Oliver Daniel

The codec is the single reason why the FS7 has much better performance. I rent it and on a few occasions I got 2 64gb cards in situations where data dumping was nigh on impossible. 
That said, I've had some great results with XAVC-L. Just not enough, unless Tetris style highlights is your thing!  
That's what I love about the E-mount.
Whipping out all sorts of glass and observing all those different looks. It's absolutely staggering how much the lenses affect the image quality and characteristics. It's the main reason I hated the RX10 II - the lens (expectedly sterile as hell). 
Helios 40-2 85mm f1.5 + A7SII is a favourite right now. Love it. 

The codec is the single reason why the FS7 has much better performance. I rent it and on a few occasions I got 2 64gb cards in situations where data dumping was nigh on impossible. 
That said, I've had some great results with XAVC-L. Just not enough, unless Tetris style highlights is your thing!  
That's what I love about the E-mount.
Whipping out all sorts of glass and observing all those different looks. It's absolutely staggering how much the lenses affect the image quality and characteristics. It's the main reason I hated the RX10 II - the lens (expectedly sterile as hell). 
Helios 40-2 85mm f1.5 + A7SII is a favourite right now. Love it. 

For these reasons: 
- To see the difference compared to XAVC-I. 
- When there hasn't been enough card space for XAVC-I. 
On the Ebrahim vs Andrew debate:  
- Canon C cameras are awesome. They are popular for a reason. The focus peaking and usability is BY FAR the best I've used on any camera. 
- Sony have more bang for buck such as HFR/10bit.  Great to see them innovating. 
- Canon cameras are underwhelming but work amazingly well. Sony's are spec monsters but need a year to mature. Depends what's important to you? 
- The FS5 is not a cinema camera (yet). 
- No camera makers are crappy or garbage etc. Just different. It's great to have choice and see what works for your style.  

For these reasons: 
- To see the difference compared to XAVC-I. 
- When there hasn't been enough card space for XAVC-I. 
On the Ebrahim vs Andrew debate:  
- Canon C cameras are awesome. They are popular for a reason. The focus peaking and usability is BY FAR the best I've used on any camera. 
- Sony have more bang for buck such as HFR/10bit.  Great to see them innovating. 
- Canon cameras are underwhelming but work amazingly well. Sony's are spec monsters but need a year to mature. Depends what's important to you? 
- The FS5 is not a cinema camera (yet). 
- No camera makers are crappy or garbage etc. Just different. It's great to have choice and see what works for your style.  

The ergonomics and features-set of this camera are near perfect for my kind of work. 
I cancelled my Ursa Mini 4.6k not only because of a change in working preferences, but because I wouldn't be able to use the camera with ANY of my grip equipment. (I still want it though! Haha). 
The FS5 seems like a great cousin to the A7S II and A7R II. Although I've used the FS7 many times this year, the bulk of the camera and the compatible grip equipment really does hurt to the point I now have to properly exercise my back. Not that the FS7 is particularly heavy, after a few hours you really start to feel it. Hard.
My setup is much more portable now. Got some Lupolux Dual LEDs (v-lock powered) and a Scorpion Light Kit (which I fully recommend. Amazing kit!). Smaller cameras are a much better fit as its much more liberating. Loving the A7SII in particular.
Andrew highlighted this in the review regarding the macro blocking issues in XAVC-L. When using it on the FS7, the issues are very very severe: 
- Heavy macro blocking, above the mids in particular. 
- Macro blocking in skin tones under mixed lighting. Blotchy/ugly. (Fine under controlled lighting). 
- Terrible blocky quality with fine textures (hair) or moving particles (steam/smoke).
- Tearing/smearing of fine edges and reflective items. Purple fringey smudge look. 
-Colour blotches/pixelation in when lighting colour is mixed. (Such as tungsten with a blue kick on the edge of the face. Anything stylised is problematic). 
- Exceptionally noisey in Slog, especially when using HFR. Noise is INSANE in slo-mo Slog! 
- Captures audio 4 frames out of sync with footage. (Doesn't happen in XAVC-I). 
- Some very heavy aliasing on thin, fine details. (Like a steel fence). 
 
I'm not sure if these issues are as strong on the FS5, but as it stands it's a deal breaker. XAVC-L, in my experience, is absolute garbage. 
I'd like to see how the camera footage performs with external recording. The RAW upgrade sounds cool. But having a 7Q+ on top of the FS5 kinda defeats the object doesn't it? It would be ace to have a smaller version, like Atomos do with the Ninja Star. 
I'm looking forward to your review and seeing how this camera progresses. If XAVC-L is fixed/bypassed efficiently - I'm a confirmed customer! 

Proof in the pudding that "specs" don't mean much. We've probably all seen it.. but this was shot on a GH3. 

I made a mistake and bought the RX10 II because I was impressed by the "specs". 
I had the camera for 2 months and hated it. 
Only recently I played with the C300 again. Specs are "bad", but the image and usability is fantastic. Love the C300. 

I made a mistake and bought the RX10 II because I was impressed by the "specs". 
I had the camera for 2 months and hated it. 
Only recently I played with the C300 again. Specs are "bad", but the image and usability is fantastic. Love the C300. 

An old favourite, also GH3:

Proof in the pudding that "specs" don't mean much. We've probably all seen it.. but this was shot on a GH3. 

The XC10 seems totally fine for it's intended use (news, drones). 
I'm very surprised to see the BMCC lower than the Sony A7SII, A7RII and 1DC for "character and rendering". In my opinion it blows the socks off the Sony's for this. 

The XC10 seems totally fine for it's intended use (news, drones). 
I'm very surprised to see the BMCC lower than the Sony A7SII, A7RII and 1DC for "character and rendering". In my opinion it blows the socks off the Sony's for this. 

I enjoyed it, however, I'm finding myself getting less and less impressed with mega blockbusters, no matter how good the visual effects wizardry is. I think I'll put this down to desensitisation.
Most mega blockbusters have the same plot. Get a team of people together to beat evil, lose throughout the film, and win at the last second, just as everything blows up. Again. I find myself much preferring the Netflix Marvel series (Daredevil, Jessica Jones) above their mega big budget siblings. There's a lot more story and risk to enjoy. They feel more real. 
Despite my blockbuster grumblings, Star Wars Ep. 7 was very well done and it's great to see vulnerability in all the characters, and plenty of humour. Everyone sounds and looks ridiculous...probably my favourite thing about Star Wars.  
It makes the prequels look absolutely shockingly dire. 

I enjoyed it, however, I'm finding myself getting less and less impressed with mega blockbusters, no matter how good the visual effects wizardry is. I think I'll put this down to desensitisation.
Most mega blockbusters have the same plot. Get a team of people together to beat evil, lose throughout the film, and win at the last second, just as everything blows up. Again. I find myself much preferring the Netflix Marvel series (Daredevil, Jessica Jones) above their mega big budget siblings. There's a lot more story and risk to enjoy. They feel more real. 
Despite my blockbuster grumblings, Star Wars Ep. 7 was very well done and it's great to see vulnerability in all the characters, and plenty of humour. Everyone sounds and looks ridiculous...probably my favourite thing about Star Wars.  
It makes the prequels look absolutely shockingly dire. 

I enjoyed it, however, I'm finding myself getting less and less impressed with mega blockbusters, no matter how good the visual effects wizardry is. I think I'll put this down to desensitisation.
Most mega blockbusters have the same plot. Get a team of people together to beat evil, lose throughout the film, and win at the last second, just as everything blows up. Again. I find myself much preferring the Netflix Marvel series (Daredevil, Jessica Jones) above their mega big budget siblings. There's a lot more story and risk to enjoy. They feel more real. 
Despite my blockbuster grumblings, Star Wars Ep. 7 was very well done and it's great to see vulnerability in all the characters, and plenty of humour. Everyone sounds and looks ridiculous...probably my favourite thing about Star Wars.  
It makes the prequels look absolutely shockingly dire. 

Most "tests" are terrible. 
This camera is obviously a powerhouse imaging device and will be spectacular in the right hands. 
I cancelled my pre-order as I needed to spend my cash on a camera system that was working now for next lot of work. Sure I'll be re-visiting a purchase mid-2016, if it ever gets released!

I've lost count at how many family/friends TV sets I've "fixed". 
Quite recently I walked into a friends house and they were watching the Walking Dead. My first reaction was "why does it look so cheap"? and within 5 seconds I picked up the remote and turned off that awful "Tru Motion" thing. As if by magic, The Walking Dead didn't look cheap anymore - it was looking great. Nobody in the room noticed the difference untilI I switched it to compare. "You are a genius!" they said. Erm...
To be honest, it absolutely bamboozles me why the TV manufacturers have this hideous setting on as default. It's as if they are trying to programme our minds to watch things differently. But it's just not right. Like the Hobbit in 48fps... it's horrible. The magic is gone. 
The magic of natural, seamless 24fps is timeless. It works. It doesn't need altering. The TV manufacturers need to stop. 

I've lost count at how many family/friends TV sets I've "fixed". 
Quite recently I walked into a friends house and they were watching the Walking Dead. My first reaction was "why does it look so cheap"? and within 5 seconds I picked up the remote and turned off that awful "Tru Motion" thing. As if by magic, The Walking Dead didn't look cheap anymore - it was looking great. Nobody in the room noticed the difference untilI I switched it to compare. "You are a genius!" they said. Erm...
To be honest, it absolutely bamboozles me why the TV manufacturers have this hideous setting on as default. It's as if they are trying to programme our minds to watch things differently. But it's just not right. Like the Hobbit in 48fps... it's horrible. The magic is gone. 
The magic of natural, seamless 24fps is timeless. It works. It doesn't need altering. The TV manufacturers need to stop. 

I don't know why FCPX continues to be bashed. 
It's an absolutely incredible editing program, very intuitive, very fast and greatly supported by third party software (plugins etc). 
 

I don't know why FCPX continues to be bashed. 
It's an absolutely incredible editing program, very intuitive, very fast and greatly supported by third party software (plugins etc). 
 

One thing that others haven't picked up here is music videos. How many do you do? 
The 240fps 10bit on the FS5 is a huge feature that music video clients LOVE. Huge selling point. Plus the 10 bit is super useful for Chroma Key. 
The FS5 partners well to the A7S II for multi-cam. Canon doesn't really have an answer for a C-series b-cam, apart from the limited but lovely picture of the XC10. 
I've not used the C100, only the C300. That camera is the best camera I've used for docu-style by an absolute mile. 

My God, that Aurora website and logo is like a spoof of 80's/90's graphic design. 

I don't know why FCPX continues to be bashed. 
It's an absolutely incredible editing program, very intuitive, very fast and greatly supported by third party software (plugins etc). 
 

We all obviously live in different worlds. 
Having the best gear does NOT make you a professional. The thing that makes you a professional is getting the required job done to an excellent standard, always. 
I built my business is on DIY lighting, a few Canon FD lenses and a cheap DSLR.
I recently used a £5 "shitty" zoom lens on a decent budget music video shoot, because that lens was the best choice for the shot. The job was still professional, no matter what tools I used. I made the right decision, and that's what professionals do. 
I find on most sets that a lot of stuff is knocked together with duct tape, garbage bags and pieces of string. It doesn't matter what you use - the thing that matters is the final result. That's all people care about. 
An example... this particular shoot was shot with a GH3 and a few cheap vintage primes. The shot looking down over the cross shape was pulled off by sticking the GH3 on some rods, pulled against a pipe on the ceiling with a piece of string. The string was then tied to a suitcase on the ground with bricks in it, to keep the camera fixed and steady. No optical or electronic stabilisation used whatsoever. 
We had an idea and pulled it off by using whatever we could find. In the end, the solution was effective and the audience would never know. It doesn't make us any less of a professional when the end result doesn't say otherwise. 
 

This is one of those times when story doesn't matter. People just want to see how it'll look in a pro environment. Look's damn good in my opinion.