IronFilm

Good guys Panasonic NZ! :-D
Moments like this make me proud to be a kiwi ;-) 

Canon marketing at its best. How to re-brand and empty the inventory of previous generation camera. The 700D was probably the biggest joke of Canon these past few years. A 650D with 2 buttons changes.

Dear Canon, April Fools is in April.

It is tongue in cheek satire making a point that Canon have released merely a new box as a whole new filmmaker package and charged top whack for it at that.
It is making fun of the kind of idiot who would fall for this kind of cynical marketing ploy... and yes there are plenty of them.
Hopefully not too many on here but sometimes I have my doubts

​The real irony seems to be a bit lost on you. But let's address your made up irony first...
I have not "sacrificed" raw, 10bit, 422, colour science and other aspects merely for resolution.
I still treat the image as a visual whole and not a mere number.
I have shot with the Digital Bolex - lovely raw and tip top colour... I have shot with Blackmagic for 10bit ProRes and of course 5D Mark III raw, and could go back to any one of them any time I please... in fact it would make my life a lot easier not having to cover all these cutting edge new cameras that just so happen to be 4K, for ungrateful bastards like you....
But I don't and that is because the current 4K cameras look lovely.
14bit Raw or 10bit 422 and the best colour science is a spec like any other... and it is rather overrated itself.
For example the highlight roll off is smoother in 8bit SLOG on the A7S compared to 14bit raw on the 5D3 - go and figure.
Indeed I prefer the 8bit 422 LOG image from the 1D C to Blackmagic's 12bit raw for colour. Again, go figure...
Hands down my favourite image at the moment is the Canon 1D C so I am not a brainless 'Canon basher'.
Those you will have followed EOSHD for a while or those in the know will get the satire... others won't... If you don't get it, then hopefully it will tweak your interest in the current state of play enough to research into the subject a bit more.

"If you buy this bundle you are not an artist and never will be, because you do not care."
​Ha!  Pushing the boundaries of rhetoric, but you gotta do what you gotta do.  
Suffice to say, there's a perfectly legitimate possibility that an arrogant affluent rich kid with a hell of a lot of superior story ideas than industry professionals might end up with one of these cameras, simply because they just want something to shoot with, don't really know better because they're concentrating on story, and they'll then proceed to create something incredible...since, you know, filmmaking is kind of about effective storytelling, not sensor resolution.
I seriously don't know if this is your true sentiment, tongue-in-cheek satire, click-bait, or just slamming Canon because of some internal-debate-feud you have going in your mind.  
Doesn't matter because, regardless, it's a fun read, if for no other reason than all the "huh?"'s I got to do.  And yeah, it's silly marketing from Canon.  But entire brands are built upon silly marketing.
Honestly though, thanks for the funny words. 

This is a poorly done satire tbh. I think you will alienate some of your readership with this as it seems too serious. But I am loving the canon bashing. Working in a big media hub in Manchester I'm continually amazed by how many people are carrying around Canon cameras (and not even a 5d3 most of the time)

I never thought I'd see FULL HD printed anywhere in 2015.

​All of a sudden that Nikon Filmmaker's Kit looks quite appealing 

dare to dream i bought something else.... high dynamic range, iso, 4k video maybe? 

I guess most enthusiasts finally figured out the EOS 700D is crap, so Canon is looking for a new target audience. You can see them pictured on the right of the box. Their dad will pay anyway.
It's offensive to ask $899,99 for this kit of crap.

That GX7 EVF hump and rectangular corner just looks so ugly in my opinion... I prefer the symmetry and sleek aethetic to the GX7.
All I wanted was just a 4K update on the GX7, and maybe a 3.5mm jack and a tiltable uppy screen and maybe weatherproofing. This total re-design and 2.5 times price tag is bizarre!

​But it doesn't beat a £470 Sony A6000 for stills and therein lies the problem, if it's clearly aimed at photographers.
Anyway the £599 Samsung NX500 arguably performs better in 4K mode than the GX8. 2.2x crop on the Samsung, looks like a 2.5x crop on the GX8 from a noisier sensor with suspect colour.

​But Olympus must break on of their "barriers": supply good video. They had the time to do it with the E-M5 II and failed VERY badly. 

And since both Oly (cumbersome menus, subpar video, same idiossincrasies generation after generation - like underexpose in TTL flash) and Panasonic looks like have some points that they never address, I'm not much positive about a future IBIS in GH5. Two years after the GX7, and they can't produce a working IBIS for video.

More worried about the new sensor - Sony could be taken both Pany and Oly hostages by sensors. This unit is not BSI, no improvements in high ISO (same perfeormance as the 16mp sensor, which is a relative gain, but relative to the resolution, not in the final image), and no fast readout enough to eliminate crops in 4k; if this will be the base sensor for the GH5 and E-M1 mkII, then Sony left both almost one and a half generation behind.

The incredible 1" sensors from the RX100 IV and the RX10 II have a 6 month exclusivity clause for Sony - they probably will sell them in boatloads in this period. For bigger sensors, could be even worse - BSI could remain an exclusivity to Sony, if the GX8 sensor is an example. And Sony will have a generation gap to control.

My suggestion: Olympus, Panasonic and probably Fuji (and maybe even Nikon and Canon) must have urgent talks with Samsung about sensor supplying. The NX1 sensor is BSI and very good as we know; a Samsung m4/3 BSI sensor, with higher sensitivity and very fast readout (remember: the NX1 have an APS-C 28mp sensor in full readout at 240fps) would be killer, and stops the hold that Sony could put on the sensor market.

"4K video is a huge part of the FZ300 experience. You can record 4K/UHD (3840 x 2160) video at 30p or 24p with full-time AF, manual controls, zebra stripes, 'cinelike' gamma, and much more - all at a bit rate of 100Mbps. If that's a bit too much, 1080/60p and lower resolution modes are also available. If you want to produce slow motion clips, there's a mode which records at 120 fps (1280 x 720). As mentioned earlier, the FZ300 combines optical and digital image stabilization to produce a 5-axis hybrid IS system, though as we've already noted that only kicks in when shooting HD (and lower resolution) video."
If you look past its fixed lens and tiny sensor (similar to a camcorder), then this appears to be a kick ass camera and at very low price! I won't buy it now, but when it comes on sale at half price in a year or two? Hell yeah. (its RRP at release is already under six hundred dollars)
4K video, weather sealing, 25-600mm zoom, constant f/2.8, 'cinelike' gama, 100Mbps, zebras, manual controls, 120fps @ HD, 5 axis stabilisation, mic jack input, and more!!
This could be a wonderful run and gun camera for a reporter, or as a back up camera to keep in the car. (need to grab a quick shot but it started dumping with rain? No problem with the FZ300! Got to get a very far away shot that you didn't bring a quite long enough lens for? No problem with the FZ300! Want a wide angle B cam to shoot 4K in an interview so you can punch in later? No problem with the FZ300! etc etc....  This won't ever be a camera which is perfect at any one specific thing, but will serve as a wonderful jack-of-all-trades to keep around in your tool kit "just in case")
http://***URL removed***/articles/1065643550/fast-zoom-what-you-need-to-know-about-panasonic-lumix-dmc-fz300?slide=8

600mm 4K for a 1080 or 720p timeline would be pretty decent reach

I recommend you put completely 100% out of your head any thoughts about how "future proof" your ability to use your camera in 5 years will be. 

We're moving at a far too fast a pace for that to matter. And cameras are far too cheap for that to matter. 
 Instead pick what is right for you right now. (or perhaps in the next 6 months, or 12 months, but don't be looking any further out than that)
Look at a couple of examples:

Sony PMW-F3 is a camera that I just purchased last week for not much more than a grand, yet less than five years ago this camera cost US$20,000! (when you factor in the s-log upgrade) This was one of the hottest cameras back then, and was very very pricey.

Now consider the Panasonic GH2, also only less than 5 years old, and also was for its time the hottest camera around and cost a not terribly dissimilar amount to what a GH4/NX1 costs today. How much do they go for now? Only a couple of hundred bucks or so.

Conclusion: in 5 years time you'll be able to pick up the (former) hottest tech for pennies on the dollar, and also you'll be able to affordably buy new tech which is leaps and bounds ahead of it.

I recommend you put completely 100% out of your head any thoughts about how "future proof" your ability to use your camera in 5 years will be. 

We're moving at a far too fast a pace for that to matter. And cameras are far too cheap for that to matter. 
 Instead pick what is right for you right now. (or perhaps in the next 6 months, or 12 months, but don't be looking any further out than that)
Look at a couple of examples:

Sony PMW-F3 is a camera that I just purchased last week for not much more than a grand, yet less than five years ago this camera cost US$20,000! (when you factor in the s-log upgrade) This was one of the hottest cameras back then, and was very very pricey.

Now consider the Panasonic GH2, also only less than 5 years old, and also was for its time the hottest camera around and cost a not terribly dissimilar amount to what a GH4/NX1 costs today. How much do they go for now? Only a couple of hundred bucks or so.

Conclusion: in 5 years time you'll be able to pick up the (former) hottest tech for pennies on the dollar, and also you'll be able to affordably buy new tech which is leaps and bounds ahead of it.

Hey man. I see alot of good advice here but I wanted to throw something out that worked for me for awhile. If your budget is $2500 or so get 2 cameras that check off all of your needs. G7 for convenience, long battery life, ease of use, 4k recording, etc. Blackmagic pocket camera for when you need top notch image quality with 10 bit ProRes or RAW. I believe with those 2 cameras you'd have all of your bases covered. Those 2 cameras plus a speedbooster would hit around $2500.

I would go g6. You can get it for less than half the cost of a gh3 plus it has peaking. 

I find specs are most useful in indicating the intent of the camera. When we saw the NX1's specs--4K video, H.265, high frame rates, manual control--it showed us that Samsung had put serious work into making a competitive hybrid camera. When we saw the Blackmagic Pocket's specs--no frills, RAW and ProRes recording, S16 sensor size, small form factor--we knew they wanted to make a small, affordable cinema camera. Marketing ties into this; Blackmagic wouldn't tout "13 stops of dynamic range" and "the look of real digital film" if they were making a consumer camera. 

I had a chance to cover an amateur fashion show over the July 4th weekend at a local (Anaheim, CA) cultural event. I had only my NX1 and thought I'd share a few of the interesting uses I found for shooting in 4K. My video is at https://youtu.be/PsHTzuANSHo.
4K on 1080p sequence will give you a free (and great quality) zoom. And that lets you go wide (by scaling the 4K at 50%) and then tight (by going to 100%). Which gives you:
A way to fake a two-camera shoot. See the first part where the adults do the walk and you see the wide and tights shots back/forth. Or you get just go tight without a zoom, like I did in the girls (100%) or boys (~60%) sections. You can get just the composition you want after the fact by cropping as needed. You can also fake a zoom in/out and pan to cover the people you want as I was forced to do in a few places. What I'm saying is: even if you don't care for 4K, shooting in 4K can be of real/practical help/use. Let me know your thoughts. And please go easy on the models, they were just attendees and their kids.

Some good observations about the F3 and comparisons to the AF100, Red One, and Alexa. http://www.provideocoalition.com/ag-af100_and_pmw-f3_on_the_charts

​I think this is an unfortunate assumption.  
One that I see often on online forums.  As you can read in my previous post, I feel it's what you do with the gear rather than the gear itself.  People need to stop fretting about spec sheets and just use the stuff.  I don't think folks are doing themselves any favors when they feel their potential success is tied directly to whatever gear they have.  Yes, it's part of the equation and you need to take the considerations seriously.  It's just not as important, IMHO, as many seemingly tend to believe.
So many other factors (and most not technically related) are so more valuable to a successful production.
I'll qualify this and say that this is from my experience as a corporate video shooter.  Other's reality may be different.

From my perspective on the low-end corporate side of things:
Any camera in the price range you're talking about will do everything you need it to do and it'll look fine.  You're not going to be limited by the technology.  You're really not.  These days my assertion is that it's all about the skill level and creativity you bring to the shoot, not the consumer gear you buy... unless you decide to really go upmarket and invest 10K+ in gear that higher level clients feel more comfortable with.  
--which isn't always a bad thing.  Sometimes clients like seeing a bunch of "real" gear around and they'll pay for that reassurance, even though a shooter does the same exact thing with an expensive camera as they do with an inexpensive one.  I like to rent gear in these upscale circumstances as the cost gets passed onto the client anyway.
All this depends on the clients you're trying to land.  If you're doing weddings or low end stuff, I say ignore the expensive gear altogether.  I do.
As for the NX1, as long as you're willing to go through the transcoding step, (people that typically don't like this step are the ones that gripe about dealing with the new video codec) it really shouldn't be a problem.  I personally don't mind transcoding to prores422 and do it for all my footage anyway regardless of the acquisition codec.
And there's ALWAYS a new and better piece of gear just around the corner.   I mean, I'd even be contrarian and suggest (if you're really trying to keep the budget tight) considering a GX7 ($450 used) or similar if you want great looking 1080 IQ for less.  My advice is to stay one generation behind the "cutting edge" of equipment, buy stuff when it discounts (new or used) and concentrate your efforts on shooting and lighting. 
So, you know, before worrying so much about a such-and-such camera, I always recommend concentrating on lighting first.  The best shooters understand how to paint with light; natural or artificial... and if you know what you're doing in this regard then you can make any camera look good.
I'd say try not to get caught up in the Gear Acquisition Syndrome.  
Now, all that bloviating aside, if I was buying a new camera today and had money burning a hole in my pocket, I'd pick up a A7s simply because it allows some fun creative filming and flexibility with light.  You can do more with less when it comes to lighting, and that's always a good thing. 
Bottom line:  Whatever you get, use it as a creative tool, not a crutch.  Don't worry if it does't do something as well as another piece of gear, just make it do what you want to the best of your ability.