Damphousse

That entire video is amazing. That video really should have its own thread. Did one of those guys say VER bought over 100 C300s for their rental business?! The first minute and five seconds of that clip is something everyone on this forum needs to watch. That first minute would end so many internet rants it's not even funny. And really as someone who isn't even in the videography business it pretty much echoes what I've been saying for years because it mirrors every job I've had since college. When you are doing something for a lot of money you need something straight forward that works 100% of the time. If I was a pro with EF lenses I know what I would own or rent.

Just to clear up some confusion. WMC is certainly designed and intended to be used on your main PC. When it was introduced over a decade ago it was not common for households to have multiple computers. People certainly built media center pcs utilizing WMC but I never found that to be an elegant solution. Just to prove the point here in the US laptops were commonly sold with TV tuner cards and WMC. The overhead for the program isn't much and doesn't impact the usual PC activities. In fact the first time a friend demoed WMC to me it was on his home computer and he liked to watch baseball while he worked on Office documents. The other misconception I would like to address is what exactly is WMC's killer app. It isn't playing music. You can play music in different rooms of your house using it but that isn't the main reason I've seen people use it. The killer app is TV recording with a FREE channel guide coupled with the ability to play back any live or recorded video stream through an Xbox 360. This is a very powerful feature that no one else implements. It is all plug and play. What this enables is simply putting up a cheap digital antenna indoors or outdoors and having a limitless DVR that you can stream to any TV in your house. So equipment costs consisted of a $50 fancy antenna and that's it. No need to pay a monthly fee to the fruit company for anything. No cloud necessary. This is true innovation and like hybrid video the average consumer isn't going to even notice. They will just say give your money to the richest company in the world because... everyone else is doing it. Xbox One sucks. You can't add multiple TV tuner cards to it. You can't add off the shelf HDDs or SSDs to it. You can't copy data from it. It doesn't stream to multiple Xbox 360s at once. It isn't cheap. As far as Media Center is concerned the Xbox One is a giant step backwards. Rumor is MSFT removed Media Center compatibility to appease big telecom (comcast, at&t, etc). On the other hand they probably didn't want to support the app anymore. Windows media center had the potential to be a very disruptive technology. The problem is the consumer was too blind to see it. In my lifetime there were only three ways to watch TV. Free antenna, Cable, and satellite. Windows Media center was the first thing that changed all that and it did it for free. Also the image quality on Windows Media Center is better than cable or satellite. After watching TV at my place people are pretty upset with the so called "HD" they are paying extra for from their cable company. I mean they pay extra for "HD" channels. And then they also pay extra for HD DVRs! And is still isn't as good looking or convenient as my FREE over the air WMC solution. Really I could go on and on. It's such a remarkable marriage of hardware and software at such a low cost that all this stuff that people try and mash up together can't compare. The ease of use is fantastic. Watching people use a TV remote to delete shows on their DVR is painful. I just sit at my computer drag my mouse over a section of shows and then hit delete. Easy.

Yeah. Unfortunately I use WMC too much to let it go. No upgrade for me. I have been toying with the idea of building a dedicated WMC PC so that will probably be the route I go... eventually.

Windows Media Center doesn't work. If you have Windows 8.1 don't upgrade. Windows Media Center will be deleted, assuming you had it to begin with.

mercer, Thanks for posting. Please keep us informed. It looks like this isn't a very limited deal. The seller is still showing more than 10 available... although if demand picks up I'm sure we'll be treated to a price hike. What is your plan for lenses? I'm reluctant to buy a Samsung lens and I only have access to a Canon 50mm FD lens which will be too long for general work given the NX500's 4k crop. Of course I have a few EF and EF-S lenses but the issue there is electronic linkages.

Lol. Just couldn't bring yourself to make the title "Canon introduces 4 million ISO camera" like everyone else. On the other hand I love a title that tells you the author's agenda right out of the gates!

Everyone I checked on that first page of results had a higher customer satisfaction... and a higher price. Just giving everyone a heads up. If you order check your purchase out and realize you have no manufacturer's warranty. I'm not telling people not to buy. Just giving information. I'm tempted but I'll at least wait to see how people's orders turn out. If you order be sure to post back... good or bad.

In the US I've never seen anyone record more than a few seconds here and there with a cell phone. Where I am people laugh at the thought of camcorders the way they laugh at 8 track cassettes. And I've never seen anyone do hybrid video at a birthday party. Anyway I stated my preference for myself. Really one birthday party can be easily summed up in a five minute video. I don't need to shoot 2+ hrs of tape to come up with five minutes. And I don't need to bore people with a 2 hr snooze fest. But that is my preference.

Reviews of 6th Ave Express on ebay have someone claiming they sold them a counterfeit GH4. Intriguing price. Not sure if I'm down with huge crop factor for 4k nor the lack of manufacturer's warranty.

Yeah. I need a source for this Canon story. I don't know which is worse. Maybe he is lying to protect higher margin products, or maybe he is telling the truth and they can't produce power efficient cool 4k sensors. Either way it is a poor showing in the consumer products. 15 minutes of record time is more than enough for me. Unless I'm waiting for a chance fleeting event I usually don't record for more than 30 seconds. I don't do any narrative or journalism stuff. A birthday party can easily be covered by 30 second or less takes. Singing happy birthday will be the longest take most of the time!

Please stop posting this nonsense with zero context. A big chunk of Sony's sensor sales are for camera phones and they see "selfies" as a big opportunity for them. What relevance does that have to the discussion we are having and Canon? http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/25/us-sony-sensors-idUSBREA2O0PQ20140325 The areticle doesn't even mention DSLRs or mirrorless cameras nor 4k. Canon has enough real world issues. No need to take a trip to fantasy land.

Yes, we can. If hybrid video was driving the stock it would have been mentioned in the myriad of articles in the financial press. The turnarounds at Panasonic and Sony are a BIG story. Wall St is loving what is going on at Panasonic in particular. Trust me if this was mostly about mirrorless 4k we would have heard about it. Now none of that is to say I don't like what the video departments at those firms are doing. There are plenty of reasons to like those divisions. Just let's not embellish and say that's what is moving the stock price. I can respect what I think Canon is doing from a business point of view and still buy cameras for video from other manufactures. It's not personal... just business. Canon is in a tough spot. They don't have a game system nor an automotive department. If they want to protect their margins on pro gear that is their business decision, but I don't have to buy another Rebel. I bought a BMPCC a year ago and there is probably going to be an LX100, G7, or RX10 II in my future... or maybe I stick with Blackmagic. But no Canon for video for me.

By "wake up from their slumber" you mean stop focusing on making cameras? You realize when Panasonic reported their earnings this year I couldn't even find a single news report breaking out the profits (or loss) in their camera division. What was emphasized and praised was their move to ABANDON consumer electronics. Nobody who pays attention to these matters from a financial point of view is saying 4k video is going to save Panasonic. In fact just the opposite. Wall St is NOT talking about the GH4. Let's be clear about that. The reason Canon is affected so much by this camera downturn is because they are the number one camera company in the world! It's as simple as that. If their camera division was a pimple on the butt of an automotive division that article wouldn't have been written. Sony's CHIP division is the star. Not its camera division. And the imaging chip division is a star because they make imaging chips for camera phones! Again it's nice to think making hybrid video cameras is the end all be all but when you really dig through the financials and see how these companies are making profits its from auto parts and cell phones. Panasonic and Sony have abandoned multiple consumer electronics markets. Panasonic has done better because it has been more aggressive about abandoning those markets. Well there has been a lot of misleading stuff that has been posted on this topic. I would not invest based on any of it. I have not seen a proper breakout of Sony and Panasonic's CAMERA division numbers. You simply cannot analyze a company without looking at similar businesses. Comparing a camera division to an automotive parts division is... I don't even know the polite word for that. Breakout the CAMERA division. Also you have to take size into account. People do this Mickey Mouse thing with percentages all the time. They say, hey this competitor's unit volume is up 50% and this one is down 5%. They of course neglect to tell you the first company is one tenth the size of the second company. I mean in a general camera down turn is anyone surprised Canon would bear the brunt? They have the most to lose. Don't believe me? Go look at financial press articles about Sony and Panasonic. None of them even mention the CAMERA division. They mention the chip division at Sony but remember a huge driver of that division is cell phone camera chips. Look at what happened to Qualcomm when Samsung decided to use its own chips instead of Qualcomm's in some phones. Then the rumor mill started saying Apple was switching to Samsung chips from Qualcomm. Go peek at Qualcomm stock. If Apple switches suppliers for its iphone imaging chip things will look pretty ugly financially over at Sony's imaging chip division. Guys let's not kid ourselves. Hybrid video represents either no profit or tiny profit for Panasonic and Sony. Hybrid video is not driving these stocks. Canon has disproportionate exposure to noncellphone cameras. And it does so because of its success not because of its failure. Well it has had a failure to have an industrial equipment division I guess. By the way the iphone accounts for 70% of "innovative" apple revenue. iwatch flopped. ipad sales are falling. ipod sales aren't even broken out. They are a phone company. When the phone market matures like the camera market you better have your apple stock position hedged. Am I wrong about any of this?

It means they view the value proposition of the SYSTEM as better. That was my point. Saying, oh look the equivalent Canon body costs $300 or $400 more and then ignoring the fact you can't get a native 50mm 1.8 for the Sony for $110 or less is a bit disingenuous. You have to look at the whole thing holistically. The only reason I said what i said is I've gone out and started pricing other systems because I saw an interesting body and then I began to realize there is more to it than just comparing the price of a couple of bodies. And as far as Canon lenses I guess it is a personal thing. My L lenses and primes are not what is holding back my art. Some of them may not shoot the sharpest test charts but they hardly motivate me to go out and spend hundreds more per a lens.

Lol! Cameras didn't impart a "look" onto images in the 70s! They used something called "film." The camera was a box that exposed film to light... That's all. Ebay $1,149.00 NEW... 5 available. Ebay $1,090.00 REFURBISHED... 3 available. 90 day warranty. Check the details yourself. That $200 off is nice but it's been discounted before and it will be discounted again. I'm not a pro, so no way I pay $1,500 for the NX1.

Ebay... $4,000ish. Be patient. Put in a Best Offer and see what happens. Except the Samsung wasn't "knocked out" in the first round. It's a good side by side. It shows why the 1DC is the king of the hill and why the NX1 is such an amazing accomplishment given its price point.

Ebay fees alone are $260. So that is reduced to $540 less than ebay. And if the camera is returned you eat the shipping. Plus a lot of people just don't want to mess with ebay and returns. Also you don't know the condition his camera is in. I don't know about pro gear but every little scratch dings the price on ebay for consumers. Plus that camera is freakin' huge! When you can pick up a GH4 with a pancake and 4k consumers aren't going to be rushing out to get a "camcorder." The camera looks very interesting but the URSA mini is coming out at $2,995. For $995 more you get a new camera, 4k, warranty, etc. If you could pick the Sony S3 up for $1,200 in excellent condition it could be a deal though for certain people. NIce thread. Really puts stuff into perspective. Sad part though is with a little research the OP could have saved himself $200 and gotten this... http://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/eos-rebel-t6i-dslr-18-55mm-is-stm-lens-rode-videomic-go-shotgun-microphone-video-kit

Yes that is why I said this... Still waiting to see the Sony/Zeiss OEM tilt/shift lenses. There is a reason at every political, sporting, celebrity, event you see white lenses and red rings all over the place. And it's not because on average Sony/Zeiss lenses are "much better" than Canon Ls.

​I could be wrong but it seems you don't focus the lens. You set the lens to infinity and then do the focusing with this adapter... I think.

​So would putting a 77mm ND filter BEHIND this thing be a valid move? Sorry for my ignorance I am a total anamorphic noob.

I haven't gotten into anamorphic but I'm very happy someone is staying on top of this topic. Is there any other website even committed to this technique? It's strange that there are billions of people on this planet and millions of websites but this is the only place that reliably reports and analyzes this stuff. I would have no clue about this if it wasn't for EOSHD.

​No he said, "I personally think the Sony/Zeiss glass is much better glass than Canon L." That is baloney. The top end glass from the likes of Sony, Canon, Nikon, etc is indistinguishable from each other. What is this amateur hour? There is no way you can say Sony blows Canon lenses out of the water and Canon blows Nikon out of the water. Are we on a playground here? There are going to be individual lenses in each company's lineup that will excel in certain areas but the whole line up?! WTF?! Let's leave the marketing alone and have a rational conversation. The only thing I will say is Canon has a bigger variety of lenses than everyone else and their native lenses are definitely competitively priced. That is OBJECTIVE. Someone says to me I want to shoot stills I say look at Canon and Nikon. Check out their bodies and see which one is more comfortable/intuitive to you. Then I say look at the system and see which system fits your long term needs. The I say buy whichever one checks off the most boxes for you. The ridiculous Nikon vs Canon threads of yesteryear were so dumb. Now we are going to have Sony vs Canon lens threads? For me it boils down to will I pay a price premium for the lenses I use? And the answer is no. From the beginning of the whole Sony/Zeiss thing I had high hopes. Then the reviews started coming in. There was no evidence of any Zeiss pixy dust sprinkled on the lenses. In test after test they didn't supersede the Ls. In fact there were plenty of Sony/Zeiss that underperformed. Coming from the medium format world I thought we were going to be in for quite the show. Honestly I thought I was going to be shooting a Sony alpha camera. Alas, what was actually going on was just a boatload of marketing. Someone can say I prefer the Sony/Zeiss "look." But to say the lenses are "much better" is a bridge too far... Same with Canon L or Nikon premium lenses. Full disclosure I use Nikkor and Schneider lenses on my enlargers. I use Zeiss on my medium format camera. And I use Canon L on my APSC digital, BMPCC, and 35mm film camera. And of course Zeiss on my camera phone. None of them are "much better" than the other. Obviously my Zeiss lens camera on my phone is dog $h-t compared to everything else.

​It will be an expensive lesson. This really is some terrible marketing. Oddly Panasonic should use this for their marketing and Canon should use Panasonic's 3D printing gizmo for theirs. There would be no negative comments. As it is they both made fools of themselves.

​I dunno. Maybe try not to repeat the same kind of shot over, and over, and over again. Also try not to just shoot the same statue, bridge, etc over and over again. You can have repetition with a kind of shot if it is something like a slow pan or static shot if you have quick cuts. But when you have a dramatic shot it should be used judiciously. You can eat eggs, bacon, and toast every day and no one will notice... except maybe your doctor. But if you are eating some spicy exotic food every day you will eventually get sick of it. Dramatic wide sweeping establishing shots are just that. They are not meat and potatoes. I mean how many drone elevator shots did he put in that thing? How many wide sweeping shots of the same statue did he cram into that thing multiple times? That bridge? He could have picked the best sweeping shots of each of those and been fine. Instead you just get the feeling a really uncreative guy got a drone. There are over a billion people in China and he has three drone shots of the same statue... hmmm...

​I disagree. Traditionally you spend more on your lenses than on your body for stills. Lens cost is a big factor. Canon has many attractively priced lenses compared to Sony, Panasonic, etc. Look at all the reviews on the internet. You are told what great value you are getting and the Canon competing body is $400 more. Then you go look for lenses and Panasonic @$$ rapes you and makes up for the $400 difference and then some. It's a valid point. You have to step back and look at the whole thing holistically. I mean if the $400+ extra you have to spend on the lens is irrelevant then why mention the $400 supposed saving on the body? Just do a review and never mention prices.