5DGH

"Blackmagic Design Cinema Camera won’t just be a tiny niche of indie filmmakers – they will be stills photographers, camcorder users, DSLR owners, students, artists, freelancers, journalists, small production studios and even some of the bigger ones, broadcasters, wedding videographers" Oh no...Here comes EOSHD stretching reality again. No stills photographers would use Blackmagic Cinema Camera unless one is in a crazy desperate situation. It's an amazing video camera but it's a POS stills camera at best. DSLR owners? Very a few dslr owners who have been using dslrs for video work would use it. Don't forget dslr market is huge and video people in it only make up tiny portion. Journalists? Most of them would rather use dslrs with decent video capability than video camera with POS stills ability. Remember this whole 5d mk2 revolution began due to the demands from journalists who needed to capture simple video footage. Wedding videographers? No. Wedding videography is where shallow DOF look rules. No matter how good GH2 was over all the other dslrs, almost nobody used it due to its narrow DOF (though you could kind of overcome it by using a few lenses, such narrow set of lenses.)

Amazing how people get carried away forgetting to realize one very simple fact. DSLRs are stills cameras with a video function. The only reason it took over the part of video world is because video world sucked. Thanks to 5d mk2 and series of dslrs, video industry got the wake up call. Since then, we're seeing true video cams doing true video things. That means we're bound to go back to where we were before, though dslrs do and will offer usable video functionality. I understand the disappointment but come on...we're talking about stills cameras here. Canon and Nikon aren't going down because it can't compete with true video cams. Nikon did good regardless of total ignorance from video market. Look at GH2 that's been praised over and over. Such great stills camera that offers superb video function didn't save Panasonic stills camera division at all. As told by Panny staff himself, it's just a niche market. Sometimes, I think I should start rating video cams for their stills functionality for video people to understand. Oh, Red Epic's AF systems sucks, it doesn't offer dozens and dozens of cross type AF. Its light meter isn't linked to AF points, its tracking sucks, megapixel is too low...etc. Now, How does that sound?

"a sensor so powerful it is vacuum cooled." Speechless...because it's such a nonsense.

"Like a printed 36MP still, video is also downsampled to fit in a smaller area – in this case quite dramatically from 36MP to 2MP. The result averages noise across individual pixels to create ‘superpixels’ with less noise so the DXOMark score does bode well for the D800′s video mode relative to the low light prowess of the D4 and D3s video output." Can you back that up? There's no evidence D800 does downsample 36 to 2MP. None at all. Andrew, I'm worried that you're becoming more of sensationalist than ever before. You've been making claims that you can't back up, posting false information, changing your claim whenever you encounter something new. I really think you should think twice when you make a unsupported claim.

I really think you should have your camera checked. Though I can't be certain since I do not have 5dmk iii, it's showing more noise than 5dmk ii which doesn't make sense. Or, maybe it's because 16-235 mk iii is misread as 0-255. Ppro does that.  Try 16-235 on the new PhotoShop CS6 (interpret footage -> HDTV, REC. 709 16-235).

Here I am explaining it again for those who don't follow my and EosHD's twitter. When measuring sensor performance, DxOMark 'normalizes' the RAW data. That means they, regardless of different MP count, make a 300dpi 8x12 actual print to test. The result you see is based on that result unless you click on the 'screen' button which measure 100% screen mode (native pixel) performance. That makes perfect sense for stills. After all, we're bound to resize the image for printing and web posting purposes. It doesn't work that way for video due to line-skipping mechanism. For video, what matters is native pixel performance. Now, click on that 'screen' button to see how D800 performs compare to D7000. Pretty much the same. Yes, the ultra strengths of D800 comes from FF sensor that can support such high megapixel count. As for per pixel performance, it's as good/bad as D7000 which means it's nothing to write home about.

[quote author=Andrew Reid - EOSHD link=topic=444.msg2803#msg2803 date=1332437071] [quote author=5DGH link=topic=444.msg2800#msg2800 date=1332434463] "Today I bought a Sony FS100." Considering what you've said all those years, not to mention your criticizing others, I find it very surprising that you bought FS100 - just like the others. I understand your disappoint with 5d Mk III but you've always hailed GH2 over cams such as FS100. In that regard, nothing is changed. GH2 is still GH2 and FS100 is still FS100. Yet, you're now with FS100. What gives? [/quote] Happy to tell you. I'll be using the GH2 and 5D Mark III seriously so I am now going to be shooting *just* with the FS100. Though there will be more FS100 coverage on the blog as a result, because I blog about what I use. The FS100 at the moment has become a seriously attractive camera and the only real DSLR alternative. C300 is ridiculously over priced. The main things that have changed between when the FS100 and the GH2 first came out over a year ago, is as follows... - The price. FS100 is now $4000 2nd hand. B&H are doing a rebate on it new, which comes to $4699. At release it was over $6000. The price in the UK where I live is much higher, but I can have it imported from the US for the same price as a new 5D Mark III in the UK, even with tax added. - Firmware update due imminently will add PAL to the NTSC camera. I need this! - I need slow-mo and a flat image profile for a project I'm doing. 1080/60p is lovely and it does a 100fps over-crank. - External recorders are getting very good and the FS100 does very good 1080/60p 4:2:2 uncompressed via HDMI which is very attractive. No DSLR does this. On the current Ninja you have to use 1080/24p in a 1080i wrapper. This will change with newer models. - Better built in LCD and peaking - Better in low light than GH2. The sensor is also slightly larger and has less rolling shutter. For sure the GH2 is still mega bang for buck. But we must recognise that the rise of the video camera is coming after DSLR video at lower and lower price points, so it is now a factor for the masses not just the elite who use the C300, etc. It is exciting. PS - For shoots where I need stealth factor I will definitely not be using the FS100, and I still prefer the ergonomics of the GH2 to be honest. It is small and easy to handle whilst the buttons on the FS100 are all over the damn place! [/quote] Now you're listing all the good things. A while ago, you wrote this: [url=http://www.eoshd.com/content/588/the-sony-fs100-why-professionals-are-all-mad]http://www.eoshd.com/content/588/the-sony-fs100-why-professionals-are-all-mad[/url] along with many other posts & mentions dissing FS100. If I'm not mistaken, articles on EOSHD is not written by a team of people, right?

"Today I bought a Sony FS100." Considering what you've said all those years, not to mention your criticizing others, I find it very surprising that you bought FS100 - just like the others. I understand your disappoint with 5d Mk III but you've always hailed GH2 over cams such as FS100. In that regard, nothing is changed. GH2 is still GH2 and FS100 is still FS100. Yet, you're now with FS100. What gives?

"Now the D800 has a strange 1.2x crop mode that Nikon haven’t explained properly yet – this could be for APS-H lenses but it could also be for cleaner video." I already sent you a tweet but I guess I should write here as well. First of all, There's no such thing as APC-H lenses. It's either FF or APS-C. Even Canon that actually made APS-H cameras (1d series) did not make a single APS-H lens. 1.2x crop mode is nothing new either. D3 has it as well and Nikon doesn't and didn't need to explain it when they introduced it. It was to level with strength of 1d series. Since they decided to use FF sensor for max. ISO performance, they lacked that extra punch sport shooters desire. A simple crop mode took care of it so there it is.