jhnkng

Completely different cameras. Size and ergonomics completely different. I would go Canon C100mkII for sure. My favorite workhorse of a camera, low price, extremely capable in high ISO, incredible Dual Pixel AF - the only worthy of pro use, best size per performance codec ever (Canon voodoo here, for sure), deliverable picture almost immediately. Best size and weight for such a camera.
If you care more for the extras @IronFilm mentioned, then C300, but then there are better options out there in that category (he named few, definitely more research to find out the best option as they vary in era, features, weight, ergonomics, ets), and with C300 you need a full rig for it, it isn't "plug n play" such as the C100.
If you want more options for a dead low price, the aforementioned JVC LS300 is an extremely and unexpectedly capable camera. With all the modern bells and whistles (no worthy slow motion though, worst ergonomics than Canon, worst low light capabilities, C100mkII is a low light monster - do not forget), some innovation (prime zoom function, native m43 - S35 sensor!) and in the dead low price (new) was an Atomos recorder (I do not know if the offer still stands) capable of recording 4K/60f, so a camera still relevant for the near future. 
JVC does cameras since forever by the way, in 1978 (yep, when Super 8 film was still king) they did the first ever portable video system, and in 1984 they did the first all-in-one video camera ever (camera and recorder in one box)! 

Oh I dunno, maybe because Sony didn't make that sensor? 
https://www.google.com.au/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=d850+sensor+manufacturer&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&gfe_rd=cr&dcr=0&ei=WZh3WvOQC6PM8gfdsZrwAQ
And according to this list (https://nikonrumors.com/2015/12/16/list-of-all-nikon-dslr-cameras-and-their-sensor-manufacturerdesigner.aspx/) some of the most important cameras Nikon has produced (The D3/s & D4/s which arguably pushed the industry towards low light ability rather than sheer megapixel count) were sensors designed in house. It goes against the grain of "Internet Wisdom", but Nikon has more of a hand in designing their sensors than anyone gives them credit for. In any case, shoot any two Nikons of the same generation and the files mix together just fine in the edit. So why does it count against them because they can get a Sony sensor package with Nikon specs and marry that to a Nikon processor and code that does the actual magic, and save themselves the time and cost of developing a sensor from scratch?  
 

True, and to be honest, nobody will notice ether, I have never seen someone watching a scene and notice if it was shoot in 8-bit or 10-bit, you can see the difference in your 4k OLED TV putting both files next to each other, but thats all, I agree with @mercer and @jhnkng, if you are shooting with Canon 8-bit and screw up during the shooting and you are not able to push the footage enough to save the take, there is no way 10-bit is going to do it for you, but RAW, yes RAW could do it, so the C200 is perfect imo, 4k 8-bit for 90% of docs, and 4k RAW for movies and 10% of docs where the light is just crap....

I find all this 8 bit vs 10 bit talk a bit silly. 10 bit gives you only an incremental increase in grad-ability -- if your workflow requires heavy grading then RAW is where you need to be. And if you're not shooting RAW and you think you need 10 bit over 8 bit, I think you need to ask yourself why. 10 bit isn't going to help if you shoot in crappy light. 10 bit isn't going to help you rescue a shot 4 stops over. 10 bit isn't going to give you the malleability to create an interesting look from a badly lit scene. I know all this because I shoot mostly uncontrolled/run-and-gun and I've owned both a GH4 with VLog and a Shogun, and a BMMCC, and I can tell you that if the scene looks crap to your eyes there's no rescuing that even if you'd shot on an Alexa. And if you're good enough to grade beautiful cinematic scenes then you've got the know-how to fake it with a decently shot 8 bit file. 

None of this is to say that you should or shouldn't get a C200, because you need to take into account the way you shoot. I chose a C100mk2 because the package has everything I need to work solo, but I wouldn't chose that camera if I had the budget for crew. I chose to buy the cheapest camera that has everything built in so when I shoot I can concentrate on telling the story.  I'd like to get a C200 when the prices come down because it would fit on a gimbal better, and the autofocus is better. I love Canon's DPAF system, it increases my hit rate and helps me shoot more efficiently. Canon Log is super easy to grade and work with as long as you protect your highlights -- half stop over and the highlights are cooked, but I've brought back shots that were 2+ stops under (because I forgot to change my ND setting, duh!) with barely an issue. 

 

I find all this 8 bit vs 10 bit talk a bit silly. 10 bit gives you only an incremental increase in grad-ability -- if your workflow requires heavy grading then RAW is where you need to be. And if you're not shooting RAW and you think you need 10 bit over 8 bit, I think you need to ask yourself why. 10 bit isn't going to help if you shoot in crappy light. 10 bit isn't going to help you rescue a shot 4 stops over. 10 bit isn't going to give you the malleability to create an interesting look from a badly lit scene. I know all this because I shoot mostly uncontrolled/run-and-gun and I've owned both a GH4 with VLog and a Shogun, and a BMMCC, and I can tell you that if the scene looks crap to your eyes there's no rescuing that even if you'd shot on an Alexa. And if you're good enough to grade beautiful cinematic scenes then you've got the know-how to fake it with a decently shot 8 bit file. 

None of this is to say that you should or shouldn't get a C200, because you need to take into account the way you shoot. I chose a C100mk2 because the package has everything I need to work solo, but I wouldn't chose that camera if I had the budget for crew. I chose to buy the cheapest camera that has everything built in so when I shoot I can concentrate on telling the story.  I'd like to get a C200 when the prices come down because it would fit on a gimbal better, and the autofocus is better. I love Canon's DPAF system, it increases my hit rate and helps me shoot more efficiently. Canon Log is super easy to grade and work with as long as you protect your highlights -- half stop over and the highlights are cooked, but I've brought back shots that were 2+ stops under (because I forgot to change my ND setting, duh!) with barely an issue. 

 

I find all this 8 bit vs 10 bit talk a bit silly. 10 bit gives you only an incremental increase in grad-ability -- if your workflow requires heavy grading then RAW is where you need to be. And if you're not shooting RAW and you think you need 10 bit over 8 bit, I think you need to ask yourself why. 10 bit isn't going to help if you shoot in crappy light. 10 bit isn't going to help you rescue a shot 4 stops over. 10 bit isn't going to give you the malleability to create an interesting look from a badly lit scene. I know all this because I shoot mostly uncontrolled/run-and-gun and I've owned both a GH4 with VLog and a Shogun, and a BMMCC, and I can tell you that if the scene looks crap to your eyes there's no rescuing that even if you'd shot on an Alexa. And if you're good enough to grade beautiful cinematic scenes then you've got the know-how to fake it with a decently shot 8 bit file. 

None of this is to say that you should or shouldn't get a C200, because you need to take into account the way you shoot. I chose a C100mk2 because the package has everything I need to work solo, but I wouldn't chose that camera if I had the budget for crew. I chose to buy the cheapest camera that has everything built in so when I shoot I can concentrate on telling the story.  I'd like to get a C200 when the prices come down because it would fit on a gimbal better, and the autofocus is better. I love Canon's DPAF system, it increases my hit rate and helps me shoot more efficiently. Canon Log is super easy to grade and work with as long as you protect your highlights -- half stop over and the highlights are cooked, but I've brought back shots that were 2+ stops under (because I forgot to change my ND setting, duh!) with barely an issue. 

 

Yeah, I'm ready for some hot new KeyMission goodness!  Bring it! 'The storytelling revolution has begun.'
https://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/action-cameras/index.page

Rolling shutter is not great in 4k compared to 1080p, though I didn't notice it when I was playing with it on my gimbal until you asked the question and I tested specifically for it.  You won't want to do any whip pans in 4k on this camera. 
 
Which overlays do you need? All the overlays I have on stay on (except for the photo specific ones). Let me know the ones you like and I can have a look.
 
You can't switch between the EVF/LCD during recording, and you still can't change ISO using the front dial. You can't change ISO at all as far as I can tell during recording. You can change the exposure compensation in Auto ISO mode with the front dial if you set the physical Exposure Compensation dial to C.
 
Yes, and it seems to be using the phase detect sensors during AF-C whilst recording video. It's not super smooth, but it doesn't hunt -- you're not going to get super smooth auto focus pulls a la C200, but I suspect it'll be good enough to use on a gimbal.
 
I've still not had heaps of time to test the video aspects, but from what I can see the 4K looks much better than what 1080p gave me previously, but I think there's been some improvements to the 1080p modes as well. Where previously everything looks over-sharpened and the skin looks like plastic, skin now looks more organic and real. It's still very sharp -- too sharp for my tastes -- but the colours are beautiful and the Auto ISO ramps up and down almost as smoothly as my Nikons, so I can definitely see me using it for gimbal work or personal stuff. I'm really looking forward to playing with the Acros simulation in video, I love it in stills and I think it could be really nice to shoot black and white with it.

Stills wise the new AF-C algorithms are brilliant, it locks and tracks faster than before. This and 4k alone would've sold me on an X-Pro3, I'm staggered they offered it as a free firmware upgrade! Plus the new tethering options mean one less reason to hang on to so many of my Nikon bodies.

Or you can look at it that it is 230 million more lenses for any mirrorless system with a shorter flange distance than the Canon EF mount. (including Canon or Nikon when they come).

I hope they make compact and greaterforming lenses, leica style, not these horrible penis compensation crap you have to buy on the other systems (otherwise what's the point of removing the mirror)

I just want them to hurry up and release the thing, but beyond that I absolutely do not want it to be as small as the A7/A9 -- it's uncomfortably small and doesn't balance well in the hand, especially with the G Master zooms. A thinner D750 size would be ideal for me.

I just want them to hurry up and release the thing, but beyond that I absolutely do not want it to be as small as the A7/A9 -- it's uncomfortably small and doesn't balance well in the hand, especially with the G Master zooms. A thinner D750 size would be ideal for me.

Click to expand the 100% crops
X-Pro 2 4K:

X-T20 4K:

As you can see the X-Pro 2 4K has far more detail in the shadows, more dynamic range and a crisper, sharper image.
The film simulation modes are so nice on their default settings you don't need to fiddle... Which is just as well because unlike the X-T2, the parameters don't make a difference, even sharpness.
Regardless I would put this image quality in the top bunch of all the 4K mirrorless cameras... It's bloody lovely.
And the form factor is Fuji's best... More like a Leica than a fiddly X-T2
The drawbacks are rolling shutter and lack of articulated screen. There's also a slight screen blank-out when the recording kicks in (only half a second).
The screen quality is crisper and nicer in general than the X-T20, both in live-view and during recording 4K.
Yes there is a 10 min clip length limit, but right tool for right job and all that...
If you look at the price of the X-Pro 2, put a Speed Booster on there to make it full frame, you are getting basically a mini A7S II with the colour and ergonomics fixed , for half the price! That is unless you need IBIS and S-LOG of course.
It has some of the best dynamic range and colour in a punchy Rec.709 format I've ever seen, thrashes the Sonys. You have to shoot LOG on most other cameras to get the dynamic range the X-Pro 2 4K will give you straight off the card in PRO Neg. Std. film mode.
It's a really good codec, with a fine noise grain. I am getting steadily over the 100Mbit/s mark even on a shot that shouldn't really need it. It's variable bit rate. I saw it peak at 180Mbit/s. Impressive.
And it's really good in low light too.

Balls! That’s a pain - thanks for checking it out.

Rolling shutter is not great in 4k compared to 1080p, though I didn't notice it when I was playing with it on my gimbal until you asked the question and I tested specifically for it.  You won't want to do any whip pans in 4k on this camera. 
 
Which overlays do you need? All the overlays I have on stay on (except for the photo specific ones). Let me know the ones you like and I can have a look.
 
You can't switch between the EVF/LCD during recording, and you still can't change ISO using the front dial. You can't change ISO at all as far as I can tell during recording. You can change the exposure compensation in Auto ISO mode with the front dial if you set the physical Exposure Compensation dial to C.
 
Yes, and it seems to be using the phase detect sensors during AF-C whilst recording video. It's not super smooth, but it doesn't hunt -- you're not going to get super smooth auto focus pulls a la C200, but I suspect it'll be good enough to use on a gimbal.
 
I've still not had heaps of time to test the video aspects, but from what I can see the 4K looks much better than what 1080p gave me previously, but I think there's been some improvements to the 1080p modes as well. Where previously everything looks over-sharpened and the skin looks like plastic, skin now looks more organic and real. It's still very sharp -- too sharp for my tastes -- but the colours are beautiful and the Auto ISO ramps up and down almost as smoothly as my Nikons, so I can definitely see me using it for gimbal work or personal stuff. I'm really looking forward to playing with the Acros simulation in video, I love it in stills and I think it could be really nice to shoot black and white with it.

Stills wise the new AF-C algorithms are brilliant, it locks and tracks faster than before. This and 4k alone would've sold me on an X-Pro3, I'm staggered they offered it as a free firmware upgrade! Plus the new tethering options mean one less reason to hang on to so many of my Nikon bodies.

Rolling shutter is not great in 4k compared to 1080p, though I didn't notice it when I was playing with it on my gimbal until you asked the question and I tested specifically for it.  You won't want to do any whip pans in 4k on this camera. 
 
Which overlays do you need? All the overlays I have on stay on (except for the photo specific ones). Let me know the ones you like and I can have a look.
 
You can't switch between the EVF/LCD during recording, and you still can't change ISO using the front dial. You can't change ISO at all as far as I can tell during recording. You can change the exposure compensation in Auto ISO mode with the front dial if you set the physical Exposure Compensation dial to C.
 
Yes, and it seems to be using the phase detect sensors during AF-C whilst recording video. It's not super smooth, but it doesn't hunt -- you're not going to get super smooth auto focus pulls a la C200, but I suspect it'll be good enough to use on a gimbal.
 
I've still not had heaps of time to test the video aspects, but from what I can see the 4K looks much better than what 1080p gave me previously, but I think there's been some improvements to the 1080p modes as well. Where previously everything looks over-sharpened and the skin looks like plastic, skin now looks more organic and real. It's still very sharp -- too sharp for my tastes -- but the colours are beautiful and the Auto ISO ramps up and down almost as smoothly as my Nikons, so I can definitely see me using it for gimbal work or personal stuff. I'm really looking forward to playing with the Acros simulation in video, I love it in stills and I think it could be really nice to shoot black and white with it.

Stills wise the new AF-C algorithms are brilliant, it locks and tracks faster than before. This and 4k alone would've sold me on an X-Pro3, I'm staggered they offered it as a free firmware upgrade! Plus the new tethering options mean one less reason to hang on to so many of my Nikon bodies.

I have one, and while the weight is similar to a glidecam + camera you don't need to have the arm brace because you can hold it in both hands, or swap hands, or just shift the weight around so it doesn't hurt your arms. That said, you still need to be disciplined and manage operator fatigue -- I tend to brace the bottom of the gimbal on my hip between shots to take the weight off my arms and I put it down at every possible opportunity.

Man, bus shelter digital displays are vertical, shopping mall digital displays are vertical -- it's not just phones dude, I've worked with plenty of rigs designed to pitch the camera 90 degrees to shoot for those kinds of displays. If I do any more I might even get a GH5 and shoot 6k so I can shoot for both horizontal and vertical formats at the same time. 

I'm gonna join the D750 fan brigade here, I've been shooting that camera now for the last 3 years and there is something really special about that camera. If Nikon put the internals into a stronger weather sealed body, even with absolutely no other upgrades I'd buy it all over again. If you need to save a bit I'd suggest getting the Sigma 70-200 2.8. I got mine for like AU$1100 and it's at least 85% as good as the Nikon version which is more than twice the price.

I'm gonna join the D750 fan brigade here, I've been shooting that camera now for the last 3 years and there is something really special about that camera. If Nikon put the internals into a stronger weather sealed body, even with absolutely no other upgrades I'd buy it all over again. If you need to save a bit I'd suggest getting the Sigma 70-200 2.8. I got mine for like AU$1100 and it's at least 85% as good as the Nikon version which is more than twice the price.

D750 is an incredible stills camera.

You understand that the US Government didn't do the actual scientific work? They just paid for it. And they didn't pay for it by imposing a big new tax (which is how governments remove money from the economy), they spent money -- thereby injecting money into the economy. And even if you argue the bulk of that money went to government agencies like NASA, NASA had to hire a ton of new engineers and scientists and admin/support staff, who then spent their money on food and living and other stuff, thereby spreading all that extra money the government was spending into the wider economy. I mean I suppose if you looked hard enough you would find some area of study that fell by the wayside because funding was diverted to the space effort, but when people have jobs they tend to spend money, and when there's a lot of money moving around freely that's when companies make more money and can spend more money on R&D. 

I have no idea how you can quantify unseen un-discoveries in the 60s directly due to the space race, but I think the giant leap in technological advances in medicine, computing, aeronautics, materials science, telecommunications, geology, not to mention the huge cultural impact and the inspiration it gave to a whole generation of kids to work in science and engineering... I think it was worth it.
But they were expensive. The USPS made it cheap enough for people to try it out to understand how convenient it can be.

Yes.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/dec/16/apollo-legacy-moon-space-riley
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/hidden-figures/technology-from-the-space-race/
http://www.techradar.com/news/world-of-tech/10-tech-breakthroughs-to-thank-the-space-race-for-617847
And so much more. The space race drove an a huge wave of technology and miniaturisation that made it possible to have cell phones, laptops, GPS, and digital cameras. Whatever the US Government paid in grants and funding and investing in innovation it is still being paid back for in taxes paid by companies, employees of those companies, and the sales taxes for each product sold. In fact the space race is government spending at its best -- private enterprise can't take the risks that governments can in exploration, and without discovery we won't open new markets.
 
And without the USPS you wouldn't have eBay or Amazon. Without cheap, (relatively) reliable delivery internet shopping might not have caught on the way it did as quickly as it did. 

I'm kicking myself for not asking the same question!!
 
The C200 ships with Dual Digic 6 processors which has got to be faster than the single Digic 5 in the XC10. There's no way the hardware couldn't support it. RAW output can't be the reason either because RAW is *less* processor intensive -- it just takes the sensor feed and writes it to a card, it doesn't have to debayer or add noise reduction or anything. 

Canon's own press release for XF-AVC lists the specs of the codec, and for 4K it can do either 8/10bit I-Frame 422 and for HD 8/10/12bit 420/422/444. Committing resources to creating an 8bit 420 for 4K just to protect the C300mkII would be *insane*, though I wouldn't put it past them. It might even explain why it doesn't ship with XF-AVC.

I walked into the demo planning the business case to finance the C200, and I walked out with an order for a C100 mkII. They're now selling the C100 mkII for $5000AUD and it comes with an Atomos Ninja Blade kit, vs the C200 with retails for $12499AUD. Easiest purchase decision I've ever made!

I don't know what's worse, that they didn't notice that there weren't any women on the list, or that they came up with the weak sauce excuse of "well we invited them but they all* declined". 

* I wonder how many female photographers they invited vs male photographers? I'm going to guess the invited list wasn't 50/50.