Andrew Reid

You can wait until October / November for a 5 axis IBIS GH5 with VLOG and 6K, plus upgraded EVF and body or you can get the bargain GX80 with the older sensor now, either way it's a winner

FFS It's pathetic. They could have at least tweaked the control scheme. And they waited till NAB to reveal 'this'. Camera's been out a year! Having said that any firmware update or added functionality is very rare from Canon. Maybe they are going to get better at firmware updates and follow Sony's lead from now on. Hopefully it won't lead to more bugs in the version 1.0 cameras as a result.

That is 2700dpi on a panel that size dude. Why would you need more?

An eye for an eye. Shipping from April 25th, the Gratical Eye is something I've been waiting a long time for, to pair with cameras like the Panasonic GH4, Canon 1D C and Sony A7S II - a super compact EVF which rivals the beautiful new Leica SL EVF for image quality. It features a very large 0.61" panel (similar to the Leica SL's 0.66" EVF) and packs 5 megapixel resolution versus the 4.4MP of the Leica SL's. Read the blog post

It's just a rumour. Let's see.

Sure will be doing!

Is the top one 80Mbit and second one 160? In the top one the sky is still macro blocking quite a lot.

Hope so. It's listed as "GX80" in the UK though, where the euro tax law also applies. So I assume it is more a PAL / NTSC region distinction. GX85 seems to be a German thing. They are weird. It is also G70 and TZ101 instead of TZ100. Very confusing for the customer I think.

Summary of the differences: GX80 Dual IS and Sony A7R II with OIS lens 3 axis on the sensor (X,Y, roll) and 2 axis (yaw / pitch) on the OIS lens GX80 BIS and Olympus E-M5 II 5 axis on the sensor, with any lens including the vintage stuff (however warping from yaw and pitch movement may appear in videos) Canon OIS lens 2 axis on the lens - yaw and pitch. Does not correct for roll. Cannot lock down the shot on X and Y axis but does reduce camera shake caused by yaw and pitch jitter.

5 axis... X Y Roll (rotation - this can be done mechanically for stills, or digitally with crop in video mode) Pitch (tilt up / down correction) Yaw (tilt left / right correction) I can see roll, pitch and yaw being done digitally with a crop in video mode or via OIS. It depends if the mechanical sensor movement covers all 5 axis, or just X, Y and Roll, using the lens for pitch and yaw (like Sony's system) Does the Olympus system correct by tilting the sensor pitch and yaw? I think it probably does. If so then Panasonic might be doing the same thing - all 5 axis on the sensor. Then it would work with manual lenses with no electronic contacts, just like the Olympus system. Or it may be that in video mode the electro-magnetic IBIS compensates for 3 axis (X, Y and roll) but uses electronic image shift with small crop to achieve pitch and yaw correction in 4K video mode. Maybe roll would be electronically compensated too. OIS usually compensates for yaw and pitch. EDIT: it looks like they do indeed have 5 axis IBIS so the sensor can move on the X and Y axis, plus rotate, plus tilt horizontally and vertically. So same as Olympus. What they do with the OIS is probably improve the yaw and pitch control by switching the IBIS to 3 axis and doing the other 2 on the lens. This might reduce image warping especially with wide angle lenses. This was an issue with the Olympus system in video mode

Yep, looks like it has that Olympus magic to me Finally they give us what we want... and cheap! Big dilemma now... is it worth waiting for the GH5 for newer sensor, possibly dual pixel AF, LOG and slow-mo? Either way, looks like Panasonic is back in the game. IBIS to this standard is a BIG advantage over Sony.

I don't agree with the people saying Fuji's colour is anything less than stunning. In video mode the XPro 2 can compete with all of the below cameras for resolution and detail in 1080p, whilst giving far more pleasing colour and variation in tone out of the box. All shot on standard profiles. The others look like they have a veil over them. If it looks too dark or crushed then it's your monitor that needs adjusting not the Fujifilm film simulation. Also for stills I'd rather use the XPro 2 than any of the above. It's far more Leica-like and enjoyable during a shoot.

I wonder what he would use instead at $5k for 4K internal, 4K raw output, 240fps, 13 stop dynamic range LOG recording, Super 35mm sensor and the added bonus of 10bit 4:2:2 internal recording?! Not to mention a built in electronically variable ND filter. A Canon?!

In my experience, the X Pro2's 1080p is indeed better than the A6300's 1080p. It's very detailed for full HD, the sharpest since the GH2, but not exactly perfect in terms of moire. The X-T1 was the worst performing 1080p camera on the market in 60p. In 30p it gets a little better. The A7S still has the best overall 1080p quality of the Sony cameras. A7R II and A7S II are more about 4K. The 80D is similar to the Nikon D610 but not full frame, it pixel bins heavily, is soft and has moire. See below: A7S: D610: X-T1: In the above X-T1 1080/60p shot you can really see how much it kills the circles, it's horrendous. Meanwhile the 5DR = D750, maybe even slightly sharper, so a rather solid performance there and better detail than the 5D Mark III stock video. However, 5D Mark III pulls ahead when you factor in Magic Lantern and raw video. The XC10 is a little better in 1080p still (a bit cleaner, a bit more detail) even though the lens is slightly on the soft side as a 10x zoom. By the way, the way DPR have used the stills test scene for video doesn't exactly stretch the camera. There's not enough movement or detail on this locked down shot to push the codec. Also as the lens is quite close to the scene and it is a small scene, you won't notice the lack of detail on the less well performing cameras as much as you would in a real life test. Buildings and landscapes at infinity focus would be a better test. Human subject for skintones would be a better test for colour. A very detailed fast moving shot, with some motion blur present would be a better test of the codec as would a blue sky and a high ISO shot to see about the macro-blocking and noise handling.

Sony's picture profiles make it as difficult as possible to get decent all-round colour out of them but I think I've found a way. Will share it in a blog post later.

It only sounds impressive until you consider what the competition did years before when nobody was looking because it didn't reach the popular conscious yet and have a Canon or Nikon badge. The on-chip ADC converters were pioneered by Sony years ago and it has taken Canon, dragging their heels along the floor for 6 years, to implement the technology. and then only in a very small selection of high end models in 2016. By the way, we've moved waaaay beyond on-chip A/D per row, to gluing and integrating DRAM directly to the back of the sensor as seen on the latest 1" CMOS from Sony. So Canon are only just catching up to yesterday's advancement in CMOS deign. Yesterdays. The on-chip ADC cleans up the readout noise so you have more usable blacks. If people choose to interpret this as more dynamic range then fair play to them, that's their interpretation. I would never max out the dynamic range of any digital image, because it creates Digital Sick™ In reality for all the quoting of 14 stops by DXOmark for Sony and 12 stops for Canon, there's not as much difference as the specs imply. However as soon as Canon start doing sensors that might get closer to 14 stops on DXOMark like Sony have been doing for almost half a decade, everyone pisses themselves. The power of the brand manifest! As for the number of phase detect AF points, you need millions of them on the sensor because they get so little light and are so small, compared to the smattering of a few of them in the viewfinder of a DSLR. Needless to say I find the 400+ on the A6300 work better than the millions on the 80D, so go figure. It's as if Canon have turned up to a party 5 hours late with a 2 euro bottle of fizz. There's no denying Canon get the ergonomics right in a very solid way mostly, but as for the images... The facts are: 70D = shit video 80D and EOS M3 = slightly less shit 7DII = 2012 vintage softness C100 = Same, but very expensive 2010 vintage Panasonic GH2 resolution (albeit better in low light) C300 = exactly the same but even more expensive 1D X II = slightly worse than the 1D C's image quality, but $6k and will likely be superseded in under 6 months by the 5D IV, GH5, A7S III or any number of others And this my friends is why I will not be wasting my money on any of them. Although the AVCHD quality on the C100 is very nice given the specs, I must admit that much!

Olympus system uses magnetic fields and electric currents with voice coil elements Details of how it works are here: i suspect Sony and Panasonic use a very similar kind of technology too but so far neither have surpassed the E-M5 II as for gx80.... Well, we'll see....

You misunderstood my point a good DP makes a great shot in the first place, so it won't be so ordinary He maximises the tool all that is obvious However beautiful image quality can add 'spice' to just an 'OK' shot where the DP is limited in terms of his location, poor light, and boring subject matter... You have to work with what you've got sometimes and that's why a flexible and powerful image is important. Slow-mo, insane resolution and a wide dynamic range can have a wow factor in themselves, even if you're shooting very ordinary subjects on ordinary places as for the bad DPs, no hope for them, no matter what the camera. And yes even an Alexa can be mishandled and made to look rubbish. Meanwhile a drone shot of a spectacular volcano would look great on just about any camera, be it a small chip GoPro even or an iphone A challenging location which isn't so beautiful and is poorly lit demands more of the camera and absolutely more of the shooter too.

Olympus is electromagnetic (voice coil) its superior to the Sony implementation and the GX8 looks like Gx80 copies the Olympus voice coil system which is great news

No that's not the message I am trying to get across. I am just trying to help you guys make informed decisions about the relative image quality of cameras. A shame you feel the need to shove this back in my face, just because it doesn't quite align with your choice of purchase. The core EOSHD readers get it. You're just an ungrateful hanger on with 19 posts to his name who feels he can leech all the knowledge from others on the forum, without giving anything constructive back in return. Almost all of your posts have focused on annoying the hell of the forum owner himself, which I might add is a rather rude way to introduce yourself into somebody's house. Ah you have an FS7 in the office though! But I thought 80D is all you need?! Hmm moire. Hmm aliasing. Hmm clipped highlights. Lovely. Oh but it's "bashing". Bash bash bash!! Can't mention the moire! Oh noooo That's biased! (No I'll think you'll find it's just a fact)

Since when is mainstream considered a mark of success?!

Look guys, we established this YEARS ago, you can shoot with a T2i or any old shit like Kendy did and do great work, especially if it is a low-fi look in the first place that you're after and you rarely use a lens other than 50mm equivalent (a wider lens would show up the lack of resolution). We have also established that you can then upload this to Vimeo and if the content and shooting is compelling, the locations and characters cinematic looking, well lit and they kept the ISO below 800, when the viewer watches this at 720p on a laptop or TV, they won't notice that it isn't 4K wide dynamic range. But image quality advances exist for a reason, they help to evolve the art of story telling and make the tools more flexible so they can be used in more challenging circumstances and a wider variety of situations. I love slow-mo for instance, it's a great creative tool, and I love LOG as it is a substitute for raw when you want to apply a stylised look in post and get a couple of more stops dynamic range, without the much larger file sizes. I shot this in slow-mo and LOG for creative reasons and they made an interesting subject look beautiful - Couldn't have done that on a T2i or 80D, or indeed any Canon camera I can afford. Do they even have decent looking 120fps on their Cinema EOS stuff??! And when I shot this on the A7S, GH4 and Nikon D750, the pinsharp details and lack of moire, plus the slow-mo again, helped creatively bring out the look I needed. If you don't want to focus on this kind of thing then fine, get the 80D and enjoy your AF. Nothing wrong with that. You might tell some great stories and do it really stylistically. But in my view... image quality and frame rates and extra features are there to be USED. Pointless writing a blog about cameras otherwise. If everyone was happy to stick to 80D level of image quality and features then my job would be much easier and I'd have far fewer cameras!! And then there is also a lot to be said for the motion cadence of a global shutter and vintage super 16 lenses too, which is what gave this shoot the look I wanted, down to a tee... So before you write off all the exciting specs and just nerdy pixel peeping, consider what they give creatively and stylistically and consider what you are missing out on when you sacrifice all this for convenience's sake with the 80D!!

@CMB - rivalling the Alexa at a fraction of a cost is what this website is all about!! I am not calling out your quality of work, so no need to jump on the defensive there. Clearly though your clients don't notice heavy moire and aliasing, a lack of detail and a lack of dynamic range, otherwise they would have asked you to reshoot it with a proper camera like a RED or Arri, or even an A7S II Maybe you should hang out at JustATool.com instead, and you might find more people who agree with you. I heard they moved the mic and headphone jack out of the way of the pivoting screen too. For me those at JustATool.com this would be music to their ears, who cares about 4K for $700 when you have that kind of innovation from Canon. I think we should just STOP with the image quality increases... people just want the mic slot well positioned. Here is how image quality works... A good camera makes an ordinary shot look nice, with creamy smooth roll off, no noise, tons of detail and a wide dynamic range at the same time as doing very richly saturated natural looking colour. A bad camera does none of that. That's the 80D. But you can make it look good with the right subject and light and composition. So the 80D can look good and especially at longer viewing distances on a large screen, just a TV in the home will be enough, you won't notice the moire and aliasing as much, but when you get a scene that challenges it - say wide angle shot with lots of hard lines and high contrast detail with very large variations between the brightest and darkest parts of the frame you are going to have something that looks like it crawled from Donald Trump's toilet after a particularly hot curry.

Maybe his work doesn't demand high performance. I haven't seen it, so couldn't know.

GH2 was 2010 (October) 6 years later and Canon haven't matched its video quality, overall. Like I say time and time again, only Canon seem to be able to get away with this year after year. If it were any other company, people would be astounded. At the same time, since 2009 their APS-C stills quality has inched forward only a bit from 18MP to 20MP and now 24MP with a tiny bit cleaner shadows.