Andrew Reid

If true then the timing is weird. It's already quite overdue compared to previous release cycles for the GH1,GH2,GH3,GH4. I wonder if they have had a late major change - such as new sensor - to incorporate? All speculation at this point....

Anley Kubri loves his Cano amera Beware of AL Ucking aughty robot Deleting thos illy massiv MJPE iles fro Anley's driv An I love th scen in ehistoric tim wit th monkeys... Datin ack to MJPEG times at the beginni of th univers

Yeah it is over. What a shame the 5D Mark II never got a proper sequel to excite video users. It was such a remarkable moment in filmmaking tools. A democracy in the making. Unfortunately Canon's marketing and margins killed the dream almost as soon as it started. Cinema EOS is all about extracting massive margins. The photography stuff has peaked, it is all down hill in terms of sales from now on in the age of the smartphone. I am happy in the hybrid video/stills niche as we have plenty to look forward to from the other manufacturers...... So maybe it is time to get over the hurt of the past 5 years and move on.

Aside from the 1D C their C-line can't do decent stills. I want both in one camera. GH5 it is then! It's not the crop by itself which is the issue, it is the mismatch between the lens mount and the sensor crop size. On a Micro Four Thirds camera the lenses are designed to fit the 2x crop sensor. And the lack of mirror means special optical designs like the Metabones Speed Booster XL are possible, effectively giving you a 1.3x crop of your full frame Canon lenses instead of 2x. So I don't even consider the GH4 as a 2x crop camera. The 5D Mark IV is a 1.74x crop camera and stuck with it. You pay that much money for a full frame camera, you expect it to shoot full frame.... no? You expect it to have LOG as well!!

Plenty of ways. Thousands of dollars spent on heavily search engine optimised clickbate material which pushes other more relevant and better written pieces off the front page of search results. SEO experts are expensive. A ton of cash on a team of writers and people to cover trade shows and criss cross the planet in business class interviewing reps. Flights to Japan to cozy up to the industry. Slowly but surely money drowns out the others who aren't in bed with the industry, their backers and sponsors. The editorial is changed. The internet is changed. I am not The Verge. I don't have unlimited staff and resources to keep EOSHD alive in the face of such hostile big-spending competition.

Who is more stupid?

Here's a list of great things about the 5D Mark IV... Read the full article to see the list

I am just a guy with an independent voice in the world of camera reviews without hundreds of cozy ties to people from the manufacturers, without ads splattered all over the screen, without sponsors on my every video, yet still I find EOSHD mired in a world of cut throat rivalry. Only very occasionally like in the beginning with DPReview have I been given a leg up in this industry and even then it only takes one person like Barney to massacre that relationship too. The other blogs like NoFilmSchool, Cinema5D and NewsShooter spend 10's maybe even 100's of thousands of dollars trying to punt my homebrew EOSHD site into oblivion and I just find the whole thing utterly distasteful. Rather than offering a new talent an opportunity they instead I am treated like just another commercial rival to be beaten. In the end it is up to you guys to choose. The managed platform of platitudes and advertorial, or the honest opinions and educational books of an artist/filmmaker. May the best guy win.

Unfortunately I fell out with their 2 main guys, over disagreements with the direction their editorial was taking. I guess this is the result but it's still a nasty thing to do to their own forum users. I don't care so much about myself. But why punish their own readers and limit their knowledge of external resources? It is a shame as I have met some of the DPR team in person and count them as friends - Lars and Richard in particular. Lars used to live in Berlin! There's a bit more to the story as well... I began to be frustrated at every turn at how hard it was to get my articles past their main editor Barney and something else happened, something deeply disturbing, that I will not go into detail about.

Yeah but if you are pushing the shadows that much on any camera, you're going to end up with something that looks weird.

In all practical reality there's no difference in DR Have you tried getting max DR out of any camera - it makes stuff look like puke Within acceptable aesthetic parameters all the modern stills cameras are pretty much the same, there are very SMALL differences. Not an issue for stills only an issue for video and for a cinema camera it's tiny. Are you saying that all landscape photographers are using a Nikon or Sony? I doubt that....A lot of pro landscape shooters use a 1D X which is basically the same camera as the 1D C and they are perfectly happy with it.

It's a shame Canon haven't put the 1D C image & sensor in a more video optimised body ergonomically, like a mini-C100 and paired it with the XF codec 422 305Mbit They sit on this amazing tech and do fuck all with it.

Just because Sony and Nikon are also fucking up doesn't let Canon off the hook from criticism. The 3 of these together are largely responsible for the dire direction the industry is taking in terms of sales. A lack of truly innovative design and adaptation to modern requirements are to blame.

If that is correct then it will be 1.67x sensor area effective in 4K mode - not too different to Canon APS-C at 1.6x crop. Not ideal but not a deal breaker and it is oversampling from a nice 5K res.

Ah yeah better slow-mo could be on the cards, definitely. I'll be happy with 120fps as long as it is clean 1080p with no weirdness or crop. Then it competes with the RX100 IV and RX10 III but interchangeable lenses and larger sensor.

Source?

Yeah I know, just making a point about the initial release state of the camera - should never have passed out of the gates!

We find ourselves in the slightly odd situation of Fuji and Samsung leading the $1000-$2000 market for Super 35mm video. Read the full article

A lot of people believe this, sadly it isn't true. 90% of the compression is done BEFORE the codec stage. You have the 12bit or 14bit raw sensor data, full RGB It gets hacked down to some shitty facsimile of it - 8bit YUV And 444 turns into 4:2:0 Then they label it 'uncompressed 422' when it comes to HDMI, which the advertising standards authority really should look into... In fact it is a signal in a highly compressed form, it just hasn't had the H.264 encoding 8bit is compression 4:2:0 is compression Most cameras that claim to do 422 over HDMI show no sign of it in the actual images. Nikon have a 20MP APS-C sensor that can only do an 8MP window at 30fps Samsung since 2 years ago (Photokina 2014) have had a 28MP APS-C sensor that can do a 24MP 16:9 full sensor readout (6.5K) and produce DCI 4K from it on-chip, along with encoding H.265, the most computationally advanced codec and the most advanced chipset in any camera to date. This just shows to me that behind the glossy exterior and marketing Nikon are using cheap Chinese made parts in their cameras, that pretty much anyone (Sony, Toshiba, etc.) can build for them en-masse. They really should have built a cutting edge semiconductors factory of their own and blazed a trail, as it is they will always reliant on others and quite possibly picking up yesterday's chips in the process, rather than the best.

It's not really designed to be used in full manual focus mode, the focus ring is actually more for whipping the AF to where you want it to be. It responds to a very fast whip of the wrist rather than the usual style of slow and long travel Agreed though, it's unusable for MF the traditional way. It should have an option in the menu to change it to a normal focus ring.

The slow lens has it's advantages. For a start F5.6 in daylight isn't a problem. And with a 1" sensor it is never going to be the camera you pick over an A7S II in low light. Sure, a constant F2.8 would have helped by a couple of stops but you STILL would not pick it in low light over a full frame camera with F1.4 prime. So there's less point putting a faster lens on it than you might think - you just end up with a clunky big piece of glass on what should be a super-mini C300 Mk II. The main point of the lens is the 10x zoom, it's very handy. Also it's a much sharper and higher contrast lens than the Zeiss F2.8 10x zoom on the RX10, so again the F5.6 long end has the advantage of stopping the image getting mushy. The XC10 is the for me the ugly duckling that turned into a swan. It is one of the best daylight shot getting cameras I've ever used and has the best codec on the market under $2k and the best colour profiles... And no it isn't a RAW codec but RAW isn't always "the best codec" if you see what I mean (file sizes, workflow).

Oh man, would I like that 1608 x 904 RAW bayer on my CF card I didn't shoot much 1080p on the 1D C, but I did compare the 4K to the C100's 1080p and obviously the 1D C is the superior image, with much less aliasing. This was shot at ISO 12,800 - you also get a finer noise grain in 4K which is more film like and translates to less noise overall when downscaled to 1080p in post.

Next year for that one I think. A 6D successor from Canon is also due, that thing has been on the market for 4 years!

It is extraordinary that he continues to use the same name on other forums, now he's been uncovered for the con artist he is.

Yeah it's a codec that is as old as the hills and over it. No place for it in a 2016 camera. 1D C in 2012 I could just about accept because it made for nice images. They are clearly crippling here... to protect the Cinema EOS range. If the XC10 can have 305Mbit/s XF codec for less than $2k then Canon can put it in their $3k DSLR... ZERO technical excuses! Panasonic had MJPEG for their 720p on the GH1, remember? It was considered the lower quality codec option even back in 2010!