Canon fan boy but their image and usability on the day can't be beat. For my film I had originally rented a GH5.....a few hours later, it was back at the rental house. It was like a toy with a confusing menu. My point being, I need gear that works, out of the box and intuitive in its use. I'll use whichever tool that allows me to get the shot or footage without getting in the way. And so far, thats been Canon. On set the 5D4 was amazing. Never once an issue. I used the amazing DPAF coupled with the Canon app on an iPad to frame and focus the shot. The app worked accurately 80% of the time and was truly a life saver. I would have wanted to send the body back to Canon to upgrade to C-Log but just didn't have time in the shooting schedule. Used Neutral Profile and with VERY limited lighting, was able to pull out amazing dynamic range and IQ. The 4K is true Cinema DCI and coupled with the crop, is a very pleasing, cinematic frame. No need for adding 'black bars' to the edit. File size.....yep, they're huge. The film is just shy of 11 minutes. Rendered and exported in ProRes 422 HQ, with the applied LUT's, grain and audio; came to 63 Gigs in FCPX, 53 on the external drive and 49 going into Vimeo. But the quality! Wow! Seriously, everything from retaining dynamic range to the colour in the most organic way. Totally worth the upload time! Things to consider....if you want C-Log, you need to either send away for installation or buy pre installed from BH? Must have big, fast CF Cards. The camera will split clips into 4Gig sections if the care is smaller then 256Gig. In 4K thats about a minute of footage. Did I mention needing a lot of cards? But I bet its still less then shooting RAW on BMCC or RED....or having to buy the really expensive CFast or the SD cards to be able to do 4K in the GH5 or the Sony's. When using the Canon App with the 5D4, you have to turn on the wi-fi in camera, which uses even more battery then shooting video. Haven't tested for length of use but easily used 3-4 in a full day of shooting. I have never used the C100 but the footage is nice, without the limitations of a DSLR/Hybrid. Its probably super user friendly and gets the job done and if you don't need 4K, they're very reasonably priced. That's all I can think of for now. If there's anything specific you'd like to know, ask away. Happy to help.

@521photo would love to hear more about your film and any BTS info on how the 5D4 worked. I may have a few opportunities coming up and I may invest in either a C100 mk1, 5D4 or see what’s what with the new Canon mirrorless. So any info you can share would be great.

Well I must be #28!??? But I was in a similar position a few months ago. Needed a 4K capable camera for a film and a body that could also handle pro photo use for my photography biz, as upgrade to the 5D2. I needed something familiar. Looked seriously at the 1Dc but ultimately went with the 5D4. No regrets although I was concerned with the crop in 4K. I shot a film and have used it on several photo shoots and can say that it capable of producing an exceptional image, video and stills. A lot of the negatives online, have been positives in my experience. The giant file size, is easy to edit in FCPX and can be pushed around for colour. I finished my film in no small part due to the incredible DPAF. Seriously, it was a lifesaver! I don't really care about spec sheets. Been shooting long enough to know that the only thing that really matters is the image quality. And I don't really care if the file sizes are too big or the crop, etc, etc.