Xavier Plagaro Mussard

It is smartphones AND apps... The two are symbiotic.
The cameras on modern smart phones are great, the apps are great... I can shoot and edit raw images on my Nexus.
As Mozim says though, this will help separate the two industries... Which I think is a good thing. Canon, Nikon etc can cater to people who care about lasting imagery, rather than shoot and share.
You say "no wifi on high end",,,, it doesn't need it, it doesn't need grading apps, facebook sharing apps.... Just a very low battery consumption bluetooth, like the NX1 has. Send the raw to your phone.... Grade and share (while the raw file is uploaded to dropbox, for backup). Let the phone do what it does best. Simple.
 
 

Guys this is obviously a camera designed for women, small lightweight....ah EF mount! ah ah ah 

​(Really) Long takes, I guess

Can't wait to snap one of these up on eBay in 5 years

​Possibly because they don't want youtube being filled with footage that doesn't show off their camera in talented hands.

I'm kinda on the fence... a GoPro Hero4 Black or this... hum.

That is why I have had for the past year a smaller quad (with an SD camera on it) to practice on :-)

doing some camera tests for an upcoming feature and thought i'd share the results (after some not as ideal results from my first shoot)
full write up here if you're interested (with before/afters), but the main points:
12800 iso
exposed skin around %60 ire on fill side
used alisters one stop over film lut
denoised %30 in neat video (may eventually remove denoising as the grain isn't that unappealing)
shot with nikon zooms. 
some snippets from the dailies in 4k:
 
 
 

​Incredibly well.
http://vimeo.com/115516762

If they pack towers, they'll want the performance and power from a tower. This little box uses laptop components, with 15-25W TDP. Full-sized computers have CPUs that can go as high as 150W TDP. I think Haswell-E's TDP is about 140W on average. I haven't even started on the GPUs!

How do you shave? Do you do it oldschool? With a brush and a bit of soap? An actual fancy bladed razor like back in the day or at a barber? Do you do multiple passes? Listen to a bit of jazz music in the background, taking your time? Dry up with a nice warm towel and finish with a splash of after shave with a slight alcohol burn? Does the routine comfort you? Does it clear your head? Does it keep you focussed? Did your years of shaving like that give you skills, making you hit that perfect clean shave everytime, without any skin irritation or cuts?
It might take a bit longer, but there's something familiar, something comforting, something true and perhaps even romantic, about shaving like that.
You could argue that it's quicker to take an electric shaver and go at it. Facing that blinking LED telling you the battery is out of juice... hairs clogging the apparatus, the aggravating noise. There's hardly any comfort in that, nor is it romantic. But it gets the job done, probably quicker and just as effective...
What I mean is... maybe people just feel more comfortable shooting film, not even so much for the result, but because of the process. Because it feels right for them to do it that way and because of that they're able to give it their best. And who's to say which is better? I think it's a cool thing film is still around. Not that I would use it myself, but it's craftmanship... it's skill... and I'm just glad that there's people willing to keep that alive.

This grew out of a discussion over on DVX user, thought I'd add it here if anyone is interested.
A poster asked "what is the best c-stand" and my reply was "usually, not a c-stand".
C stands are designed to get small lights and flags into a maze of light stand feet. They're not intended for overheads or big 2K fresnels. They tip easily, they're hard to pack, and the way the column meets the base at a single point makes them even more prone to tipping. For some reason, "c-stand" has become a sort of knee-jerk must-have for people starting to build a kit. I like having c-stands, but especially on a tight budget, I'd shop for stands that are more versatile, can hold more weight with greater stability, are easier to pack, and could reasonably be used for, say, an 8x8 overhead in calm conditions, and (hopefully) cost the same or less. Something that can take an XL softbox or a big octagon without 3 sandbags and prayer.

I'm comparing stands here to the Avenger Turtle-Base (unless you are 100% studio, you really don't want 1-piece C-stands - I feel they're a pain to pack). And turtles do give you the floor-stand option with a butt plug. Yet I'd take a Beefy Baby over a c-stand any day, in most cases. 
So - Stands in the $200 or less range you should consider. In the US, all the stands below can be found with free US shipping. There's probably a few more choices out there, but here's what's top of my radar:

BEST VALUE:

Matthews Steel Kit Stand
25 lb load, 37" footprint - 9.5 ft. tall
(Actually better height, load and footprint than the Beefy Baby)
$87, free shipping
Not as heavy steel as Beefy Babies (and thus lighter to pack)... and, DUDE, eighty seven bucks!! That's two c-stands!!


THE KING OF AFFORDABLE STANDS:

Kupo Master Combo HD $156
88 freaking pounds max. load!
55" footprint! ELEVEN FEET high.
baby pin AND junior receiver.
Leveling leg!
Cons: a very very wide footprint (very stable) that might be overkill on a tiny set.

OR SAVE A FEW BUCKS:

Kupo Master Combo Alu Senior Stand $144
26.5 lb load at a maximum height of 12' 4".
Footprint: 46" - still pretty big.
Aluminum construction, a triple function universal head and a leveling leg.

THE KNEE JERK C-STAND, (most agree) THE BEST VERSION AVAILABLE:

Avenger turtle base c-stand $169
9.8' feet height, 3' footprint, 22 lb max load, baby pin. Anyone who puts 22 lbs. on a fully extendedd c-stand may be asking for trouble though...
If you shoot strictly in the studio, you can save some money and get 1-piece (non turtle) c-stands. Which are a pain to pack.
If you use turtle base stands, you should invest in some butt plugs at $20 or so each. Makes a great floor-level stand.
Or buy the narrower turtle base and a butt plug.

BEST ALTERNATES TO THE C-STAND
In addition to that $87 Steel Kit Stand...
Matthews Beefy Beefy Double Riser $173
8.5' height, 22 lb max load 33" footprint. An industry standard. Essentially same price as the best c-stand.
(Was manufactured with a 12' aluminum column for some time, and those show up cheap on the used market - I wouldn't extend those fully or use in the wind, as the column is weaker than steel. I have two of the aluminum stands and I feel the column could buckle with enough stress. Great lightweight stand to get smaller flags up very high though, great for big softboxes at reasonable heights.)

Matthews Beefy Beefy Triple Riser $203
12 ft height, 20 lbs max load 33" footprint. A killer stand.

WANT WHEELS ON A KILLER STAND?

Kupo Junior Roller $199
17 lb max load - 45" footprint - 8.8' high
With super useful and good-sized braking wheels - bigger wheels than the Matthews roller in fact, which don't have brakes (well, mine don't).
(Avenger roller is same price, 1 foot shorter, only 28" footprint.) The giant footprint of the Kupo roller suggests it could be used for smaller overheads in calm conditions if big height isn't needed.
This type of stand is a dynamite thing to have - I use them for microphone booms, they're sturdy and reposition fast, rarely need sand bags.

The FCP X timeline needs a bit of mental readjusting, but once you learn it, you don't want to come back!!!

Like 99% of full frame lenses, no??

Sony A7s... a small camera nonetheless a great potential!
 
 

Samyang will release a new version of these lenses soon. In Germany they're supposed to come out in February, so I imagine they might be released earlier in other countries. The only differences are more markings on the lens body and the gears for a follow focus are in the same place on every lens. Not sure if they're already out in other countries but you might want to plan on waiting just a little longer to pick up these newer versions. 

I would go for a Tokina 11-16 and the two native zooms (16-50 f2-2.8 and 50-150 f2.8). I don't think Tokina makes anything in NX mount (yet, hopefully), so I would do a Nikon-mount version, as there are plenty of adapters that will give you manual aperture control.

these were the very first guys I would hire, first because you could not find any better, second to stop working them for your competitor and that even for free
I hope it's true, they should have earned much more respect, imagine what they could have achieved if not old conservative managers in Tokyo holed up in their kamikaze approach to whom belongs the raw codec, the firmware and the mostly horrible UI
Take Nikon as an example - holly moly, what a mess alone with their own proprietary raw-encoder. Enjoy the D810, the world's most advantaged 36 mio jpg-only body, instead of worldclass working shareware, LOL
any risk? No, let people built their own firmware on their own risk and if they brick their bodies, it increases only your salaries by repairing it. :-)

It's unfortunate not to see any mention of Final Cut Pro X in this article. 
The release of the new design troubled many Final Cut Pro 7 users, but the majority who were annoyed at the drastic changes seem not to have experienced what it is like today. 
You should definitely try FCPX as it's grown into an incredible program that is very intuitive, easy and fast to use, has top notch pulgin support and most of all - makes editing fun and leaves more time to be more creative.
I've also heard several editors mention that the quality of the exported files from FCPX are much better than those from Premiere. I know that Noam Kroll did a blog post about it. 
I recommend that you get into FCPX Andrew, as it sounds like you are not satisfied with Premiere. The bad press it got on release is irrelevant now. It is absolutely fantastic now. More editors need to wake up!!  

What a bunch of overgeneralizing statements, just to try to proove a point that you already decided on.
Photography has never been this alive.
People said the exact same thing about painting when photography came up.  People said the exact same thing about music when MIDI was invented.
This is lazy arguing at best.

Yeah, the performance on the right is pretty shady!

Good suggestion jcs. That should be nearly instant btw because it's not re-compressing anything. Another thing to note is that a screengrab of the QuickTime player window might not accurately represent that file (I've heard lots of designers complain specifically about qt player). Save out a static to do a "fcheck" in something else, Photoshop etc.
"ffmpeg -ss 00:00:04 -i myfile.mov -t 1 -pix_fmt rgb24 myfile.tif" <= that will save out one frame 4 seconds into a clip as 8bit uncompressed rgb tiff. 
An open source fcheck utility: http://opensource.mikrosimage.eu/duke.html

​If you need to take pictures and/or love to work handheld, a native AF lens with OS is a must. 
 

If you can't make something look good with 12 stops, nice highlight rolloff and some lights, you are need to work on your skills. That's the point you really can no longer blame your tools (and the reason I think the 5DRaw will keep me happy for a long, long time).

this looks terrible - 12 stops of dynamic range!
 
Wait, this is shot on kodak 5219 film.  but the skies blow out - but
wait a second - look how they naturally blow out - how smooth the gradiation is - wait how unsmooth it is.  what do we do?  Do we accept dynamic range or do we fight it?