Robert Jackson

Although this camera has some improvements for video over other Canon offerings it is still a photography camera first with a video feature thrown in. Pretty much like all of their DSLR cameras. If my main focus was just stills, then I see a lot of cool things in the specs. This is especially true if I want to get into something like sports photography where this camera compares to Canon's 1DX, with a smaller sensor. As a hybrid camera though mirrorless is still king for video. Until Canon comes up with something that will compare to that I would not want to shoot exclusively video with a camera like this, or most DSLR's for that matter. I think a camera like this, with a nice auto focus system, could be a decent B or C camera at a wedding or event. I could set it up somewhere by itself and control remotely or just let it auto focus while I operate the A camera. My real motivation for buying this would be that I am an action stills shooter. The older 7D is still a decent choice over this for stills though as is the 70D if you do not need weather sealing. They cost about $800 less. Another option is this price range is to go full frame with the 6D for about $100 more. As a stills shooter there are better choices depending on your need. As a video shooter there are much better choices, some for less money, some for slightly more, that I would pick first.

Good article on this new camera. A lot of people in the forum complaining about different things but no camera is perfect. The Blackmagic cams do 4-2-2 but they do so with a lot of little quirks like internal batteries, no phantom power, and limited frame rates. The GH4 has a bunch of frame rates and some really high bit rates. I am a big fan of the C100, rented it for some work last year, but it is too expensive for me to own. This camera sounds like specs wise it will be close to the C100 but lacking in the low light performance of course. I think for $2,000 it is going to potentially be a great camera. I am an events/doc shooter mainly so I do not care so much about 4-2-2 because I do not do keying. If I need it though I could rent the external recorder attachment. It is nice to know I could get it if I want it but like I said I doubt I will. I am also a photographer so I like cameras that do both. It is exciting to have a camera like this that does not have a lot of compromises for video and also lets me do stills well. Looking forward to hearing more about this camera and some video samples. Thanks for the information in the article.

I like the point on the pixel size for the sensor as it relates to resolution of the Pocket Cinema Camera Super 16 vs the 4K Super 35.  I have a Canon consumer camcorder, HF-M500 with a 1/3 sensor, and it can give my T3i APS-C a run for its money in low light because of the smaller pixel count. It is not as clean in low light of course but does much better then you would expect for a smaller sensor.    As resolutions go up pixel counts get larger leading to smaller sized pixels and less light sensitivity.  The Alexa is a great low light camera putting a 2.7K image on a Super 35 sensor as opposed to a 4k or higher on the same sized sensor.  This is something to be mindful of with companies now pushing such high resolutions, 4K and above, with Super 35.  When does resolution itself become more important then light sensitivity? Maybe the more important question is when is resolution so high that it makes the image too "real" and takes you out of the fantasy world of film?