sir_danish

So which settings would you suggest, Andrew? Which profile is the one you would use most often? Thanks everyone for your help!

The general consensus is either Natural or Standard with everything at "-5" with the exception of saturation, which should be set at "0." For WB, I use "Sunny," adjusted to A3G3. In my tests, the Natural profile performed a little better in the blue channel. The reason for keeping saturation at "0" is due the codec being 4:2:0, resulting in limited color information in the first place. Hope that helps.

Has anyone figured out what's the best all-round picture profile that still leaves some headroom for playing with the colors in post? I'm coming from a BMPCC and will be getting the GX80 next week, but I don't have much time for experimenting with the picture profiles. Maybe some experienced GX80 users could share their favorite settings with me?
Some say that "Natural" (everything -5) seems to be nicely gradable, others say that "Standard" is the better all-round setting. What are your observations?

Hi,
I think I have the same problem with my BMPCC + Pocket dedicated SB + Sigma 18-35.
I'll do the grid test, similar to the one sir_danish did, to see how bad it is.
Another test I'm going to do will involve BMCC 2.5K dedicated speedbooster, as I own 2.5K + BMCC SB combo too, which works with Sigma 18-35 perfectly, the image is extremely sharp.

Hi Sir Danish,
 
Thanks for the reply.
 
Yes, I think I have exactly the same problem, but worse.
Most of the time the blurriness appears on the left side, but sometime it's on the right side as well.
 
I also replaced the product (SB for BMPCC) as soon as I found this problem, but the second one has
the same problem as well.
 
I have BMPCC, SB for BMPCC and several Nikon mount lenses but no MFT lens, so I borrowed SLR
magic F0.95 lens (MFT mount) from a friend then I had the similar problem with no Speedbooster.
 
Then I thought the problem is BMPCC itself and sent it to Blackmagic Japan for check the product.
Blackmagic Japan checked my BMPCC with Cosina Voigtlander 17.5mm F0.95 and could not find
any blurriness in any cases, and they said this is the problem of compatibility between Speedbooster
+ BMPCC or the SLRmagic lens + BMPCC.
 
The followings are the data which I found this problem at the very first time.
I shot this footage with my BMPCC, SB for BMPCC + Nikon AF50mm F1.4D at a Japanese shrine.
Those two images are 28th DNG and 555th DNG from the same sequence (with fixed focus).
 
28th DNG
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9fhU4X7bCLkNEFyMFNLWjVWRU0/edit?usp=sharing
 
555th DNG
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9fhU4X7bCLkc3h0LW1rbm1TUzg/edit?usp=sharing
 
I created those image for Blackmagic Japan, so the yellow charactor is Japanese and 
meaning 2x magnification.
I shot this sequesce panning stairs form the bottom to the top, so the 28th image is 
about 5m (15ft) away and the 555th image is about 8m (25ft) away from me.
 
As you can notice, the 28th image is soft on the right side, and the 555th image is 
soft on the left side.
From this result, I suspect the SB or BMPCC mount tilting, but the problem is not 
happening always.
 
If I set the focus infinity, the blurriness always appears on the left side as you mentioned.
 
At first, I thought this problem happens only extreme situation such as shooting at very
fast aperture like F0.8 (SB+NikonF1.4), but recently I realized this problem happens
not only at very fast F value, but also at the usual F value.
 
The following image is from a footage shot by setting F3 at Speedbooster with Nikon
50mm F1.4D.
 
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9fhU4X7bCLkaFcyaEp1RGdYZVE/edit?usp=sharing
 
Also please watch the following movie shot by setting F4 at Speedbooster with Nikon
50mm F1.4D. Sorry for the shaky movie because it was very windy.
 

 
For the comparison, the following link is the movie I shot at the same day with the 
exactly the same setting. I changed the angle a little bit and re-set the focus.
 

 
I shot about 6 movies on that day and only 1 movie above had the problem.
 
For now, I asked the Metabone's product distributer in Japan to borrow me the
new Speedbooster EOS mount for checking if it has the same problem.
 
I'll make a report of the test result here when I got the new SB EOS mount test
result.

Do this: Mount the camera on a heavy tripod. Tighten all screws. Focus a brick wall or st. like that on infinity. Hit record. Press gently but firmly against the Sigma, in different directions. Then watch the clip on the monitor. I bet the oof-areas will move around the frame. There are two bayonet connectors in this construction, and they don't make a solid unit, tolerances add. Ever owned a Letus 35mm adapter? Same song. Finding backfocus was crucial. The thing was 'milled from one massive aluminum block', and they always had to be supported with rails.
 
BTW: Where do you mount your tripod? It must be the Metabones' connector. And handheld: You have to carry the weight mainly by holding the Sigma, not the Pocket. It's not so much because the mount might break, but the heavier part will bow.

EDIT: An elegant way to stabilize the structure, instead of rails, could be by using a tripod plate. This was my first makeshift 'grip' for the Pocket:

 
You could press a piece of rubber or so between the ground plate and the non-moving ring (where I have my thumb in the picture). One can at the same time 'fix' the position and hold the camera on the lens with both hands:

I tried a more sigificant test, on a tripod, with moderate light conditions. You can download the three DNGs here.
 
First is the Metabones with the aperture wide open, exposure controlled with zebra and ETTR:

 
The three points of interest enlarged:

Hard to tell, if indeed the left edge is subtly out of focus, one needed a giant test chart ;-)
 
But according to the mark on the Sigma, it was indeed infinity:

 
In comparison roughly the same framing (by zooming out) with the Novoflex, first wide open:

 
... and stopped down about one-third (meaning approx. 2-3 stops?):

 
All these images may not look pleasing, the monitor isn't properly calibrated. Also, from the low resolution (I mean the 1920 sized DNGs) it's hard to nail down if there are any differences in detail, but spontaneously the Novoflex looks clearer, perhaps less color fringing. It's no fun to watch a panorama on the muddy, peaking-contaminated display of the Pocket. Sigh, this is all such a hassle ...

Two weeks ago, a client asked me to shoot some nice photos of her employees. I told her that this would be a job for a photographer with his own studio and proper flash lights, things that I don´t have as I´m not a photographer at all. To be honest, I actually told her so because I really didn´t like the idea of driving 400 kilometers just to take portrait pictures of employees. But her answer was, well, shaking up. She told me that she wasn´t interested in high-polished, perfectly lit ultra high resolution photos, but rather something special and charming. I know she´s got the money and access to professional photographers, but she explicidly wanted me, because she appreciates my ideas. So I bought a "green screen" (actually a green carpet) from IKEA, grabbed some LED lights and my GH3 and took these pictures downstairs her company building. The end of the story: She and her employees couldn´t have been more happy, because the pictures looked exactly what they were hoping for. They are not perfectly lit, they are not perfectly sharp, but they have a special look and feel and thus represent the spirit of that specific company. Mission accomplished.
 
This was an example, that can apply to all of my creative work. As long as I´m a self-employed and creative person providing a service, my clients pay for the whole package, including my own nature. They don´t pay solely for resolution or pro-looking equipment.
Even in the future, some people will be able to sell precious 720p suff, while some highly graded, moiré-free 4K work of others won´t be worh a penny to anybody. Like I said, it´s the whole package and your knowledge of how and whom to sell it, it´s not your camera´s codec alone.
 
Anyway, I will be pleased with all these 4K test videos on youtube and vimeo. Thousands of self-appointed filmmakers will show us thousands of arty video shots of flowers, dogs, cats, grain fields, dancing people and cars. Everything accompanied by gentle music from Ludovico Einaudi. Description: Testing my new GH4/Canon C50/Sony FS4K/Blackmagic Production Camera with lens XYZ...
 
Testing, testing, testing, testing, testing, testing, comparing, testing, testing.... Oh look, there´s 8K on the horizon. This time it won´t allow us to make any excuses because of bad equipment. Finally we can tell our stories. With 8K we can. Finally.
 
But seriously, while all these predictable and influencable "I can´t because of bad equipment"-guys kept on excusing, complaining and distracting from their own incapability, my good old GH2 turned out to be a cash cow. The only thing my clients complaint about was the form factor of my GH2. The couldn´t imagine, how this tiny box would be capable of producing such a nice image. But it did. I`m self-employed since 2010 and I started with nothing but a GH2, some Canon FD lenses, an old Macbook Pro and ingenuity. As of this writing, I haven´t lost one single client, despite rolling shutter.
 
Today, it´s not the money anymore that keeps me from buying a RED or a Canon C whatever, it´s the experience that you can do so many things with the tools that you already have. Most of the time, it´s your lack of skills and imagination that seperates you and your clients from being satisfied.
 
The easiest thing to do is putting the blame on anything and anyone but yourself.

While there is no doubt that the 4K codec brings many advantages, it's just plain wrong to say 4K is better when many factors (mainly the sensor) contribute to the image properties. So will the Sony 4K handycam have better DR over Alexa because it is 4k and Alexa is not?
I can see where your coming from but stating that 4k has better DR just because it's 4k is plain wrong.

Now while the 4K codec is impressive on paper, the same qualities could have been given to a 1080p codec at much lower data rates with similar results (other than resolution obviously). Why would they now create a killer 1080p codec when they are trying to force 4K down our throats?
Business men in suits have given the massed 4K, 99% if consumers and professionals alike have not requested it.

Two weeks ago, a client asked me to shoot some nice photos of her employees. I told her that this would be a job for a photographer with his own studio and proper flash lights, things that I don´t have as I´m not a photographer at all. To be honest, I actually told her so because I really didn´t like the idea of driving 400 kilometers just to take portrait pictures of employees. But her answer was, well, shaking up. She told me that she wasn´t interested in high-polished, perfectly lit ultra high resolution photos, but rather something special and charming. I know she´s got the money and access to professional photographers, but she explicidly wanted me, because she appreciates my ideas. So I bought a "green screen" (actually a green carpet) from IKEA, grabbed some LED lights and my GH3 and took these pictures downstairs her company building. The end of the story: She and her employees couldn´t have been more happy, because the pictures looked exactly what they were hoping for. They are not perfectly lit, they are not perfectly sharp, but they have a special look and feel and thus represent the spirit of that specific company. Mission accomplished.
 
This was an example, that can apply to all of my creative work. As long as I´m a self-employed and creative person providing a service, my clients pay for the whole package, including my own nature. They don´t pay solely for resolution or pro-looking equipment.
Even in the future, some people will be able to sell precious 720p suff, while some highly graded, moiré-free 4K work of others won´t be worh a penny to anybody. Like I said, it´s the whole package and your knowledge of how and whom to sell it, it´s not your camera´s codec alone.
 
Anyway, I will be pleased with all these 4K test videos on youtube and vimeo. Thousands of self-appointed filmmakers will show us thousands of arty video shots of flowers, dogs, cats, grain fields, dancing people and cars. Everything accompanied by gentle music from Ludovico Einaudi. Description: Testing my new GH4/Canon C50/Sony FS4K/Blackmagic Production Camera with lens XYZ...
 
Testing, testing, testing, testing, testing, testing, comparing, testing, testing.... Oh look, there´s 8K on the horizon. This time it won´t allow us to make any excuses because of bad equipment. Finally we can tell our stories. With 8K we can. Finally.
 
But seriously, while all these predictable and influencable "I can´t because of bad equipment"-guys kept on excusing, complaining and distracting from their own incapability, my good old GH2 turned out to be a cash cow. The only thing my clients complaint about was the form factor of my GH2. The couldn´t imagine, how this tiny box would be capable of producing such a nice image. But it did. I`m self-employed since 2010 and I started with nothing but a GH2, some Canon FD lenses, an old Macbook Pro and ingenuity. As of this writing, I haven´t lost one single client, despite rolling shutter.
 
Today, it´s not the money anymore that keeps me from buying a RED or a Canon C whatever, it´s the experience that you can do so many things with the tools that you already have. Most of the time, it´s your lack of skills and imagination that seperates you and your clients from being satisfied.
 
The easiest thing to do is putting the blame on anything and anyone but yourself.

I'm of the belief that if greater image quality than what can be had from true fullhd from the black magic pocket, or hacked canon 5dmk3 is required, then it's time to hire a camera for the job.  The jump in image quality that will be had from anything within reach of consumers is going to be null and void in my opinion.  It would take an expert to tell the difference between a hacked 5dmk3 and an Alexa shooting RGB into an external box.  
 
Focus on glass is priority IMO.  A nice set of Contax Zeiss on a hacked 5dmk3 is gonna literally match or ruin anything else within the budgets of most of us.   Full HD cameras are more than good enough nowadays.

Two weeks ago, a client asked me to shoot some nice photos of her employees. I told her that this would be a job for a photographer with his own studio and proper flash lights, things that I don´t have as I´m not a photographer at all. To be honest, I actually told her so because I really didn´t like the idea of driving 400 kilometers just to take portrait pictures of employees. But her answer was, well, shaking up. She told me that she wasn´t interested in high-polished, perfectly lit ultra high resolution photos, but rather something special and charming. I know she´s got the money and access to professional photographers, but she explicidly wanted me, because she appreciates my ideas. So I bought a "green screen" (actually a green carpet) from IKEA, grabbed some LED lights and my GH3 and took these pictures downstairs her company building. The end of the story: She and her employees couldn´t have been more happy, because the pictures looked exactly what they were hoping for. They are not perfectly lit, they are not perfectly sharp, but they have a special look and feel and thus represent the spirit of that specific company. Mission accomplished.
 
This was an example, that can apply to all of my creative work. As long as I´m a self-employed and creative person providing a service, my clients pay for the whole package, including my own nature. They don´t pay solely for resolution or pro-looking equipment.
Even in the future, some people will be able to sell precious 720p suff, while some highly graded, moiré-free 4K work of others won´t be worh a penny to anybody. Like I said, it´s the whole package and your knowledge of how and whom to sell it, it´s not your camera´s codec alone.
 
Anyway, I will be pleased with all these 4K test videos on youtube and vimeo. Thousands of self-appointed filmmakers will show us thousands of arty video shots of flowers, dogs, cats, grain fields, dancing people and cars. Everything accompanied by gentle music from Ludovico Einaudi. Description: Testing my new GH4/Canon C50/Sony FS4K/Blackmagic Production Camera with lens XYZ...
 
Testing, testing, testing, testing, testing, testing, comparing, testing, testing.... Oh look, there´s 8K on the horizon. This time it won´t allow us to make any excuses because of bad equipment. Finally we can tell our stories. With 8K we can. Finally.
 
But seriously, while all these predictable and influencable "I can´t because of bad equipment"-guys kept on excusing, complaining and distracting from their own incapability, my good old GH2 turned out to be a cash cow. The only thing my clients complaint about was the form factor of my GH2. The couldn´t imagine, how this tiny box would be capable of producing such a nice image. But it did. I`m self-employed since 2010 and I started with nothing but a GH2, some Canon FD lenses, an old Macbook Pro and ingenuity. As of this writing, I haven´t lost one single client, despite rolling shutter.
 
Today, it´s not the money anymore that keeps me from buying a RED or a Canon C whatever, it´s the experience that you can do so many things with the tools that you already have. Most of the time, it´s your lack of skills and imagination that seperates you and your clients from being satisfied.
 
The easiest thing to do is putting the blame on anything and anyone but yourself.

Pfff. An excuse has it's roots in the mind, and nowhere else. Once you got the desired equipment, the bar rises. This is the most funny and sad reason why people want to have better resolution. They are not looking for better quality, they are looking for better excuses. Did you know: Already ten years back there was a White Paper about resolutions for digital cinema, and they said, at 10k presumably all artifacts pointing to the technical structure of the image had disappeared, and from then on an image would not only represent reality, it could then faithfully reproduce reality - only that this never was the goal of cinema! Let me literally quote the conclusion of the lengthy pdf:
 
 
If you have no imagination, if you are not inventive and are just too hollow inside to produce content, you should subscribe to the automatic resolution increase into eternity.
 
Someone a few days back sold an >Angenieux, saying in the Ebay description that it was one of the two famous Barry Lyndon lenses. Stanley Kubrick had by then made two "UHD"-films already (Spartacus and 2001), but now he cropped the negativ for the sake of this zoom, as much as he sacrificed sharpness and resolution for the sake of his lowlight-Zeiss.
 
> the film was about the same time as Jaws and Star Wars. Those cost below 10 million $ then, Barry Lyndon cost 18 million.
> Kubrick spent years to make this film.
 
Does this tell you something?

I too am somewhat sceptical.  Don't forget the electronics giants have spent the best part of the last 5 years desperately trying to REDUCE the output quality of their 1080p cameras.  The specification on the side of the box has been meaningless.  Here are some of the tricks that have been played:
 - Record only in non-standard 30.00 fps (Canon)
 - Record only 24fps or 25fps, depending on region (Sony, Panasonic)
 - No manual aperture control in movie mode (Canon, Nikon)
 - No manual ISO control in movie mode (Nikon)
 - Deliberately introduce timing artefacts into HDMI out (Panasonic)
 - Overlays on HDMI out (Canon, Nikon, Sony)
 - High bit-rate mode which results on a higher spec on the box but no improvement in quality due to inferior codec (Canon, Panasonic)

Strange article. Feels like you are sucked up in the resolution hype after all...  If you were talking about raw I would understand your points of view. After all we are all being fooled by the big companies. And we learned truths because of magic lanterns revelations. That relatively cheap camera's did hide a much better quality.
 
It is the codec that is keeping us in the dark ages, partly. The main reason of all the frustration is that sony, canon etc, is protecting there product lines.
 
Canon will not build a good moire and aliasing free (cheap) dslr because they build the c300 line.
 
No company will do that. There will be no full frame sensor aliasing free for a long time. Even the rebels that promised us so much like Red. They all got sucked up by the big money.
 
4k won't solve this. But I understand why you think it does... 4k does not allow room for moire aliasing etc. 
 
Perhaps. 
 
But now everyone wants the new sony 4k cam, even if it produces interlaced. Even if it does not have an interchangeble lens, no large sensor.
 
We don't care anymore because hey... it is 4k.
 
So new rebels won't even think of building a 1080p raw full frame sensor camera.
 
We all will cry that is is such a pity it isn't 4k!
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Andrew thanks again for your great coverage. Your blog is such an incredible source of independent practical advise!

i am bored of these overrated japanse paied Magic Lantern critics (Read Laforet) that are just as ridiculous in their opinions as it is Canon with such piloted pricing and specs policy.

The fact is that even if I am very happy of the raw I am getting now on the 5D Mark III , I feel the strange paradox of having at the same time lost all my respect for Canon.

Here we go again with more Cinema EOS propaganda from peederj. You're heading to the door, because I am frankly SICK of reading it.
 
All sensors output raw data at various video frame rates even your iPhone. What the Magic Lantern project proves is that Compact Flash cards and cheap consumer electronics are capable of writing that data internally, without an external recorder.
 
Yet the $25,000 C500 cannot do this, and doesn't even have an SSD slot. It's a failed product design. A version 0.5 camera.
 
Needless to say, I'm not targeting EOSHD at people who have money to burn on a C500.
 
It's very simple...
 
I'm interested in what gives me the most cinematic image for under $6000, as an ownership prospect not rental.
 
That isn't the C100 I'm afraid.
 
C500 isn't a sensible ownership prospect nor does it have a good specs sheet. I was renting I'd go F55 or Epic.

C500 is overpriced! C500 is overpriced!
It just is.

Oh dear.

The Canon C series are definitely *not* price leaders.  The C500 is insanely overpriced - it costs $26,000 but can only record 8 bit MPEG 1080p in camera.  It is surely one of the worst value cameras on the market today.  But it is physically almost identical to the C100 which Canon sells for $6000.  That gives you an idea of the margins Canon is making, because a heat sink and an SDI socket are not $20,000 parts. 
 
The 5D2 was a great camera.  But let us not forget it was released without manual control of the aperture (classic Canon deliberate crippling) and shooting only at the non-standard 30.00fps.  They back-tracked on that pretty quickly when all their customers started buying Nikon lenses with manual aperture control.  And the 5D2 still has a crippled HDMI out to this day.
 
 
 
You are joking with us, right?  It has taken nearly 5 years for Canon to remove the crippling from the HDMI output of their DSLRs.  They have only done it for one model - the 5D3.  And hidden in the firmware with this update was new code to prevent the camera working with third party batteries.  
 
 
The EOS mount was introduced in 1987.  The patents have expired, that is all.  It is not an act of generosity on Canon's part.

The response by TC says it all I think. Superb myth busting there. You're a credit to the forum.
 
For me there is no defending the C500's external recording requirements, and the pros I know who have shot with it say the same. External recorders are a PITA. It's a complete scandal that the C500 doesn't do raw internally like a $3000 DSLR or a $1000 Pocket Cinema Camera. Dumping uncompressed DNG raw to a SSD is trivial stuff. Canon chose to go for maximum margin, minimal design changes to the camera, maximum profit for their partners making the external recorders. One of them (I forget who) was even charging something like $4000 for the firmware required to make it accept the C500's raw output!! How do any of them think this kind of thing is going to wash in today's ultra competitive camera market?
 
Again it is a shame Canon took the beancounter route for the C500 as it could have been superb. For me there's no reason why they couldn't have added compressed DNG and a SSD slot, sold it for the same price as the C300 and then they would have had a worthy competitor to Sony. As it is the C500 is not competing.
 
I hope for your sake peederj you realise that your C100 + Ninja has a shelf life of about 1 year and huge potential for deprecation in price. It is already comfortably outgunned on image quality by raw on the 5D Mark III. I know you will confront this argument by saying the ergonomics are great, but I'm not talking about ergonomics I'm talking about the image. An external recorder is poor for ergonomics anyway - that's one of the things (spidery arm, HDMI cable) that pros were running away from DSLRs to avoid!
 
So your honest advice to people on this forum is to upgrade their 550D to the C100 and everything in-between is nonsense... Seriously are you a Canon plant? Just look at your own logic. Is the following nonsense? -
 
Blackmagic Production Camera - 4K and global shutter, free copy of RESOLVE 10
5D Mark III raw recording from full frame sensor internally to CF card - show me a competitor to that!
FS100 and Speed Booster - incredible low light performance and flexibility with the lens mount plus 1080/60p
Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera - ProRes internally for $999! Form factor a GF1. What's not to like?
GH3 - 1080/60p at 50Mbit, 24p at 72Mbit ALL-I - does your C100 do that for $6000? No
Not to mention STILLS on 5D3 and GH3
Blackmagic MFT 2.5K camera - beautifully cinematic and Speed Booster compatible
KineRaw mini (2K raw for $3k)
 
You have to be practically blind, deaf and dumb to dismiss all that as 'nonsense'.

I can only endorse the outrage (and enthusiasm at the same time) of the majority on this blog. Some of us are "painters", you know? Some of us do not need efficient codecs, nor do some of us need all those features, a "real" camera offers. Some of us, like myself, are painters, and this ML update finally gives me the color palette I need to create lovely paintings. A picture is worth a thousand words and now I have the right tool to not only create beautyful pictures, but also bring them into the dimension of time. Without spoken words, you know? And without having to spend a pile of money on bulky machines, that need countless accessories to actually work. I´m a supporter of the intuitive approach and this is the way I get my work done and earn my money with. Intuition and observation skills. A Scarlet (for example) doesn´t serve my approach. A DSLR does very well and a raw shooting DSLR does even better!
 
I´m very impressed by the (graded) raw footage of the 5D. These are moving paintings! But it seems to me, no one ever talks about that aspect of "film" making. "Efficiency! Storage! XLR! That´s what we have to care about!"
 
Aren´t some of you upset, because affordable and uncomplicated raw shooting tools could have been in our hands for years now, but they weren´t, because some money-hungry bastards wanted (and still want) to sell us extremely overpriced toys with "efficient 8-bit codecs"?

I can only endorse the outrage (and enthusiasm at the same time) of the majority on this blog. Some of us are "painters", you know? Some of us do not need efficient codecs, nor do some of us need all those features, a "real" camera offers. Some of us, like myself, are painters, and this ML update finally gives me the color palette I need to create lovely paintings. A picture is worth a thousand words and now I have the right tool to not only create beautyful pictures, but also bring them into the dimension of time. Without spoken words, you know? And without having to spend a pile of money on bulky machines, that need countless accessories to actually work. I´m a supporter of the intuitive approach and this is the way I get my work done and earn my money with. Intuition and observation skills. A Scarlet (for example) doesn´t serve my approach. A DSLR does very well and a raw shooting DSLR does even better!
 
I´m very impressed by the (graded) raw footage of the 5D. These are moving paintings! But it seems to me, no one ever talks about that aspect of "film" making. "Efficiency! Storage! XLR! That´s what we have to care about!"
 
Aren´t some of you upset, because affordable and uncomplicated raw shooting tools could have been in our hands for years now, but they weren´t, because some money-hungry bastards wanted (and still want) to sell us extremely overpriced toys with "efficient 8-bit codecs"?

I am blown away by the quality. Moving raw photos. Full frame at that. It hasn't been done before. Now here it is for free.
 
Canon charge you $12,000 for a moving JPEG photo.
 
Bloom gets excited about that.
 
Moving raw photo for free? OUUUHH noo thats rubbish. Not shooting with that!
 
Logic has died a death there.
 
The mighty dollar and mighty ego rule supreme.

I agree with you. But we all know how the "big players" play their game. Do only the bare necessities! Only if the number of sales decreases or the competition catches up, only then make an effort. Look at all those Panasonic (consumer) G cameras or the Canon 700D. Actually, this is planned obsolescence, rather than real innovation.
 
By the way, does the GH2 really have 11 stops of DR?? I thought it would be less...