Emanuel

This is the biggest joke I have ever seen in my all life.

Output A7R M2 is 8 bit 422. Better bit rate, less compression help. That test posted by Emanuel is correct.
We will test with a GH4 of a friend of us. I can inform you later.

It is clear internal 4:2:0 is much compressed. 4:2:2, higher bitrate. You miss the point of Emanuel. He didn't say 4:2:0 is the reason for banding. He said you don't need 10 bit to avoid banding. Higher bitrate 4:2:2 is okay. I've done tests with the Shogun. Same results of that test.

I also find them useful. We just bought a Shogun for our A7 M2. That test made our purchase. No buyer's remorse.

a7RII is a much better deal... :-)
You can always use 4:2:2 8-bit going externally in both anyway... ;-)
LOL OK, apart my jokes, I think you're safer with the most interesting hybrid offer from Sony...

The Man of the Renaissance is not wrong when says it depends on the priorities, of course. But, tell me where the announced a7SII goes where the a7RII is unable to offer? (that is, apart the 8K stills / 5fps burst as bonus for mere 200 bucks of difference for the 42MP higher density)
Full pixel readout in FF? But you have speedbooster option, if so. The same applies on the lowlight department. Noisy higher ISOs mean too little, as the last footage released from the new prototype of Canon easily proves it. Aside the fact the difference is nickel-and-dime. Much because of a newer BSI sensor tech.
399 hybrid phase detection AF points is a way more efficient than only 169 contrast (slower too) detection AF points.
Even overheating, once it is not coming from sensor but processing, it can happen a negligible difference if any, with the a7SII, because of downsampling has more impact on the a7RII, but I doubt of importance.
Even rolling shutter won't be much better, considering what we've seen from the older sisters. Actually, the apparent advantage for lowlight performance you gain going FF on a7SII, without mention the speedbooster option available shooting with S35 (on a7RII) but not in FF, you'll end to lose it with rolling shutter.
Last but not least, the native 800 ISO for S-Log2 on a7RII is much more interesting than 1600 on a7SII (S-Log3), with no mention the PITA of 3200 for the old a7S (S-Log2).
And let's not forget the color accuracy issues on such sensor (a7S).

LOL
I'm sorry to disappoint you when I can't neglect the benefit of higher bitrate 4:2:2 even if 8-bit...

LOL Good one, Ebrahim! I am a bit done to see people whining of sky bandings but never tested it with a fancy HDMI recorder to compare the differences... ;-)
 
PS: From a previous discussion on dvxuser: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?335344-New-PIX-E-recorders-monitors-from-Sound-Devices&p=1986537988&viewfull=1#post1986537988

sample extracted from (minute 28:30):
https://vimeo.com/114978513

Who said 4:2:2 is more important than 10-bit? The difference between 8-bit 4:2:2 and 8-bit 4:2:0, it is more significant for your grading. Much different statement. Of course, for certain type of grading. No mention of raw or alike where even 10-bit is short by default. People too much focused on the 10-bit holy grail tend to forget ; ) But, banding was the topic (hence my "the-real-difference" of my post; numbers help but like machines need i-n-t-e-r-p-r-e-t-a-t-i-o-n :-D) :
http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/9390-sony-a7s-ii-is-out/?do=findComment&comment=106562
Speaking of math, let's see with a very simple case: 1) 100,000; 2) 1,000,000; 3) 10,000,000. Where's the bigger difference? Now, take these figures as bucks and your single expense as any number between 100,000 and 1,000,000. Which step will make the whole difference?
Here goes your single example on pictures, posted and reposted more than once:
http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/9355-canon-announces-development-of-8k-cinema-eos-camera-and-120mp-dslr/?do=findComment&comment=105935

Don't push it, man of the renaissance... LOL Don't try to take advantage because some other poster said yes in some other topic as the only way to make a point on yours ;-)
This test (not mine) is "my contribution" to this thread:
http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/9390-sony-a7s-ii-is-out/?do=findComment&comment=106693

sample extracted from (minute 28:30):
https://vimeo.com/114978513

How will you upgrade to 10-bit when:
a) the manufacturers have their high-end to protect?
b) compact size on large format is unable to go higher bit depth when internal 4K 8-bit 4:2:0 by Sony is out there to pop up full of overheating issues?
The fact 4:2:2 recorded externally brings higher bitrate to you is the only viable choice you have going with a large sensor. Other than that, 10-bit also means a higher bitrate (irrelevant the degree for certain tasks; there's the point), hardly to see internally in these small "toys" whether we cry or not. And for some reason ; ) you have it on GH4 but not on Sonys via HDMI. Why hasn't Blackmagic released yet 4K in a compact package? Because they are too focused on the new Ursas (reason a) above-mentioned) is short to explain it... And when they will, don't count on a large sensor size. The best you can dream about will be the SpeedBooster route. Other than that, you're stuck on 8-bit.
Whining for 10-bit or higher for this market segment is a futile exercise and meaningless. That test proves we have now a solution to help you out with banding. Not really significant for much other (banding as topic), but a way better than 4:2:0 (again, for banding). The comparison speaks by itself, the variables to second it only testify the grace. There's a difference between to dream with and following the t(r)ip. Reality-wise, of course ;-)
No one here is against 'the higher', the point is the way those several existent differences (RELATIVE variations, certain gaps, jumps as you call them can weigh much more than absolute values) and variables can have an impact in our tools for real in order to comply some goal. Those you can use in the field. Not mere wishful thinking for a bunch of geeks we are here :-)

I am not engineer either. No need to be one nor a businessman to figure out a La Palice truth.
That one on 10-bit 4:2:2 lighter than 8-bit 4:2:0 is the first time I've heard. That is, if same codec, same parameters... To be frank and straightforward with you. No, I won't show off and call you stupid in a public place. Nor thinking and writing you are this or that. Read your post again, you'll likely find inaccuracies in your post. I have no need to write the other side is wrong (you say) anyway. But I can tell you very straight using your lexicon, stupid is when we see real tests proving something and we insist this or that theory is the one valid and keep going what experience proves the contrary.
Hey, the lady is not mine. The test is not mine, no need to send me the check. The results are there. Very explicit ones, to say the truth.
A few others much prefer to praise their dolls. Yes, you and others here are also missing the point over there. Apart the fact, brands like to sell expensive toys and whishful thinking has a place but happens to be far away of reality most part of time, you are able to say 8-bit 4:2:0 is not favourable for banding (I've read lots of things over here but this one is new... LOL). OK, let's try to decode your saying, even though, you don't make the necessary effort to decode mine.
Still on the variables? Who said bitrate/codec don't count?!
So (no, not necessarily your saying, take it as sarcasm indeed), let's fulfill the 4:2:0 recipient with empty data and try to see if matches 4:2:2, why not? It reminds me those who think they actually record 10-bit in their external recorder only because they read the specs on the paper they're using a 10-bit codec, even when they stream a 8-bit output from camera.
I only read blah blah but... C'mon, give me, you and everyone a break. This is not a contest to pick up the best smartass ready for. Neither a kindergarten.
(your) point taken, thanks for the link, nice reading :-)
 
PS: Last but not least, speaking of accuracies ; ) the overheating issues seem to come from processing, not sensor. Or you wouldn't be likely to overcome the trouble triggering from the external recorder.

Don't push it, man of the renaissance... LOL Don't try to take advantage because some other poster said yes in some other topic as the only way to make a point on yours ;-)
This test (not mine) is "my contribution" to this thread:
http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/9390-sony-a7s-ii-is-out/?do=findComment&comment=106693

sample extracted from (minute 28:30):
https://vimeo.com/114978513

How will you upgrade to 10-bit when:
a) the manufacturers have their high-end to protect?
b) compact size on large format is unable to go higher bit depth when internal 4K 8-bit 4:2:0 by Sony is out there to pop up full of overheating issues?
The fact 4:2:2 recorded externally brings higher bitrate to you is the only viable choice you have going with a large sensor. Other than that, 10-bit also means a higher bitrate (irrelevant the degree for certain tasks; there's the point), hardly to see internally in these small "toys" whether we cry or not. And for some reason ; ) you have it on GH4 but not on Sonys via HDMI. Why hasn't Blackmagic released yet 4K in a compact package? Because they are too focused on the new Ursas (reason a) above-mentioned) is short to explain it... And when they will, don't count on a large sensor size. The best you can dream about will be the SpeedBooster route. Other than that, you're stuck on 8-bit.
Whining for 10-bit or higher for this market segment is a futile exercise and meaningless. That test proves we have now a solution to help you out with banding. Not really significant for much other (banding as topic), but a way better than 4:2:0 (again, for banding). The comparison speaks by itself, the variables to second it only testify the grace. There's a difference between to dream with and following the t(r)ip. Reality-wise, of course ;-)
No one here is against 'the higher', the point is the way those several existent differences (RELATIVE variations, certain gaps, jumps as you call them can weigh much more than absolute values) and variables can have an impact in our tools for real in order to comply some goal. Those you can use in the field. Not mere wishful thinking for a bunch of geeks we are here :-)

I am not engineer either. No need to be one nor a businessman to figure out a La Palice truth.
That one on 10-bit 4:2:2 lighter than 8-bit 4:2:0 is the first time I've heard. That is, if same codec, same parameters... To be frank and straightforward with you. No, I won't show off and call you stupid in a public place. Nor thinking and writing you are this or that. Read your post again, you'll likely find inaccuracies in your post. I have no need to write the other side is wrong (you say) anyway. But I can tell you very straight using your lexicon, stupid is when we see real tests proving something and we insist this or that theory is the one valid and keep going what experience proves the contrary.
Hey, the lady is not mine. The test is not mine, no need to send me the check. The results are there. Very explicit ones, to say the truth.
A few others much prefer to praise their dolls. Yes, you and others here are also missing the point over there. Apart the fact, brands like to sell expensive toys and whishful thinking has a place but happens to be far away of reality most part of time, you are able to say 8-bit 4:2:0 is not favourable for banding (I've read lots of things over here but this one is new... LOL). OK, let's try to decode your saying, even though, you don't make the necessary effort to decode mine.
Still on the variables? Who said bitrate/codec don't count?!
So (no, not necessarily your saying, take it as sarcasm indeed), let's fulfill the 4:2:0 recipient with empty data and try to see if matches 4:2:2, why not? It reminds me those who think they actually record 10-bit in their external recorder only because they read the specs on the paper they're using a 10-bit codec, even when they stream a 8-bit output from camera.
I only read blah blah but... C'mon, give me, you and everyone a break. This is not a contest to pick up the best smartass ready for. Neither a kindergarten.
(your) point taken, thanks for the link, nice reading :-)
 
PS: Last but not least, speaking of accuracies ; ) the overheating issues seem to come from processing, not sensor. Or you wouldn't be likely to overcome the trouble triggering from the external recorder.

The difference can be another one depending on our setup choices, as for instance where 500gr can make a whole difference:
http://www.red.com/store/products/redvolt-xl
http://www.red.com/store/products/redvolt
 
On the leftover, this is the philosophy:
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?67366-Is-it-possible-to-use-Scarlet-EPIC-without-any-Red-LCD-or-EVF
 
Yes, no reason on contrary.
:-)

I think you'll find up there the answer you're looking for:
http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/9467-ursa-mini-vs-raven/?do=findComment&comment=107970

I agree. 
This camera would be much better with an MFT mount - the original EF mount BMCC was a nightmare for this reason. (crop factor with EF lenses). 
 
 
We'll find out more on Friday.
The big feature is the 4k 120fps, but I still think the URSA Mini 4.6k is very hard to beat because of the value you get with the package. Once you add ergonomics, the Raven will likely cost double, if not more. 
I'm very curious though because I'm in the market for a major new camera to film a combination of commercial and music video stuff. 

Don't push it, man of the renaissance... LOL Don't try to take advantage because some other poster said yes in some other topic as the only way to make a point on yours ;-)
This test (not mine) is "my contribution" to this thread:
http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/9390-sony-a7s-ii-is-out/?do=findComment&comment=106693

sample extracted from (minute 28:30):
https://vimeo.com/114978513

The difference can be another one depending on our setup choices, as for instance where 500gr can make a whole difference:
http://www.red.com/store/products/redvolt-xl
http://www.red.com/store/products/redvolt
 
On the leftover, this is the philosophy:
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?67366-Is-it-possible-to-use-Scarlet-EPIC-without-any-Red-LCD-or-EVF
 
Yes, no reason on contrary.
:-)

http://eriknaso.com/2015/09/22/how-does-the-new-red-raven-stack-up-to-other-4k-cameras-a-price-comparison/

Your CFast media price seems a little wonky.
Cursory search reveals that the approved Lexard 3400x cards cost:
128GB = USD 341.99
256GB = USD 677.80
And I mean, those are B&H prices. Guaranteed you can find a better deal.
 
That said, this stuff (media prices) changes by the second, so I respect your compiling effort.
I await the published Raven specs. Hoping for some real awesome DR and possibly even HDRx capability.

From what I have read at REDuser, the thinking is that these sensors are a quarter cut of the 8K sensor... If that is the case, then 4K will be the max. If true, it is a concern, as RED is quite soft (compared to BM with no OLFP)

Hi, Thanks for getting back to me.
Well, the RX10II cost as much as the AX1000 and it is as bulky as the GH4...  What will make the RX10II superior to the AX1000 beside the S-Log? Better AF like Handycam experience? 

URSA Mini 4.6K can switch between rolling and global shutter(but lose some DR) so really it should have an advantage in that department.