Eric Calabros

PetaPixel used the "3rd time" in its title. DPReview word was "expands". We know which one is more interested in clickbait. 
The good side of it is that they took the issue that could only affect a few number of users very seriously, and replace the shutter even if warranty is expired. The ugly side is the range of this expansion, which is nearly a year, that brings a question how its even possible to NOT notice new batch of component has same problem of the previous batch, for a year! 

DxO score can't even represent their own testing. Here is actual DR comparison:

The difference is more than one full stop, but not at base ISO. Something happens at ISO 400 that needs a IP licence Samsung didn't have. 
CMOS is a matured tech, read noise on these new sensors are ridiculously low, so we are limited by noise generated by randomness of light. which we can't do much about that. 

Its was 0 when Nikon introduced DSLR video in D90. 

Only in Panasonic image he looks like has a blood circulation. 

I don't know how Oliver Stone manages to smile in front of characters who are known for killing their opponents the nasty ways we only see in NC-17 movies. 

Only in Panasonic image he looks like has a blood circulation. 

Here's the source DPReview are using for the article
Doesn't look like click bait to me   

Here's the 1D X Mark II reacting even worse to high brightness pulsing LED light sources https://***URL removed***/forums/thread/4133297
But it didn't make the front page, obviously

The two major problems those LED ad board actually present to us shooting in stadiums as they become so widely adopted are :
1) We've had to get taller stools.
2) They are quite temperamental so you often have their techs crouching next to you and fiddling about with them.
White balance changing in a fast burst due to floodlights pulsing is an order of magnitude higher as a lighting issue than the LED boards.
For this LED board stuff to be causing a genuine problem for people shooting at stadiums with the A9 then people would have to be actually shooting at stadiums with the A9 in the first place. And in my experience, they're not. For reasons that have zero to do with banding.
Such an odd thing to go after them for in the overall scheme of things with that camera.
This image they've used to show the banding though....
I'm not being catty, because I don't mind that fro fella, but I don't look at it and think "Wow, look at the banding"
I think "Where's the ball, why is your horizon off, why is the focus on the wrong player, why is it so noisy for a shot in broad daylight, why is it so heavily processed"
If I sent that on the wire, it wouldn't be the banding that would be preventing it from getting published.

Sure all those things are important for photographers.
And the 6D Mark II is nice ergonomically.
But there's no getting away from the fact that the 6D came out in 2012, the 6D 2 in 2017, and in between 5 years passed, Canon added Dual Pixel AF, which they have had lying around in the cupboard since 2013 with the 70D, a tilt screen, which the original 6D should have had in the first place, but they said "nah" it wouldn't be possible due to weather sealing, so now they have it on there with weather sealing anyway, so chalk that down to another fib, and as for the improvement in low light, you expect that as a given after 5 years of sensor development, it's probably not really very different from a Nikon D750 and I am sure 5D Mark IV owners are really over the moon about having worse low light performance than the 6D Mark II and no articulated screen for their extra $1500.

Photography has got to move forward.
We have been using the same shit for decades.
Mirrorless is a step in the right direction of course.
Samsung tried a very brave thing with a huge touch screen on the Galaxy NX, the only Android based Super 35mm interchangeable lens camera on the planet and customers didn't buy it.
So perhaps Canon's customers are to blame for Canon.
If all they want in 10 years of technological innovation is the addition of a swivel screen, then so be it.

http://menexmachina.blogspot.com/2018/07/egpu-for-video-processing-on-laptop.html

Its always entertaining to scroll through dreamy wishlists here

Its always entertaining to scroll through dreamy wishlists here

I hate to say it, but I agree. Only maybe 5% of tv and 20% of theatrical features (I'm guessing, but it's along these lines) are shot on RAW. Because it's not worth the extra expense on productions already costing $250,000/day to get that last tiny little bit of image quality. And yet it's a huge omission on a camera that costs $8000? 
You can't expect everything. Or you can, but you'll be disappointed. 

Sucks so bad the Panasonic EVA1 lacks a Locking Micro Four Thirds Mount (like a baby made from the union of the JVC LS300 & Sony FS7 mk2 mounts).
Panasonic has blown a massive opportunity to provide an upgrade path for their GH users as they progress through their career, & was an opportunity to grow Panasonic GH5 sales at the same time.
However credit can be given to Panasonic for blasting out of the water the C200 which Canon just announced, but that fact should surprise exactly no one.

If they were to do that I think it would be in a DSLR/Hybrid format. This won't eat into their Pro Camcorder sales, but a $4000 version would. 
I predict that JVC will add internal Raw to the LS300 and it will look and work amazingly, and no one will care. 

The DSLR filmmaker community is funny. It's like "Gimme 8bit proxy, 10bit, RAW, Canon colour science, Log, 4K, IBIS, DPAF and HFR in one package, in A7S form factor, max 2500 bux. I need a silver bullet that covers all cinematography and videography scenarios but make it cheap because I'm not a pro and want to shoot flowers/cat in my garden with it. Also has to shoot on SD cards because Cfast is too expensive". 
There's no silver bullet for everything in cinematography. Every camera body and ecosystem has its compromises. You can hold out for the perfect dreamworld unicorn camera, or you can pick up one that fits your shooting style and then actually shoot something.
Also, the C200 looks awesome and exciting - and daaaymn, official 4K RAW on an affordable Canon frame, without the unreliability of hacking stuff. Had I not sprung for an UM4,6K recently I'd be throwing my money at the Canon.

thought 1: those people just don't understand budgetting at all. it was minimal enough of a setup, that when factoring in the volunteers, they could have made a feature film on half of that. this part isn't evil probably, just weirdly ignorant
thought 2: it must not actually have been a passion project. which it seems like you agree with? again, not evil, other than it being a lie. "I even chipped in a couple thousand dollars of my own money," was not spoken.
 
their careers can survive my poo poo
but yeah, let's all use our resources. 

Yes, but if people are stupid enough to donate their money to rich people then that's their problem - they're idiots, but its their money. What also annoys me is when a film crowd sources & instead of saying they'll get a return on their investment, they get offered free tickets to the premiere or a walk on part - that's worse.
However, the real thing that gets my goat is when you hear all these stars saying that there aren't enough female directors. Yes it is true for film & it is a problem, but the solution isn't to give money to movie stars who haven't spent years learning their craft (no, acting in a film is not the same thing) & the end result is an average film - just compare the films of Andrea Arnold, Lynne Ramsey or Kelly Reichardt to say Angelina Jolie or Elizabeth banks. I know which ones i'll be watching!
Now the flip side, is that there are a lot of female directors working in TV dramas (not shit ones, but really good shows), so why don't they get a chance at films? The most recent example is Reed Morano, who directed the first few episodes of The Handmaid's Tale & consequently set the visual & narrative tone for the whole series - it's well worth a watch.
But, you just got to suck it up & realise that this industry isn't about what's fair....it's about who you know & how much money can be made.
 

Worked for a german short film one day, directed by the then-unexperienced daughter of a famous TV producer. A friend of mine was the production designer/set dresser/prop maker (the first being her profession), and I helped her. Everbody got paid after profits, which means nobody. Regular medium sized crew, credits ran long, including a long list of sponsors (???). The regular TV cameraman had a RED, he also worked three 12-14 hour days without payment. Well-known TV and stage actors (in part "borrowed" from the father's TV shows). Everything looked promising, but at the premiere (free buffet with champagne for the crew) I found the result rather mediocre. Couldn't tell a moral from this.
My friend also worked for Cronenbergs A Dangerous Method, and out of curiosity I volunteered to help demount the studio sets. I liked this film very much, but the actual sets were really amazing, I expected the visuals to turn out much more spectacular than they eventually were. To be more precise, I expected a much higher production value. Again, I don't know what to think of that. Both experiences were inspiring.

Fincher doesn't come to set anymore. From what I heard, literally Spacey didn't want to direct, and she said "hey, I'll do it" *cough, two paychecks*. They said sure, because there are so many people it can't really go wrong.

Haha, I learned that the hard way

Some House of Cards crew, and star Robin Wright, made a six minute short film, set in one location, shot in two days. I guess the crew volunteered their time and resources. And they still ended up crowdfunding $50,000 to make it happen. So just a bunch of millionaires not willing to put a cent of their own into a film they call a "passion project". From the stills I've seen, I have no idea where $50,000 would have gone. And it sounded like they got accepted to CANNES before they were even finished. For Wright's directorial debut. Just because it looked pretty and had a big name. (My source was an interview on Colbert, if you want to look it up, sorry for not posting it here)
How is that okay? And how far back in time to you have to go to see Sundance and Cannes as the home of brilliant films that don't fit Hollywood's bill? (Sundance appeared to be a mess this year too. Apparently Nick Offerman and Kristen Stewart are the great talents of our generation)
Let me know if I'm just being a dick, but wow

Switching from Premiere CC/Resolve to FCPX is the best decision I ever made. Over the last year I must have saved at least six months in editing and render times
(Btw, today I downloaded a 30 day trial of Capture One Pro 10. Took me about 20 minutes to realize that it's time to dump Lightroom as well. So, "Buy buy Adobe. Loved you from CS5 to CC but you have lost the mojo.")
 

Thats the IBIS price you gonna pay. Without a fixed heatsink these sensors should overheat.