eleison

Sensor size? I'm not sure you can put an apsc sensor into a MFT mount; I'm pretty sure you can't put a full size sensor. I think the MFT lenses would have to be redesigned.

.. but yet sales of the S1H lags behind the pocket 4k. imho, most people who buy the pocket 4k, don't buy because of hype. They know what they are doing. They are not "rebel canon buyers" who buys because of brand. Everyone has a budget. If I was an arri alexa owner, I can say "who cares about mirrorless cameras? S1H, pocket 4k, etc.. Arri has 14 stops, 16bit, 150fps".. At some point people say this is my budget, and I'm willing to live with the features (or lack of features); but no more. Perhaps the extra $500 is something they didn't want to pay to get a new GH5s. Or perhaps they just really like BRAW. I don't know. One would have to do a survey to get a more accurate picture. For me, the pocket 4k is a better camera for the price. Even if GH5s had the same flexibility in editing (which I'm not totally convinced of), the pocket 4k is still cheaper than a new GH5s. Another thing that would be interesting to find out is who has a larger marketing budget? Panasonic or Blackmagic? I suspect Panasonic.

Costs... Pocket 4k is still cheaper than the gh5s. Also, if you are comparing it to the S1H; you can get the EVF and stills camera by additionally buying a used a7iii, and you will still be paying about the same price as a S1H. Also, when the gh5s first came out, it was arround $2.5k. Instead of buying an a7iii, buy an a6000 plus the pocket 4k - this would be about the same price. Cost is always a concern, and the pocket 4k is well priced (hence the msrp hasnt dropped since release).

Well, if both cameras are using the same sensor, and BRAW is closer to RAW (from what I hear, it's raw after the debayering) then the Pocket 4k/ 6K is going to win. The question is by how much (is it a lot or a little)? and if it is worth the BRAW workflow? but from many people, I hear the workflow is not cumbersome and rather efficient and easy to work with. SoooooOOoooo.. perhaps, I am missing something?

Yeah, I think the S1h is too expensive. Panasonic mis-judged the marketplace. I think this will be the same situation for the new 1dx. By the time the S1h becomes affordable, something else will make our mouths water (14bit blackmagic pocket 8k? :-).

Sony is very popular in the marketplace for hybrid cameras. There are a lot more "casual" sony video shooters as compared to MFT users. For these users, video is important, but not important enough to obsess about it by participating in a forum discussing the minutia of video quality :-) These "casual" shooters make up the majority of the $1-4K usd video market. They are the most important market segment for the big Japanese companies. They could buy other brands canon, fuji, blackmagic, etc. but they also want a good stills camera. Sony is the best hybrid camera for them. This is one of the reasons canon is losing marketshare.

For the majority of people who buy Blackmagic's pocket 4k, I speculate in addition to the above, it's also cost. It's priced perfectly. It's priced cheaply enough film students can buy it undercutting a lot of other cameras. Also professionals with money can add it to their bag w/o much pain. Adding IBIS, tilt screen, better battery, better build, etc. would just increase the price which would reduce its market attractiveness. After all, just look at the gh5s and the pocket 4k. The market has spoken. The market as a whole would rather buy the pocket 4k even with it's "flaws" vs the more expensive gh5s which has the better build, etc. The people at blackmagic knows what they are doing (with "their ears on the ground", they even participate on this forum). They are geniuses at giving what the market ultimately want... and as a small company, they have to since they are competing against very, very big companies (canon, nikon, sony, etc.) One small mistake, and it's bankruptcy.

You seem to make good points and are probably right (I'm not that technical enough). However, RAW from what I've been told, gives the videographer the ultimately flexibility. The original videos only show that the colors/highlights/images were as good as each other which isn't the whole point of RAW (from what I've been told). If flexibility is not the point of RAW, what is? Just another marketing label slapped onto camera boxes if 10/12 bit non raw videos are good enough? I'm familiar with raw in photography. When shooting still images, almost all photographers use RAW so they can easily manipulate the image even though 12 bit jpegs exist. I would assume video would be similar. RAW for still images means ultimate flexibility.

When the lighting changes so much, you don't have time to white balance. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, when using raw (or raw lite - braw); exposure doesn't have to be 100% correct. I think you get 2-3 stops leeway. RAW imho, makes a camera more forgiving. You don't have to be 100% correct when shooting. There's room to correct it later for mistakes. Not to mention the ability to do a more extreme grade and match multiple cameras/cuts/scenes easier. Also, if I am understanding things correctly, the ISO isn't baked in the RAW image so during post you can set your ISO and determine the acceptable amount of noise for you video. In any case, these are the reasons I'm interested in RAW. At the end of the day, it's REC709, right? It's the flexibility that raw gives you to manipulate the video before you get to that point.

It has always been about "showing off". Youtube only cares about views. If you have stuff to "show off" you will have views which makes the youtube gods happy. If you don't have the tangible things to "show off", than you have to "show off" intangible things like personality, lifestyle, etc. etc... It's always about having content that people want. If thousands of people do straightforward reviews of the pocket 4 k camera, you're doing another one --- well, that video isn't going to do well because it's not unique. In the past, you could do a straightforward review because you weren't competing against thousands of other reviewers. Youtube was at it's infancy... Heck, the general public back then were even making fun of youtubers.They thought you were stupid because the whole youtube stuff wasn't "going anywhere" and only teens uploaded stupid stuff like their rants or their tantrums. People must surely remember those times???

A lot have either given up or are trying to create their own "brand". Doing straightforward reviews are no longer viable due to so many competitors. When youtube first started, there were very few people doing straightforward reviews and they could survive. Now there's just too many people and not enough views to share around.

I agree. It's always about the content. However, gear reviewing channels are harder to maintain or garner views/likes. There's just too many competitors now. You have to have a competitive advantage like being an actually DP w/ free (or cheap) access to equipment people want to know more about or become extremely niche which limits the number of people who want to watch your content which limits your income from creating content. Blue ocean strategy, my friend...

Good point. But at the end of the day, Canon has to ask itself what kind of company it is? Is it a company that is like blackmagic - serving a niche field (cinema camera, and in Canon's case the sports photography field); or a company that sells consumer goods? Even if ALL profession sports photographers were to upgrade to the MKIII, that's not enough revenue to sustain a big company like Canon. Blackmagic is a smaller company so they don't have to sell as many camera's as the big players (Canon, Sony, etc). Back in the old days, manufactures created a "flagship" product, and hoped the halo helped sell their rebel cameras. This isn't the case anymore. People know the value of the products and buy according to value. The MKIII doesn't make sense anymore in this new environment for a big company like canon. It really isn't going to help their bottom line. The profession sports photographer isn't going to make a big dent in canon's loses column in their financial reports.

I did a quick google search on sport photography salary. The median seems to range from 36k to 45k USD. There are a select few that make around 100K but that's on the very high end. SooOOOoooOOooo yeah. This is a very expensive camera for the average sport photographer. Does it provide enough value for them to upgrade from the Mkii or whatever they are using now? I'm not sure.

I agree. The biggest segment is the enthusiast segment. $2-3k at the most. $6k is too expensive. However, the few "professional sport" photographers might pony up the cash for this -- but they are a dying breed. This camera doesn't have a market nor is it really good enough to create a market for itself. I really don't see how releasing this camera helps canon as a company.

I agree with Andrew... Canon is fighting the "previous wars" with this camera. Within another year or sooner (probably within a few months), something else is going to eclipse it. Canon needs to plan ahead and create a camera that will remain competitive for a longer time.... but of course, there's that darn EOS division they have to protect. Other companies try and create cameras that they hope will be competitive for a long time. Canon, not so much... cripple, cripple, cripple.. it use to be "make sure its not better than our REAL cinema cameras".. now it's "people are notice our crippling, we need money, so make sure it's equal or a tad bit better... so within a few months, we can release a better 'cinema' camera... muahahahahahah." I guess that is somewhat an improvement. It still means they are crippling their cameras though.

Ok, I think I get it. Basically, you would like to compare sensors only at native/base ISO making the aperture and shutter speed subservient to the native/base ISO. I think a more educational test would be to see how the pocket 4k w/speedbooster compares with the FP - shot for shot, (same Fov, dof and exposure); I feel the pocket 4k wouldn't be so bad at low light since the speedbooster/lens combo will be one stop faster and you can keep the ISO lower and thus end up with less image noise.

I guess what I'm trying to say is if a short film was shot with a pocket 4k not using a speedbooster, would it have more noise than if it was shot with a pocket 4k using a speed booster ASSUMING the exact same shots (scene, fov, dof, etc.. basically the same movie shot for shot)? I was always under the impression that the speed booster would give the film less noise. I think I know what you are trying to say when you say sensor noise is static. How sensitive a sensor is to light is pretty much set in stone, but when more light shines on the sensor (via speed booster), I'm assuming less noise for that imagine. Basically, would a 49mm glass with a speed booster have more light gather abilities than a 35mm lens assuming that they created the same image with the same dof, fov, and exposure?

Technically true. Sensor noise is sensor noise. However, are you trying to tell me that the noise of an image w/ a speed booster which allows more light in, is going to be the same for a given field of view? For instance, if a pocket 4k is using a 35mm lens w/o a speedbooster as compared with using a 70mm with a speed booster to approximately give the save field of view and given that they are exposed correctly under the same lighting conditions and DOF; the graininess/noise of the images will be the same? I was under the impression, these two images would have different noise levels. The speed booster would have less noise since there are more photons hitting the sensor.

I wonder how close the low light abilities are to each other if the pocket 4k has a speed booster. I think a lot of pocket 4k users are also using speedboosters and this would probably be a fairer comparison. The field of view would also be closer. Also, a pocket 4k w/ speedbooster is about the same price as the sigma fp.

The film business is a quickly moving field. Super stars use to be able to carry movies. I don't think that is the case anymore. Its the same thing with "main stream" reviewers. Remember Roger Ebert, Gene Siskel, Lenorad maltin, Gene Shalt, etc? There really doesn't exist any reviewers of the same vein. how the public views movies and what motives them to put down their $8-15 and spend 1 to 3 hrs in a dark movie theater is changing. I haven't sold any independent movies, however, I think the underlying thing is to get butts in the seats. Create something enough people want to see that will pay off the production values and make some profit for everyone. This is the type of movie that distributors want. I guess if you get a hot actor, that will make some people want to watch the movie. However, trying to get a Chris Evans, or the "hot right now" XYZ actor is going to be difficult. In addition, at the highest levels in Hollywood; the general public are savvy enough to fight through the marketing and decide if the big budget movie is something they want. Back in the past, audiences really didn't have a multiple of resources to figure out if a movie was something they wanted to watch so they depended on the super stars. Now a quick google search or youtube review will tell them. The book you are reading seems to have been created in 2012; I think things have changed within the past 8 years. A lot of specific advice from that book is probably outdated. However, I'm assuming the main theme -- "make something distributors can use to get butts" in the seats is still applicable. If I were to try and distribute a movie today, I would talk/research people who are trying to distribute movies TODAY including those that have done it successful and those that have failed.

They will release the a7siii when the sales of their current cameras aren't selling. I have a feeling their current a7 sales are slowing down since this season seemed to be the first that they widely started discounting their a7iii.

But that's the rub... so much color space, but the only use for most hollywood directors just a few years ago was to make the shots match during a scene. That was it. If the directors from the past wanted to "push and pull" their images, they would need to import their film into a digital format and use a modern coloring software (which they didn't have) to "color it" - in other words, they really didn't do any coloring. Yes, there were directors that sent their films to "coloring" companies and request a certain look, but that was the exception than the norm - basically to make their films more "bright" by adding more saturation to ALL shots, or more "moody" by lower the exposure to ALL shots, etc. Yes, but it was about resolution and not about pushing and pulling images. However, the issue of resolution has been solved. But now people complain about bit depth so people can "recover" the images and "color" it a certain way, but from 15 years ago to the beginning of cinema, it was never about doing this ("recovering" or "coloring"). This new definition kinda irks me a bit. While I'm grateful for the ability to grade and not send the footage to another company to grade, but we are way beyond what was considered a "cinema camera" from 10-15 years ago. If we want to consider a camera "cinema", the true definition would be that the camera shot FILM. Invent a time a time machine, and give a master director from the 2000's, 90's, 80' and earlier; a 8 bit camera from today, and they would more than happy to film their movies on it. Their minds would be blownnnnnn..

The term "cinema camera" is so weird. Remember when people shot film? Nobody did any coloring EXCEPT for big name directors who sent their film to "coloring" companies to basically make sure every shot match with every other shot for a certain scene. That was about it. Nothing more. Now we have dedicated coloring software that pushing images from "left to right" and if the footage isn't 10bit or better it's not "cinema" quality.. It's so surprising people were even able to create films before the advent of "cinema" cameras. Star wars attack of the clones was shot digitally on a Sony's HDW F900. I wonder how many bits that camera shot in. I don't think it was 10bit. The phrase "cinema camera" is a marketing term. Give someone with talent, and they can shot with just about any camera - even the a7iii which I think is light years ahead of the F900. Does having a "cinema camera" help? Of course, but it's not as important as most people think it is.

don't forget to add the pocket 4k camera to the list and then put items 1 to 7 onto the pocket 4k. Next use the A7II to take BTS photos. j/k I have the A7III and I use it to take videos so no worries :-)