Andrew Reid

Talking about Special Purposes.... how about being the only $1000 camera with Super 35mm 4K recording, 13 stop dynamic range with LOG, small file sizes, built in EVF, 120fps in full HD and the best autofocus system under the $6000 1D X Mark II pro DSLR.

Well the A7S colour weaknesses are sadly all too clear in that clip. Noisy, compressed, inaccurate, thin and dreadful on the Rec.709 conversion, only the custom LUT (with a lot of expertise efforts) can save it even after that dodgy white balance, mixed light, exposure all remain difficulties faced by Sony users. Sony need to make it EASY to get Canon or Nikon like colour from their cameras. They should really trash their entire picture profiles line-up and start again.

I should get paid for this babysitting work!

No framing differences if you set stills to 16:9 and shoot raw, then you can claim back the 3:2 in Photoshop.

Because I shot with it myself!!

The 1D X II of course it doesn't look awful, but it does have an awful codec. It should have had the XF 300Mbit/s 4K codec of the XC10 but the processors aren't fast enough and there's no room for an XC10 style exhaust vent & fan due to the weather sealing.

PP6 is 1.5 or 2-stop to the right (over exposed on the meter). The rest you should aim for a nice even spread in the histogram or 0 on the meter. The reason I recommend shooting in M mode rather than Movie mode is the shutter is not disabled for stills, you can quickly reel one off, very useful, also the AF is much quicker for a quick shot setup, furthermore the manual focus assist quality gets a very useful and significant bump up so that it is useable, whereas the one in movie mode is a dreadful fuzzy mess. If the exposure is shifting between M mode live view and recording, are you describing a slight gamma shift or might it be another setting which is interfering? Check that movie exposure in the main menu is also set to M. Also if you're relying on the meter for very precise exposure, it's not a good idea. It's not very useful for precise adjustments. It's better to check the histogram instead.

It's not been out very long, but it's maybe that the Pocket was a new concept and very much aimed at us, whereas the Micro is more aimed at pros who need a POV camera in a fridge. I am as confused as you are about Blackmagic's move away from the enthusiast market.

I've had the Auto ND confirmed to me. The extent of the raw capabilities is new.... wow 4K 60p and 240fps 1080p very nice. A direct tap on the same sensor as the FS7, bypassing the lesser processor inside the FS5. Very generous of Sony but I'd expect the cost to be similar to the price difference between the FS5 and FS7... so not exactly a cheap firmware update? Anyway let's wait and see.

When looking at the leaf and lime test, it's important to realise how the reach of the lens compensates for the lack of resolving power of the camera. Wider angles and infinity focus shots are an appropriate test of resolution. Lime trees on end of a 50mm or 85mm with shallow DOF? Not so much. As for colour it is true Canon have this better sorted than Sony but there's no way that is saving the 80D as a filmic choice. The shot Ben posted demonstrating A6300 colour has hardly any colour in it, it's a horribly overcast grey day, grey street, grey building and white van!! Come on people, common sense should start prevailing. There are no convincing tests or samples so far that show the strengths and weaknesses or either camera. When Canon get the video image right, they really do get it right. The 80D is not one of those cameras. The 1D C, C100 II, C300 II, XC10 all have a beautiful look to their images. It's no coincidence they are all Cinema EOS cameras. Canon's strategy quite clear I think!

They only have hamsters working on the DSLR video side, they transferred the more intelligent bunny rabbits to the Cinema EOS department. Sony only have guineapigs.... Us!

Chris says in this video the 80D is better. I had to squint very hard to see it. It's a bit like squinting at the bottom of a football league table. I'd rather look at the top. Canon are ripping you off guys... Panasonic G7 walks all over it for video and it's less than half the price.

1300 euros is low priced video market? Maybe compared to the professional market. It's not low priced for the customers the 80D is aimed at though. I wanted to use Dual Pixel AF... They have ruined it.

It always amazes me how far people are willing to go to defend Canon's performance. And yes I am sure it will be a hit with YouTubers for selfies Not really what EOSHD is about though...

Great news about the crop mode live view improvements. Before it was slow-fps pixilated black and white to get the accurate framing.

Well, considering how the video quality is very much a known quantity would it be worth it? Just look up any video orientated review of the following from the past 5 years: 60D 70D 600D T2i, etc. EOS M3 (that one might actually even be a bit better?!) The 80D is 1300 euros here, no way am I spending that much to rehash the same old negative review so many others have done about Canon's APS-C video performance. For 1799 I can get a Canon XC10, much more interesting.

It's no better than the A6300's AF with Sony lenses.

This is a common misconception among stupid people and the facts are very different. I have seen market research at meetings with Sony and Panasonic, also information on how the cameras are marketed. You have not. Canon's market and marketing is not that different. By the same token you can also argue an iPhone is for stills. Yet a lot of iPhone owners use those for casual video shooting. The 80D is quite an expensive consumer camera - more prosumer and hobbyist, middle of the pyramid, than something a super-casual consumer would use. It's in exactly the market where video usage peaks. In fact I cannot believe you are still bothering to put across this kind of argument in 2016, when every DSLR press release mentions video (and a significant proportion of the text too, sometimes as much as 50-50), a GH4 sells like hot cakes and the manufacturers are spending vast amounts of R&D putting 4K into stills cameras.

That they haven't got up to the GH2's level yet after 5 years is where the comparison is. GH2's image is still very detailed 1080p and very nice.

Just had a brief time with the boxed up retail model. I say brief. I sent it back almost straight away. I might upload the clips to the original footage thread, but there's hardly any point. You know the score with these cameras. Soft, aliasing ridden, huge moire problems, not even 1080p resolution. Very sad - they have a brand new sensor in this thing and had the chance to step at least the 1080p up to 7D Mark II levels, or even in line with the rest of the market, or the Nikon D5500, much cheaper. This is a 1300 euro camera!

Nice colour, but I especially enjoyed the audio. What mic were you using when not using the lavs? If it's the built in stereo mic of the XC10 then I'll be blown away...

I hear the D5 may have the 3 min limit for 4K recording removed before release. But even then I question why you would not instead get a 1D X Mark II at that price, given the Dual Pixel AF and a lens mount which takes more than just one or two kinds of lenses. The D500 would have been perfect if they had avoided the huge crop... NX500 style crop for $2k? No thanks.

Nah, dynamic range stays the same. Only thing that changes is rolling shutter. Hardly an issue for timelapse! X Pro2 has a silent shutter, maybe worth a look.

@gatopardo Martians.

@Ebrahim Saadawi it just needs someone to design a smart-grip for it via the COM port now... dials and buttons for aperture, shutter, etc. plus positionable record button and custom buttons. No way to attach it to the side though unless you use a cage. Blackmagic put just one thread on top of the camera, but there's 3 under the camera so it doesn't twist on the base of a cage.