jhnkng

Good.

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.

Yikes. 

I bet you Nikon are really chuffed they let him have a go with it, aren't they?
I mean, I have to say that based on this test, the D850 is absolutely off my list now if it can't even be used for shooting wide open on an f1.4 non VR short tele whilst waving it round randomly.

Yes, one actually looks at RAW frames from Canon cameras, as you will with ML, then they see those focus pixels in frames, which lead to the "pink pixel" problem.  There can never be a perfect camera!  I suspect that Canon adds more red to their filters, which reduces dynamic range, but gives a more pleasing image for many people, whereas Nikon goes for wider dynamic range with neutral colors which aren't as "psychologically" appealing.  Since even a video 4:2:2 compression will essentially double up on every 3rd pixel of color it's no wonder that dual-pixel effects on color are not noticed in video.  My wonder is if dual-pixel auto focus, because it requires pixels made slightly different (my guess) makes it more difficult to get 4K, definitely 4K with focus peaking (which is Nikon's problem).  Bottom line, for Nikon to keep its lead in still photography dynamic range, I can't see how it can implement Canon's video compromises--EVER.  Mirrorless may get them to similar video features as Canon, but it will be at the expense of their still frame photography technology which one can best appreciate by shooting with a D810/D850.

Dual pixel AF with 45MP final output image would require a natively 91MP sensor and for continuous AF purposes all of this data would have to be read and processed during focusing. Cross-type phase detection with a quadruple pixel design would require 182MP (if 2x2 are used instead of some other pattern). These things are easier to implement in a camera that isn't intended to produce high-resolution stills. Dual pixel AF is limited by the processing power available and having a high pixel count makes it more difficult. Notice that Canon's 50MP models don't have dual pixel AF either.
D2H and D2Hs had an LBCAST sensor.  I think the main problem wasn't the technology of the sensor but the fact that it was 4MP while Canon's was 8MP. The D2X had a 12 MP sensor but Nikon hadn't yet cracked optimal high ISO at that time (the breakthroughs came later with the D3s).
In my opinion, the details of how Nikon collaborate with their partners to make the sensors for their cameras should not matter to the customer. Users should be interested in 1) image quality, 2) performance, and 3) cost. If the results are excellent that is usually enough. It is clear that Nikon's focus isn't in video but they offer video as a feature (instead of the primary function of the camera). Nikon seems to prioritise still image quality over features such as video AF. This is neither a good thing or a bad thing, every company would do well to concentrate on their strengths. I do think Canon may be more motivated to offer full frame 4K in the near future because both of their main rivals now offer it. Since Nikon are planning on releasing a high end mirrorless camera system in the future, that will surely require some kind of on-sensor PDAF which then can be offered on the DSLR side as well.

It's a great stills camera though, if I were looking at a FX camera, this would be it. Not a Sony, but this.
12 bit raw in video? Nope. 12 bit raw in stills? Definitely. In fact there should be a 14 bit option.

You're going to spend more money on CFast 2.0 cards than the actual camera.

I do love me some good slow mo!

I have an aging D800 that I've been thinking of upgrading for a while, so I'd be interested in a D850. I'd probably sell my D500 for the D850, if it shoots as fast as the rumours say and has 120fps slomo video.

Tons of great info here, thank you all! I haven't used the Zoom F4/F8 but I have a Tascam DR701D, and the Tascam is WAAAAAAY better than my Zoom H5. I'm not a pro sound recordist or anything but it's immediately obvious the difference in quality. Obviously it's quite a bit more expensive, but it's one of the few times where you can genuinely get double the quality for double the price.

Tons of great info here, thank you all! I haven't used the Zoom F4/F8 but I have a Tascam DR701D, and the Tascam is WAAAAAAY better than my Zoom H5. I'm not a pro sound recordist or anything but it's immediately obvious the difference in quality. Obviously it's quite a bit more expensive, but it's one of the few times where you can genuinely get double the quality for double the price.

If you look more closely at DXOMark measurements (the graphs) the D5 has better dynamic range from about 3200 to 51200 than the 1DX II. Which is more important (low ISO or high ISO dynamic range), can be argued depending on the application. Typical sports shooters are shooting publication ready jpgs in the camera which mean their dynamic range is limited at that point in practice even if they once in a blue moon get the chance to use low ISO.
Furthermore the tonal range (number of tones that can be separated from each other and noise) and color sensitivity (number of color values that can be distinguished from each other and noise) are greater in the D5 across the 100-25600 range than in the 1DX Mark II. For me these are very important measures of the smoothness of tones and colour gradations especially if the contrast is increased in post they determine how well the image's tonal and colour integrity hold up. To decide on which sensor is best for a given application, one needs to look at the shooting conditions and what kind of post-processing / look is preferred for the final image.
The D5 isn't the ideal camera to shoot in direct sunlight due to its lower base ISO dynamic range; that much is clear. On the other hand, the 35mm full frame camera which has the best base ISO dynamic range is also made by Nikon: the D810. So they have solutions for this situation also, just in a different camera.
The D500/D7500 sensor allows fast reads for high fps use, which the D7200's sensor (which scores better on dxomark for low ISO metrics) is apparently not well equipped to do. However, many users of the D500 report that they find the high ISO image quality to be better in the D500 than in the D7200 and the color neutrality is held across a greater range of ISO settings than in previous cameras. This is also true of the D5. So there are characteristics of the new sensors which are missed by dxo's overall scoring (which is mostly based on low ISO performance and ignores large parts of the elevated ISO measurements) but appreciated by photographers who use these cameras. In dxomark's graphs, the D7500 has better dynamic range than the NX500 at every ISO setting but the difference is pronounced from ISO 400 to 25600. DXO weight their overall score heavily on base ISO results which is usually not what people are using in practice unless they work in the studio or are tripod based landscape photographers. I think there is useful information in DXOMark data but you have to go into the graphs in the Measurements tab to access it.
I think the cropped 4K (which is the same actual pixels crop as is used in Canon's 4K capable DSLRs) is used because it requires less processing and produces less heat than doing a full sensor read and resampling the images to 4K. I don't think it's a question of who makes the sensor so much. If they wanted to they could make a full frame 4K camera but it would cost more and most Nikon users are focused on still photography and only need some video capability on the side for occasional use.
I realize you are interested primarily in video and would like Nikon to do better in that area. I am sure this sentiment is shared by many, however, Nikon's history is in still photography and they remain primarily focused on that. Users who have greater priority needs in video tend to congregate to other brands. Since Nikon is working on a full frame mirrorless camera I would expect that they will implement some form of phase-detect focus sensors in the main image sensors and at that point there will probably be more interest in using Nikons for video. But at present it seems that all the optimization that Nikon do is to get the best still image quality possible for the applications expected for each particular camera.

I traded in my GH4+Odyssey combo for a Blackmagic Micro and couldn't be happier. My days of wrestling with a camera to do what I want are behind me.

Shot on the GH5 in 3 days. A concept trailer done having a zero budget for our upcoming first feature film.
I really like what I can squeeze out of the internal 10 bit V-Log footage. DR, lowlight and colors are really good.
Everything was shot with sharpening and nr set to -5 and a Tiffen Black Pro Mist filter applied in front of the lens (12-35mm 2.8 V1, 20mm 1.7, 42.5mm 1.7) to make it smoother. Colorgrading done in Davinci Resolve. Drone shots by the DJI Mavic (the internal sharpening is hideous tbh...).
 

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'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!

One day Canon's rep can explain to me why there is 300MBit 4:2:2 on the £1400 XC10 but just 100Mbit 4:2:0 on the £7500 C200

How do you define creativity though?
Yes, if you film street photography style footage, a GH5 will offer more creative freedom than a fully rigged Arri.
If you are filming from a camera mount on a snowboard, then the GoPro will offer more creative freedom than a GH5
If you are filming fast moving skaters, then a DJI Osmo will offer more creative freedom than a GoPro
If you are filming the aurora, then a Sony a7s ii will offer more creative freedom than an DJI Osmo
If you are filming music video, a C200 will offer more creative freedom than an A7s ii
and on and on..... There is no one camera that offers more creativity for every type of filming.

People can't be creative while they're working? Or efficient when they're not?
Wedding and event shooters aspire to pro cams because they're sick of fiddling with NDs and tiny batteries and rolling shutter and too-big or too-small codecs. The time lost dicking around with these things doesn't make anyone more creative, it only endangers their paycheck/career, AND loses them creative opportunities.
There are plenty of subjects and shooting styles that lend themselves perfectly to photo cams and their slower, fiddlier workflow... and there are plenty that don't, even past weddings and events. And this is a separate issue from creativity and freedom vs. efficiency and appearances. Someone can be completely creative whilst shooting fast-paced or high-pressure situations- at least they can if they have the time to.
I do definitely agree that the IQ gap is so much smaller nowadays that this is a much blurrier argument than it was a few years ago. A7sII, GH5, etc vs. FS5/7, C200, etc is certainly a smaller gap than 7D vs. C300, or whatever other matchup from 4-10 years ago. Smaller price gap too.
The lack of IBIS in pro bodies is also definitely adding to the blur.

I don't understand the issue. The C200 is the A cam, and the C200B is the B cam. That's only $13,500 for two incredible 4K RAW cameras with DPAF. They'll all match in color and lens selection and features. And if you need a C camera, then the XC10 at $2000 is great.
How much cheaper do people want it to get? If the above is too expensive, you probably aren't in the market for a C200 anyway. Just get a couple of GH5 cameras and enjoy shooting 4K 10 bit 4:2:2.

The Tech Specs page for the Ursa Mini has storage rates listed for all the flavours of ProRes:
https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/blackmagicursaminipro/techspecs#W-URSA-20

I shot a short doc on the Micro on ProRes LT and that graded just fine. 

What seems clear to me is that they also want C100 users to make the stretch upwards and they don't want to destroy the C300 market, which is broadcast, by bringing the broadcast level codec on board too soon. Who wants to bet against me that the C300 III comes out before this codec ?   I think the C100 series might also be toast in fact.  But that remains to be seen.  The RAW lite adds extended dynamic range and touches the indie market and the dual pixel AF is attractive to a lot of other folks in the industry.  I think it will smoke the new Panasonic for this reason.
For me it is very clear the C200 is a B-Cam to the C700 and the next generation C300 users.

Oh my! if it ain't one of the greatest selling points since sound put on celluloid, then this camera ain't selling s*#t!!
Seriously, why a "pro" wouldn't want something like this in his workflow, it's beyond me..
I am 98%, the people that do not care about Dual Pixel AF, have never worked with it, at times it is really liberating (it is just a tool, for the right moment it can be valuable though).
I am putting another 25euros on the Rage Against The Machine album.. but don't tell anyone!
 

Its always entertaining to scroll through dreamy wishlists here