Emanuel

I suspect the wide short is a different model/brand camera.  The levels do not match.
 

You'll unlikely find no lights setup in a shot into a blockbuster production, as for instance. An events shooter living from his/her craft is as much professional as an acclaimed Academy award filmmaker. Different levels, obviously.

Right!
In fact it takes a lot of powerful lights to make a shot look dark!
 
 

I consider G7's footage acceptable at both iso 800 & 1600. What i am waiting for is a m43 camera with acceptable performance at 3200 iso. And as many here have already mentioned not every pro shooter uses lights. 

Computer's binary ways can be confusing -- for a moment there I almost started to doubt myself
I also hope for a bitrate of 200-250mbps if it's x264 as well, should cover all the extra data and still be a decent increase in overall detail and motion smoothness over the GH4.

Maybe I am wrong in absolute data increase cause I don't really know what exactly goes into describing each pixel but certainly 10 bit value doesn't take four times as much storage as 8 bit value. Computer memory is measured in bytes, each consisting of 8 bits. You can read the whole value as well as specific bits, so to store a 10 bit value, you'd use a byte plus 2 bits of another byte, still having 6 bits of that byte available for the next value (of course, you have to keep track of where your bits are as there is no address in the computer memory for separate bits, only bytes). At most, if you just leave a full byte for the extra 2 bits, it will still take only the double of amount.

Wait hold on folks, I apologize I am totally wrong on the bit size increase!
I just cleared up my brain fog!
Of course, while the information quadrupled the required space is only 10/8 more, a factor of 1.25!

 

?????
10 bit require 2 bit more storage space then 8 bit and it can encode a value range that is 4 times the size.

Very interesting post Tim.
The first part of it you describe is what I mean when I refer to "honesty". For me, honesty in editorial is about emphasis. You can emphasise the positive or the negative. When you take out the negative, readers switch off and they may as well read the manufacturer's website instead or the box.
There's a new form of advertorial called a 'balanced review', which are actually 80% positive and 20% negative. That the negatives exist at all in these review is seemingly all they require for 'balance' and I've lost count of the number of times people have mistaken a glossy advertorial piece for a 'balanced review'. It's very easy to do. Likewise it's easy to mistake passion and genuine enthusiasm in the product, for selling too. There are camera reviewers that get accused of this a lot.
In the end it comes down to a creative business model which doesn't compromise your content. The mission should be to say anything - even rude things (which often are entertaining and add colour to the debate over a camera) - without links to a manufacturer or PR people.
There are not enough business models being tried where the reviewer is completely unattached to a manufacturer, and whenever they get big enough, out come the offers from the PR people to the reviewer in an attempt to get them to self-censor.

My wallet is ready!

Still waiting for the promised Osmo going to couple to the X5S...

@Davey
So, you BELIEVE that the guy sold his pro equipment and shoots now with the 80D? Sorry, when Canon states things like this, I have to laugh. We own over 60 (!) Canon major lenses, ALL Canon Cameras since 2001 (excepting the new 5D IV and 1DX II) and I love Canon. But this statement is bullshit and a sign, that this company is on the wrong way. That's why now we are changing  (for stills) completely to Nikon, after 25 years + of Canon. Enough is enough...Vastly overpriced products, poor dynamic range and the ultraconservative attitude make Canon unbuyable for us. The 80D? A good camera for 2003. Simply 3 years too late and - excepting DPAF - no reason to buy at this price. And some morons state, they would sell exceptional cameras for filming with the 80D... Of course... :-))))

Rivals ARRI Alexa image quality
 
 

I can definitely understand what you're talking about - but that's not something I would at all class as "motion cadence", which to me implies a) regularity in frame exposure duration and b) regularity in frame exposure timing. Judder is a big factor here - the playback interpolation of frames during 24p -> 60p telecine pulldown to match most modern monitor refresh rates makes a far bigger difference in the viewer's perception. For instance, when shooting GH4 footage at 30p it will often be described by clients as more "cinematic" when in fact, they are discussing video shown on monitors versus what they see in projected 24p theatres. So, there's a big perception difference in frame rates, pulldown effects, and frame timing (which is provably inaccurate on some cameras at certain frame rates), all of which I would classify into perceived motion cadence issues.
The "quantized in-frame capture" you mention on the other hand... that's odd. I'd noticed it before on some footage (can't remember which camera) and wrote it off to perhaps the lighting in the studio (60hz AC versus 23.97p) doing something a bit funky, but now that you mention it outdoors, I'll have to comb through the footage again. This said, I can't say that would make a significant difference in "motion" perception, although perhaps if it's randomized frame to frame instead of consistent it could lead to a flicker effect. But of course I've seen 35mm film in fast pans or fast cross-frame motion "flicker" too, thanks to our inherent perception of the motion differences versus blur in those large-delta situations, so it's entirely possible.
Then again, I did a lot of my GH4 recording externally direct to ProRes... might make a difference.
Edit: thinking about it: are you sure this isn't including telecine effects of frame interpolation? It sure as hell looks like it, some modern telecine implementations (in FCPX, for instance) frame blend instead of just blandly repeating...

IMO the motion difference has a lot to do with the recorded format. The BlackMagics, Alexa etc all shoot to intraframe formats. The GH4 is all interframe (IPB), except for the 200mbps 1080p mode, which is bitrate-starved for intraframe and thus is a little soft. I do use it a lot for high-motion stuff, though. 

My understanding is that it's a codec issue, but I'm far from an expert. I just know what i see. the GH4 handled it better than most low-cost cameras, but it still often rendered motion with a "doubling" or "tripling" of the fast-motion portions of the image in single frames. It was always easiest to spot on specular highlights on passing cars. Take a look at the car's grill in this image from a clip I shot many moons ago. You see how fast motion in this frame is rendered in three "steps", rather than one smooth motion?



On the whole, this subtly nudges the perception of motion closer to a "video look" (for lack of a better term) when played back at speed. It's something that I don't see on the Alexa (the Mini specifically) or even the BMCC, BMPCC & BMMCC sensors when shooting in RAW. Certainly there are more important considerations than this when choosing a camera -- and many would say this is acceptable -- but given the choice, it's something I try to avoid.

Yachts: Too expensive!
Jets: Too fancy!
Jetpack: Too dangerous!
Trip to Mars: Too exotic!
Panasonic GH5: Just right!
 

Going to be a little more cautious with the GH5 than I was with the GH4. I took possession of two of those on day one and spent a year trying to wrestle that image into something it wasn't capable of -- and VLog was a massive disappointment. Have been much happier with the Blackmagic line -- especially with the more cinematic motion cadence of those cameras. Optimistic about the GH5 but again, taking a wait and see approach.

Hey Scott.
This sums up quite well what I loved about DPReview's editorial and why I was so proud to be contributor for those years. I looked upon DPR as something of a leading light, the most respected review site for digital cameras, one of the first, and that's why I hold it to a higher standard than others. I care passionately enough about it to get upset and to shout about it when it goes wrong and I think it's in danger.
DPR did go in-depth, especially on the technical side and still does.
If the new advertising in the form of sponsored content also did this to the same standard, then the quality would remain and not hurt the brand as much but even then there's a problem, because it would only work as long as it was impartial, which advertising never is and never can be.
Flick through an old fashion magazine from the 1970's and it is almost ALL advertising yet readers still bought it in droves.... you'll see a lot of high quality advertising, fantastic photos (David Bailey, Helmut Newton) and minimal words, minimal editorial pieces! I am not against advertising culture entirely or with zero tolerance of ads and I'm not a communist although I do live in Berlin
The problem I have is that more and more the manufacturers seem to be the boss, the paymaster and the editors, if not directly then certainly in subliminally controlling ways like with the PR organised events and it is wrong that this appears to be our only choice as reviewers if we want to get our hands on new gear at the earliest opportunity.
We join the hype train by doing this and we trade our credibility, or at least it looks that way for the readers.
I am open for a civilised debate on what we can do in the industry to recover some integrity in what we do. There needs to be some collective action.
So the PR companies and manufacturers are after our jobs Scott.
And we are going to just let them take over on the content side?
But their purpose, if sponsored, is to sell a camera.
For me that is not the purpose of what we do.
I hate this insidious influence.
If we for example are to put out educational content for instance and it is paid for by Canon, then whichever manufacturer sponsors us the most or pays the most, the more content on that particular brand there will be, and there's yet another form of bias. Even if the content itself had zero bias, the money still control the agenda.
It's our job to create excellent content that's worth watching, not Intel's.
By taking their money, you are trading your position as a content creator with them and one day you will be without a job.
Of course! I understand that and always have.
That's because it's being traded in bit by bit.
Your voice replaced by somebody else's.
If it's only a 3% increase in ad revenue and you're owned by Amazon, why do it at all? Why take such a big risk with the brand for the sake of bowing to the manufacturers and 0.001% of their overall ad spend budget? Tell them to fuck off!
Thanks for the message on here Scott, I do appreciate it.
If I can ever mend my relationship with DPReview I would.
I have friends there and the only bad words exchanged were with Barney and Simon Joinson.
In the end the buck stops with them.
If they are going to take the site in this direction, they know my opinion on how wrong this is and why it won't turn out the way they hoped.
They have a responsibility as the senior figures to change tac.
Their responsibility to the readers should come before their financial obligations to advertisers anyway, because without any readers there won't be any advertisers!

LOL
Luke, people are all crazy with your NDA... Can't they allow a time for a break? It's Christmas time, after all! :-)

Hey all, I work at DPReview, so figured I chime in and perhaps dispel a few myths. 
sponsored content and the end of the world as we know it...
Yes, we do sponsored content. Most for-profit publishers do now, as banner ads do not work, and marketers are realizing this and switching gears. But it is not some clandestine operation, a complex web of ethical quagmires. DPReview hires scientists, PHDs, literally, to design our camera tests. We then perform those tests and write about real world usability to create a review, which is a combination of facts and opinions. Whether our camera testers get everything right (with their real world usage opinions) is up for debate, but we strive to ensure our reviews align with the science in such a way that questions about editorial integrity (very common well before we started sponsored content) do not hold weight. Go back to any review we've done and look at the data. You will bore yourself to death looking at test charts before you discover any bias towards a brand. 
Taking a step back, I can speak personally to how the advertising campaigns (including sponsored content) come to fruition because I manage them (I am the product manager). The reality is that camera manufacturers, if they are smart, realize they cannot put lipstick on a pig, no matter how hard they try. So they are resorting to finding ways to actually engage people. It's the early days, so a lot of the sponsored content is still shit. But the vision is that publishers influence brands to actually make content worth looking at, with the goal that the quality of their product, the soul of their brand (if there is one), actually resonates in an honest way. But it will always be, in some way, advertising. Maybe one day they will turn the corner and actually make content people want to watch/read on the regular, but only time will tell.
So when we decided to go down this road, we asked a few basic Qs. What could we make that would be worthwhile? How could we do it in a way that we were able to make videos we wanted to make, but could not afford to do so. And one of the first roads we went down was having pro photographers use cameras in the real world, and make little short films showcasing their experiences. On the whole, I think those videos have worked out well, we have been able to showcase photographer workflows, tell stories about real people and places, have cameras used in real world shooting situations, and on the whole, do all of this with almost zero manufacturer interaction. There is a ton of room for improvement, and I talk with visitors all the time about what else we could try. 
But alas, the topic at hand, we also decided to do "Native Advertising", where we have no role in creation of the content, and simply provide real estate for a brand to promote content they have created. As I mentioned above, the vision is that this type of content will get better over time, but the camera industry is a few years behind the broader CE industry. I remember a good 4-5 years ago Intel sponsored a series of short films telling the story of a handful of creatives that were excellent, beautifully shot, and overall just worthwhile to watch. There is no reason the Camera industry cannot get there, but as I said above, time will tell. 
DPReview staff are photographers, no really, I swear.
We are not winning any World Press Photo awards by any means, that's for sure, but we are enthusiasts just like our visitors for the most part. It's an important point because I think when the topic of editorial integrity, advertising, relationships with the brands, and all of these themes come up, it gets lost. Maybe I'm an optimist, but I like to think that generally people are "good", and difficult to corrupt, and that set of assumption definitely applies to my coworkers at DPReview. Our guys are using cameras every day, shooting photos, and spending a ridiculous # of hours every year thinking about cameras. The last thing they would ever want is to feel like everything they were doing was compromised, without purpose. It would be soul crushing, demotivating, and completely unsustainable. So yeah, I understand the need to be skeptical, critical, and diligent in pushing for transparency in journalism, and we are no different. But aside from the more potent reasons I just mentioned, there are also the legal realities of sponsored content; we are legally required to disclose when a brand is involved with something that goes on our site, and we follow it to a T because, quite frankly, the world of hurt we'd face if we didn't would be far worse than a 3% increase in advertising revenue. 
DPReview hates EOSHD, and had a bitter falling out with Andrew Reid.
Simply put, this is just not the case. We obviously respected EOSHD and Andrew as we tapped him to be involved in our efforts to begin talking more seriously about video capture. The reality of our publishing process is that it involves several layers of editing, and Andrew is not the first writer we've worked with that experienced this process as frustrating, and wont be the last. Hell, I even tried to write a few articles when I first joined DPR and definitely pulled out a few hairs when my words and voice were changed to be in line with DPR's style. But editing is a necessary step in the publishing process, and in the end, even if DPR and Andrew didn't align on how to do this, none of us here view the situation as anything other than a freelancer not working out, it happens ALL THE TIME. There doesn't need to be a villain. Blogging is a much less rigid workflow and half of the writers we work with are much happier in that context. It makes sense. No hard feelings are needed. 

Thanks Andrew for speaking up.
It is very sad in deed.
I was doing my daily walk-around, EOSHD – slashcam – dpreview… and as I saw this, my first thoughts were also: 
OK, sponsored with orange, but what does this content doing here, among real articles?  
And I got angry, as I read:
“Filmmaker ScottDW trades his pro video gear for Canon EOS 80D…. and the results surprised him”
In the camera PR and marketing, the words “pro” and “gamechanger” are probably the most devaluated ones. For me, they have a rather negative meaning, as these words are often used, when they have nothing better to say. So when a pro trades his pro gear for an 80D, and gets surprised….
I think, either
- he isn’t a pro, or
- it wasn’t an 80D, or
- he was not really surprised at all :-)
Then I thought, I would write a comment about it, but there is no place for comments there.
So I comment it here :-)

Thanks for the support.
If people don't agree with me on this, then I will at some point also cave in and do a run of big advertisements splashed on the site and regular sponsored articles. But if my readers say they're NOT fine with this, I won't. Simple as that. So speak up for the indies... not many advertising-free places left now on the internet.
It wasn't supposed to be this way online.

I agree with both Andrew and you.
Andrew you post a post per 15 days. So it is "doable"  to not have a lot of ads.
But when you have a huge website that reviews ALL cameras, and all news with multiple full time employee. How do you pay them if not with money earned through ads?
I am fine with ads and affiliate links. But I agree with Andrew that non honest reviews and "fake" sponsored articles are disgusting. 

The content is shit though.
Tag or no tag.