Andrew Reid

Interesting, thanks. Now they are going through the same thing again and it's self inflicted because they had 10 years to respond to the dawning of the mainstream smartphone camera era and didn't, also at the same time completely ignoring the entire online services world, specifically image sharing services like Instagram and Flickr which Canon should have bought a long time ago before they became successful.

"When" not if? Really? It's highly unlikely for Canon to do full frame 4K for $3k with CFast cards to support a chunky codec (otherwise why use CFast cards at all), when there is no Cinema EOS camera in that price range or remotely close with a similar spec. Sorry but on this one you're dreaming Ebrahim.

4K is the standard of 2016 and future proof. Furthermore 4K is the only way to get true 1080p or 2K res out of a DSLR or mirrorless camera. None of the 1080p cameras shoot 1080p. It's just a sticker on the box. They are really shooting a pixel binned or line skipped image. The exception are the full sensor readout 1080p cameras like the A7S which down-sample better on the image processor, but shooting 4K is still preferable over this as it's future proof. In most situations you also have to shoot 4K to avoid severe moire & aliasing. So in short, 4K was necessary to move us on from the crappy line-skipping and moire era of DSLR video. It's not so much a resolution obsession, even if you deliver 1080p, it helps to have your acquisition quality 4K. Now we have two kinds of 4K... that from a full sensor readout is preferable for the full lens circle to get used, whilst a crop of the sensor readout is a stop-gap until the sensor & image processor tech gets better - although sometimes it has its benefits - like a Super 35mm mode on a full frame camera, and 1.3x crop (1D C) doesn't hurt as much as a 2.3! True, rolling shutter and heat issues can occasionally bite you on some of the lower end models, but it's still in the most part preferable to have some kind of technological progress than none. Without progress, we wouldn't get through this early phase of imperfect 4K and onto better things. The only times I avoid 4K these days is if I am shooting hours and hours of live footage and need very small file sizes, or the other aspects of the image outweigh the benefits of the alternative 4K cameras for a particular project - such as full frame RAW on the 5D Mark III with magic lantern for the best colour and keying, or high frame rate 120fps 1080p which can be lovely for certain things.

The NX1 gets a bad rap for noise, but at ISO 800 and under it's spookily clean due to the BSI structure. For 1600 and above you're always going to be looking at full frame for best performance, it's the laws of physics. Although the A6300 and D7200 put in a good performance. It's not surprising the Canon ambassador is even more 'positive' than DPR and loose with the facts. As for the new DIGIC 6 chips, I wouldn't expect them to be that much different to Canon's last top end effort 4 years ago. Probably run a little cooler, which allows 4K 60fps, but also, they don't have to pull much weight due to MJPEG codec and lack 4K H.264, which is far more computationally intensive. Canon are not in the business of ramping up their costs on a stills body for the sake of better video processing and codec licensing.

The 1D X Mark II is $6k It is 1.5x crop 4K, not even full frame. No Canon LOG like the 1D C, no peaking, or any kind of assists for more comfortable video shooting. However they did go to the effort to crank up the speed of the sensor so that it could do 4K at 60fps. I wonder why they bothered? Why bother with that expense on the sensor side and not even add peaking in the firmware? That's a mystery... the 5D Mark IV will be an even bigger one. There's not a cat in hells chance it is going to be competitive with the rest of the video market through 2016/17. Dude, This is Germany in the 70's!

Why are Nikon in danger of getting squeezed out of existence when they have far more compelling options than Canon? The Nikon D750 is a far superior stills camera to the 5D Mark III for cheaper! Whilst the D810 for high resolution is cheaper than the 5DR S, and again superior tech overall.

GX8 sensor doesn't seem to do 4K from the entire chip, just a very nasty crop, so probably won't be that one. Source who told me it will be GX80 sensor is a good one.

Bullshit is it the only way to get 422 and good motion candace. H.264, ProRes, DNxHD and countless others also support intra-frame motion and 422. Yet 4K H.265 is natively edited in Premiere CC, and MJPEG isn't. I have to transcode the 1D C footage to ProRes. Yet H.265 is hardware accelerated by Nvidia, Intel and AMD... and MJPEG isn't. Facts are useful. Try some.

User, has something happened to you? I am genuinely concerned. PM me. Cheers

At 100mm, 1m MFD isn't too shabby. Most 85mm primes are that.

Yes they have changed something in the skintones and red channel which I don't like. Definitely keeping hold of the 1D C now after being on the fence for a bit.

You haven't pointed out the inconsistencies. I find that inconsistent with your official line. That makes you a spineless nob! See? They have employed writers who are naturally puppy-like and hipster. I left!

From now on all EOSHD videos and camera tests will be on YouTube, not only Vimeo. Subscribe to the EOSHD Youtube Channel here. Recently EOSHD forum user "Werner" had the chance to meet Canon at the European HQ in Germany. Read the full blog post

Maybe it's a cultural difference. Since DPR left the UK for the US they have become much more American in style, which heavily favours positivity, even if it doesn't always reflect the facts as well. More likely is something else is going on. You have to admit it is really weird.

Got my hands on it as well today, only in store. Not decided whether to buy it yet as I have the Canon 70-200mm F2.8 II and that has stabilisation. The image is beautiful from the Sigma. It has a bundle of character. Nice build quality but the tripod mount collar is non-removable so something to note if you plan to use on a rig.

That Jimmy is a nob isn't personal, it's an objective fact that can be universally perceived and measured by anyone on the forum!

Where's the misinformation? You're a nob. There's some more information for you.

Thank you. Indeed we must be realistic. DPReview always put an overtly positive 'spin' on things. It's the job of an independent blogger to add balance to any given set of facts. The facts: - No low light improvement over the 2012 model - Colour is more muted - Less detail in JPEGs at high ISOs - 4 years since the predecessor Dynamic range still behind Sony and most Nikon sensors. DPReview wrote this: "Like the EOS 80D there's a big improvement in the camera's dynamic range. Canon's move to a design using on-chip analog-to-digital conversion allows less noise to be added before the signal is converted into digital values" Which in my opinion is highly questionable. The way DPR tested the dynamic range relies on the sensor being ISO invariant - i.e., maximum dynamic range at base ISO, exposure achieved by underexposing by as much as 5 stops to protect the shadows. This technique completely changes the distribution of your histogram and kills tonality / skintones / colour, all 3. If you wanna shoot like that be my guest but it's not a viable technique if you want to maximise image quality. Canon didn't move to on-chip A/D conversion with the 1D X Mark II. The original 1D X has on chip A/D, so that's flat out wrong. "Big improvement" to dynamic range. By any measure it's not "big". So you can drink their cool aid and be happy, or you can be properly informed and less happy. Your choice. I know which option Jimmy would choose!

Is it some kind of Japanese conspiracy?

Has Canon moved on from 2012's flagship? The results of DPReview's studio test scene might surprise you. Read the full blog post

I had no involvement in this. So feel free to send the moderator a private message. Starting a thread about it isn't the best way to go about it, since it has nothing to do with cameras.

What event would that be oh mysterious one?

Yes, to stop the forum turning into a spam bucket of Russian and Chinese viagra offers.

Forget the Nikon stuff. Keep a DSO handy. Meanwhile, the best of the 'modern' organic looking lenses combine high contrast with funkiness - an x-factor which is difficult to describe. Those that have it are: Batis 25mm Zeiss 28mm F2.0 Canon 50mm F1.2 and 85mm F1.2

Sony need to be careful how far they push the prices up. I think the lens prices in particular are difficult to justify for many people. And A6300 a much more expensive proposition than the A6000. They have kept the original RX100 and A6000 for the bargain bins, when really perhaps they should have upgraded them and given us an A6300-type camera as a separate line. Outfit an A7R II with a couple of decent Sony FE lenses and you're easily looking at $5k+ for a consumer camera.