Damphousse

  That's my point.  When you start playing in the sub $1,000 market it's not just about "cinema" or "indie cinema."  It's also about people like me.  Prosumers that aren't trying to make "out masterpiece."  If the quality of the equipment and the price point aren't there we aren't going to shoot.  I've never owned a camcorder.  But I now own a 600D and shoot on it a bit.  If Canon comes out with something better I will shoot more and more importantly to Canon I will PAY more.  You are looking at this through the lens of an indie film maker making their "masterpiece."  That is not a mass market.  Canon's sub $1,000 offerings are for the mass market.  That is all I am saying.  You need to look at the sub $1,000 market as a mass market prosumer market... at least in regards to Canon and Nikon.  Black Magic is a small operator.  They can afford to cater to niche markets.  Just like Kodak is having a hard time right sizing its film business but Ilford is quite comfortable.  Ilford is set up to do small runs.  In fact if you need a batch of an odd size of B&W film you as an INDIVIDUAL can put in an order with Ilford once a year.  If they have enough individuals put in an order they coat and cut that film.  No quesitons asked.  You can't expect Kodak to operate like Ilford.  I give both my business because they both have unique products and services.  Just as Canon and Black Magic do unique things.

    There are a few things I've said in this thread that you didn't catch so I will reiterate them.  I am not looking to make "my masterpiece."  I am an amateur that is interested in filming some family moments and trips and making a very small amount of money on the side to fund the hobby.  And yes since this is not my career or what I do to put food on the table better technical results will make me more inclined to shoot and spend money.  If any manufacturer is going to sell a lot of cameras in the $500 price range they are going to need lots of people like me.  Honestly if I was doing this for a job spending $15,000 on a camera wouldn't be a problem.  Because I would use it, make money, and get my use out of it before depreciation destroyed it's value.  I just can't spend $3,000+ on a camera because I don't shoot enough to justify the cost.  In short if I needed to "make my masterpiece" $15,000 would not be a hurdle.       Who said I "disagree with them"?  To disagree with them would imply I know whay they know.  As I said I don't think anyone on this forum knows the size of the sub $1,000 prores 4:2:2 and raw video dslr market.  I don't think anyone here knows what the margins are on sub $1,000 dslrs.  All I can say is what I want.  But I can't condem a man when I don't know his situation.   I bought by 600D mainly for photography.  In the photography world we have a saying.  You buy a system not a camera.  You don't dump your whole system just because you disagree with one or two bodies.  I have more invested in my lenses than my bodies.  And I don't think me buying a 50D on ebay and a refurbised 600D is a signal to Canon that everything is peachy.  Those are both firsts for me for Canon DSLRs.  The T5i is going to be a relative flop.  That will send a signal to Canon.  Besides if 50Ds are flying off ebay don't you think that's a strong signal to Canon?  I actually started a thread on this very topic.  50Ds are NOT flying off of ebay in the US so that tells Canon the market for such a thing is smaller than we had hoped.  You think a sustained bubble in used 50D prices would convice Canon to hold back raw video?!

  Does that mean every movie should be shot on a GH2?  I like my day job.  Time is on my side.  I can wait for the tech to improve.  Besides aren't there multiple other much better known authors and screen writers that said I'm not going to make my work into a film until the tech evolves a lot more?  I'm not trying to break into the movie industry.  It is a hobby for me which can potentially lead to a little (very little) side income.         That's a $7,000+ camera.  Was someone pooh, poohing it?!  We were talking about 600Ds, BMPCC, and GH2s.  That's some serious strawman action going on there, friend.  There's more to a camera than image quality or depth of field.  If you have to do a project you have to consider ergonomics and workflow.  I have a 50D and I've shot some amazing raw video with it.  That doesn't mean I would shoot a short film with it.   I would end up slicing my wrists before it was done.  That is what we are discussing.  The total package at a reasonable price point.  Some dedicated people can use specific imperfect tools for specific projects but that is not what a mass market product is about.  No one is telling anyone not to make their movie with a GH2.  But people are free to discuss the shortcomings of the GH2 and what they would like to see in an affordable camera.  Consumer feedback is important to the product development process.  I just bought a 600D a couple of months ago for $350.  I'm sure they would rather I spent $750 for the 700D.  Well we are just telling Canon what would get us to part with that kind of money and the same warmed over sensor and boat loads of moire and aliasing ain't gonna do it.  Maybe we are too small of a niche for them to listen to but it's worth a shot mention it.

  I think that is really unfair.  You are dividing the video environment into two camps... people that can take a VHS camera and make an Oscar winning epic and everyone else who just sits around complaining about technology.  A lot of us came over from the pure photo world.  We went through all of this already.  I remember shooting a 3 megapixel point and shoot and there were people telling us that's all we really needed and the tech was good enough and stop complaining.  Well obviously that was absurd.  Now with 18 megapixel solid APS-C DSLRs available for $350 most of us have stopped complaining about the tech.  Sure on the forums some neophyte pops up every once in awhile saying how they simply can't create wonderful images because they don't have a full frame camera.  They get swatted down pretty quick now.   The video world simply is not anywhere near the level of quality and democratization that the DSLR world reached long ago.  Frankly I think that is why many of us are gravely disappointed.  But it will evolve.  It will get there.

  The question I have is does anyone have any proof to back up these statements?  The DSLR and mirrorless market are competitive.  The US stock market is up massively this year and where are DSLR and mirrorless sales?  Down year over year.  What I would like to know is what are the actually margins on consumer mass market DSLR and mirrorless cameras.  Engineering, testing, and supporting features costs money.       Canon took a gamble on the EOS M and lost millions.  I bought one and canceled my order and got a 600D instead.  Even at $350 including pancake lens it was too expensive for me.  They are currently selling the EOS M package with the zoom lens for $350 and still can't shift that many of them... at least in relation to supply.   What I find interesting about this is there is absolutely no finished, nonhacked, raw nor 4:2:2 sub $3,000 camera out there.  No one is doing it.  And certainly no one is doing it on an APS-C or larger sensor.  I would love to shoot raw or probably more importantly prores 4:2:2 but the fact no one is doing it in a polished, nonhacked, ready for prime time camera in that price range tells you something.  Each manufacturer is bringing something different to the table but no one is bringing it all.  I like BMPCC because they bring something different.  But I can't ignore it's lack of polish, no stills, and smaller sensor when comparing it to the Canon 600D in my hand.  You can't get something for nothing.  That doesn't mean I don't pull my hair out when I see moire or mushy image quality in my Canon 600D videos.  I defintely want changes.  The competition is good.  In a few years I think we will see some interesting polished stuff out there.

  This.   Did you see my thread about the 50D price "bubble"... or lack thereof?  Niche market is niche.  1080p 15 second+ clips in cropped mode raw and I got mine for $350.  Everyone said rush out and get them while they last.  There are still tons of them showing up on eBay every day.  If I was working at Canon I think that would be a pretty strong indication of the size of the DSLR raw video market.   My girlfriend makes prints in her basement darkroom.  She also shoots tons of digital.  There is no way she would tolerate the raw workflow or fiddle with the BMPCC flat image.  And if she isn't going to do it I guarantee you 98+% of other people won't either.  BMPCC is supposed to be revolutionary and change everything.  Yet it reeks of an unfinished product.  That's the difference between the video mode on Canon rebels and the BMPCC.  You can get a Canon with kit lens for less than $500 and start shooting in the parking lot of the store where you bought the camera.  I would be really curious to know how many rebel owners even use the video mode beyond the first few weeks of owning the camera.  I would be curious how many of the persistent users ever use manual exposure.  I personally don't know anyone that does.   My girlfriend sends me iphone video clips via Whatsapp on a regular basis.  I have to constantly remind her her Rebel does video and she has nice expensive L glass.  Again this is someone who shoots FILM and spend hours in a darkroom making prints.  It just tells me all the stuff we like and hate about hybrid camera video is pretty niche.  I wish Canon would do something about it but comparing the feature overload of Magic Lantern (which I like) to the simplicity of the Canon menus tells me one of those solutions is for a niche enthusiasts’ market and the other is for an increasingly competitive consumer electronics mass market.   It's interesting.  Here in the US the only big brick and mortar electronics store still standing (sort of) is Best Buy.  Consumer electronics is a tough business unless you are like apple and can turn it into a religion so you can churn out one broken product after another and have your consumers blindly accept it.  I can't tell you how many phone calls I've gotten from my girlfriend about broken iphones.  Either the phone doesn't connect to wifi straight out of the box or after a wonderful OS update wifi is no longer available.  My windows phone?  Connects every time.  No problem.  Yet somehow Apple is continually given all this praise.  Well Canon can't really rely on the now dead Steve Jobs' showmanship.  Unlike apple they can't ship out cameras to working pros that break the way iphones do.  Look at how many bugs digital Rebels have.  Now look at how many complaints there are about just wifi alone with the iphone.  That’s not even to mention other things like the disastrous mapping debacle.   Sorry for the long post but we all have to keep things in perspective.  Apple is about creating a myth or culture.  It is not about creating great reliable hardware.  Apple has never been about playing in the value end of the market.  Canon is a value player.  JCPenny hired an apple marketing guru.  Their sales plummeted and their bottom line got destroyed.  Working pros and camera reviewers are not going to allow Canon to charge a puffed up premium for stuff the majority of folks are never going to use… particularly if it is as flaky as iphone wifi, or mapping, or itunes, or…

To be honest with you if you have the kit Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS II I would just get started with that.  If you don't have a bunch of stabilization gear tripod, monopod, rig, steadicam, etc the images stabilization in the kit lens will do more for you than ANY prime.  If you want to get a fast piece of glass get the Canon 50mm 1.8.  It's about $100 new and gets good reviews.  Plus it is super easy to unload if you decide to get something else later.  Personally I shoot the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens most of the time because it is kind of fast and has IS.  I can't say it enough.  Some form of stabilization is key.  All these people shooting non Canon primes must have plenty of stabilization rigs/tripods.  Seriously try out your lowly kit lens with IS vs a nonCanon with no IS.  I don't care how nice the bokeh looks the shakiness destroys the scene.

  I don't have a 5d MK III but every other canon I have used (tons of rebels and 50D) ignore white balance and picture style.  Well they don't ignore it there just isn't anywhere to stick that information.  Shoot some photographs (you remeber those) on your 5D MK III with raw+L Jpeg and then check them out in photoshop.  They won't look the same.  raw is literally the "raw" data with minimal processing off the sensor.  The JPEG is where white balance and picturestyle come into play.  On the 50D all my raw videos come out looking purplish!  How is that for white balance and picture style?  In programs like adobe Camera RAW you can just select either auto and let the computer guess or you can tell it what the lighting conditions were, ie sunny, shade, cloudy, tungsten, etc.  What I find useful is to learn what color temperatures corrolate to different lighting.  For example 5200K is a decent general sunny daylight color temperature.  Then tweak from there.  You can put a white card or something in your first frame and use the eye dropper to set color balance but you have to be sure not to over expose that white.   And really white balance is also an asthetic choice.  Even if you did use the white card method you may want a winter scene to be a bit blue to look "cooler" and if you are doing a crime drama in Miami you may want the white balance to be a bit "warmer" so everything can look orange.

  Why do you need a 100mm lens for video on a Canon 600D?!   A 600D has a cropped frame sensor and an excellent built in 3x zoom for video.  So your 18-55mm lens on the long end can be turned into a 55*1.6*3=264mm lens!  A 100mm lens would be a 100*1.6*3=480mm lens!   I'm an amateur so I don't really know the movie business but are people on tight budgets routinely shooting 500mm lenses in the independent film world?  I would think your money would be better spent elsewhere.  One thing I've noticed with all these primes is you end up spending a lot of money for very dubious benefits.  I would just save up and get a single Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens.  The lens is well reviewed and most primes in that range are less then two stops faster.  And if you go for the primes with IS some aren't faster at all!  I was looking at the Canon EF 24mm f/2.8 IS.  It's $600!  The zoom that is just as fast and a lot more versatile is less then 50% more.  IS is nice because you can actually hand hold without a rig and get some decent shots.   Put Tragic Lantern on your 600D and check out the 3x zoom function.  By the way Magic Lantern/Tragic Lantern by default will not let you zoom past 3x because beyond 3x will degrade picture quality.  You should use 3x zoom whenever you can.  It gets rid of a lot of moire/aliasing.  Using a 100mm lens vs 3x zoom would actually degrade your image in a lot of scenarios.

    Lol.  Yeah more importantly.  It's like tire companies saying their tires have the same technology as the space shuttle tires they make.  Do people honestly think their car has space shuttle tires on it?   Total Barbara Striesand effect.  I didn't even know this commercial existed until someone complained about it.  Anyone buying the 70D should be doing their homework and buying from a place they can return the camera too.  If you do 30 minutes worth of research you will determine quite quickly that you will not get the same results out of a 70D as an Alexa.  What I find more of a scam is all the people doing shallow DOF shots with close ups of faces and flowers and posting their heavily graded videos on vimeo.  I would much rather have seen wide angle shots of city scenes at f/8.  The moire and aliasing is shocking.  I can smell marketing BS from a mile off but it takes someone with some degree of sophistication to realise what tricks are getting played on vimeo.

I don't read German and I accepted that hazard when I "read" your ad.  I am also aware of the gross geographic pricing inequities when it comes to electronics which is why I included by location.  I fully expected to be corrected.  Just thought I would throw it out there and see what I was right about... if anything.     As far as the VAF is concerned I am guessing pricign will be in the $300 range +Shipping.  You've worked with the 50D and you know you are making compromises.  For me I have to really think about $650 for a 50D with VAF.  I don't think there is a perfect camera for everyone.  I had no problem buying a 600D or a 50D.  Easily sold for only a small loss.  But a used VAF?  I don't know about that.  If I change cameras the VAF is totally useless and I don't know the resale.  If I had an APS-C camera that conviently did full frame full HD RAW then a VAF would be almost a no brainer.  Much I just can't fight the itch that I want something more than the standard Canon codec every so often and even a hacked 50D isn't the perfect solution for me.  So for now I am using the 600D and 50D but who knows a year from now.

  This is a peculiar post on a VAF thread.  The VAF is a third party solution that is designed to address the moire/aliasing issues.  Unless you have one and some sample images you are not really contributing anything new.  People are aware of the moire/aliasing issues... which is why the 50D VAF was invented.  Have you done some 50D VAF vs BMPCC comparisons?         400 Euros for a 50D?!  I wouldn't call that a "bargain."  I don't know maybe in Germany but in the US I got a 50D a few weeks ago for about $350.  And I thought that was fair market value.  I didn't think I was getting any kind of deal.

Not sure what the raw workflow is for a 5D MK III.  I have a 50D and do full HDD on that every once in awhile.  First of all you need copious amounts of high speed compact flash storage.  I have a 64GB card.  I am an amateur.  I don't know how many a pro would need if they were shooting a commercial or music video.   What happens first when you get to the computer is you have to copy all the files from compact flash to your HDD or SSD.  That takes a while so USB 3 transfer and a fast card reader help there.  Once on your computer you have to convert the RAW file to DNGs.  Each clip comes as one file with the extension RAW.  You have to convert it to a series of DNG files.  To be honest with you I don't know if that operation is CPU intensive or just HD/SSD intensvie.  Obviously if it is disk intensive then using a SSD will solve your problems.  If it is CPU intensive then we will need to know what CPU you have.  I get along okay with a HDD and a first generation Core i7 with 9gigs of RAM but I am not doing anything too lengthy and on a schedule.   The next step is to color balance/grade the DNGs and convert them to JPEGs or TIFFs.  First you have to load all the DNGs in a series into Camera Raw.  That takes FOREVER.  I guess that is a HDD bottleneck.  Then you color blanace/grade one frame.  That's pretty quick and painless.  That step is where you really have fun with raw.  Then you have to apply all the changes to all the other frames.  That takes FOREVER.  Then you have to save all the changes.  That takes FOREVER.  After that you are left with a folder full of 2 megapixel jpegs.  Import them directly into Premiere and toss them on the time line.  That part takes no time at all.  They play back at full speed no problem.  Once the JPEGs are created everything zips along.   So bottom line I don't know if the bottleneck is HDD or CPU.  It's painful though.  It's not like the system freezes or anything though.  You just have to open and apply changes to hundreds of individual files.

  RAW requires a ton of resources and a hacked camera.  You can do some amazing things in post with raw but the downside is if you want to shoot something quick and drop it into a timeline that is not possible.  I have a love hate relationship with raw.  I would not shoot anything lengthy on a deadline with raw.  Having said that for short clips it is great.  I use a 50D and shoot short clips at full HD.  The process on the 50D for full HD is very kludgy.   Search google for 7D raw clips and judge for yourself.   As fare as the stuff included with the 7D you will need speedy and big cards to record even high bitrate h264 videos.  A couple of slow 16 GB cards are fine for photography but won't be much use to you for high end video.  A battery grip is nice for time lapse but third party grips are dime a dozen.  I would just consider the deal as a 7D with 10,000 on the shutter.  Getting new high capacity speedy cards and and fresh batteries will probably be your priority.  And you will probably ditch the battery grip to make it less unweildly on a tripod or glidecam.  Although the battery grip would be useful for an extended time lapse.   The 3x zoom thing is handy on the 600D.  You could also get the 600D and a VAF-TXi filter to help eliminate moire.  If you haven't worked with these cameras before you may want to consider saving some dough and getting the 600D and the filter.  If I wasn't doing any raw I would get the 600D and a VAF filter instead of a 7D.  A 600D with a VAF-TXi filter shooting h264 is just more versatile than a 7D with no filter shooting raw.  With time and the right subject matter and more Magic Lantern development the 7D will stomp all over the 600D filter or no filter but the question is is it practical in your production environment.

  Lol.  I didn't really start looking at anamorphic until a couple of months ago.  Over the weekend I saw Star Trek and was like this thing has anamorphic like crazy!

  Supply and demand set the price in the market.  Having a realistic idea of both will save you money and pain.  Frankly in this instance knowing the size of the niche in relation to the size of supply was one of the most important things a filmmaker on a budget could know.   There are still articles on the web urging people to rush out and pay a premium for a 50D "before they are gone."       http://www.engadget.com/2013/05/28/canon-50d-gains-video-recording-through-magic-lantern-raw-hack/       http://nofilmschool.com/2013/05/canon-50d-hacked-raw-video-magic-lantern/         http://nofilmschool.com/2013/05/canon-50d-hacked-raw-video-magic-lantern/     In the past I was a student of the financial markets and while I can definitely tell you there was a massive under current of malfeasance on Wall St there was also a lot of garden variety incompetence.  The people weren't always lying.  A large chunk of the time they actually believed their own propaganda.   I just thought the articles and the subsequent price action yielded a lot of useful information.  There will be other technological break throughs and other articles written.  Hopefully though examination of the 50D RAW video saga will help avoid irrational exuberance in the future.         Awesome.  I'm sure if the market wasn't at least a certain size they wouldn't bother.       Exactly.  He gets it.   The interesting thing is forums like this one are full of people asking why doesn't Canon or Nikon do this or that.  Well if the video DSLR niche is tiny compared to the photo DSLR market you can expect plenty of foot dragging particularly in the more affordable consumer models.  Knowing the size of your niche will ultimately help you make a decision about whether you think a manufacturer will be responsive to your needs or not.   Frankly as is the case with companies like Apple if some off label niche use of their device occurs and it starts getting a lot of traction they actually at times take steps to shut it down.  So sometimes being small and obscure can work in your favor.  Either way I just can't see how knowing the size of your niche is useless.

  Makes sense.  Thank you Canon.   I was incredulous about how many people would actually go out and invest over $500 in a 5 year old body AND $130 in a single Compact Flash card.  Even at $350 for a 50D body the price of entry for the average hobbyist is a bit stiff.  Looks like HD RAW is there for the taking if someone has the dough.   And your comment about the size of the Video DSLR market to the pure photo market is dead on.  I think we often lose site of that in our little world.

In the poll if you bought your 50D in a package deal, as best you can, estimate the portion that was due just to the Canon 50D body sans grips, lenses, flashes, etc.   I picked up a Canon 50D a couple of weeks ago for a little more than $350.  That was about the price I heard being kicked around months ago.   The question I have is was there ever a bubble post ML RAW announcement?  When I check eBay in the United States there seems to be a continuous unbroken stream of Canon 50Ds offered for sale.  Most of the body only sales can be had for $330-$430.   I also notice a lot of the 50Ds are sold with accessories.  The battery grip seems popular.  Rather puzzlingly kit lenses seem popular as well.  I always preferred to get the consumer line of cameras and use the money I saved to get primes and L glass.  It's strange to me that so many people opt for semi-pro bodies and things like battery grips and then skimp on the lens.   So is the lack of the predicted 50D bubble an indication of how niche video on DSLRs and particularly RAW on DSLRs is?    

  Some of us are amateurs though and we don't really plan our shoots.       I would be interested on your take on lenses.  The VAF-TXi costs less than any of my Canon lenses and it improves image quality more than my $300 50mm 1.4 compared to the $100 50mm 1.8 alternative.   The asialing problem pops up with power lines and even the edges of buildings.  Basically if you don't use selective focus in an urban environment the aliasing monster can strike.  To be honest with you I find in the video world there are a lot of elephants in the room that people just want to sweep under the rug (if I may mix metaphors).  I just find not enough attention is given to the aliasing/moire issue with Canon Rebels and certain people gloss over the sensor size issue with 4/3 vs APS-C.  Aliasing/morie reduction and going wide (with a reasonably priced, fast, undistorted lens) are my two biggest unmet wants.  Full frame with a VAF is really the only solution but $$$ is an issue so I have to compromise.

    I hope what you say about the G6 is true.  At the end of the day though I wish someone would do a side by side comparison of all these possibilities.  I like how dpreview does this on the photo side.  You don't have to take anyone's word for it.  Just pull up samples and compare for yourself.           Well if you want the photo features of the 600D and an APS-C sensor there really is no other way to get that.  If someone is starting off fresh, only wants to do video, and doesn't have any real desire to get an APS-C sensor then yeah sure.  Unforunately people like me come from a photo background so we aren't going to chuck our primes and L glass, give up our optical view finder, and make DoF sacrifices.  Every system is a compromise.  Everyone has to make the choices that work for them.  I just want more information.  I have zero complaints about the photo side of things.  The reviews have really matured and you can cross compare very easily.

Dan Wake,   I am no optics expert but I will try to explain to you my understanding of the moiré/aliasing/filter situation.  Virtually all DSLRs have always had some type of anti-aliasing filter built in.  But they are specifically designed for the sensors regular pixel matrix.  Meaning they work optimally if you don't line skip.  The problem in movie modes is you are line skipping.  The cool thing about the 3x zoom on the T3i/600D is it is just a sensor crop.  It does not involve line skipping.  So voila the built in anti-aliasing filter works!  Any zoom beyond 3x is digital zoom and looks like poo.  In fact anything beyond 3x zoom is locked out by default in magic lantern.  I thought ML broke my camera at first but after some reading I discovered the developers were actually trying to save people from themselves.  I actually like using the 3x zoom when I can instead of a longer lens because you get to fully utilize the built in anti-aliasing filter and it works!  It is not perfect but it does dramatically help.  Of course if I want to use my 50mm 1.4 it becomes a 150mm... and then you add in the APS-C factor and now you are looking at a 200+mm lens!  That could be a good or very bad thing.   The way the 3x zoom is implemented it is an either or situation.  You turn it on before recording and you either do regular 1080p or 3x zoom 1080p.  You don't actively do a smooth zoom while recording between the two.  It's just a jump.   If the improvement with the VAF-TXi is the same as the 3x zoom I will be happy.  Of course since it is optimized for the line skipping of 1080p it does nothing for 720p.   As others have said you simply cannot edit out the extreme moiré and aliasing the Canon Rebels produce.  The problem is it's complex and baked in.  The other problem you have is the camera only has so much processing horse power and the codec can only do so much especially the way Canon implements it.  So if you are feeding it all this catastrophic moiré and aliasing it is devoting tons of resources to recording processing and compressing it into the codec... which means it isn't devoting those resources to other things.  All those shimmering false colors in every frame produce a lot of data.   I just wish someone did a side by side comparison between a Canon Rebel with a VAF-TXi and some Panasonics.  The Panasonic GH2 was allegedly great when it came to avoiding moiré and aliasing.  I've heard people grumble about the moiré with the G6.  It's hard to make an informed decision.  A 600D even with a VAF-TXi is still hundreds of dollars less than a GH3.  There have been reviews of the VAF-TXi but no one has sat down and done a hard core across the board comparison.  For such an incredible (and expensive) device you really have to wonder what is going on.

Hi I'm a video noob and recently upgraded my DSLR.   I don't know if you mentioned your exact budget already.  Less than 5D Mk III covers a lot of territory and you didn't specify how much you had to spend on other stuff.   I'm glad you brought up Mosaic Engineering's VAF-XTi filter.  I'm surprised it didn't get more treatment in this thread considering it as an EOS forum.  This filter looks like it is going to be my next purchase.  I live in America and recently there were a couple of sales on refurbised Canon 600D/T3i's.  A bunch of people got in on a deal for a 600D from canon with kit lens for $400.  I got mine from somewhere else for $450 shipped.  I didn't know about the Canon deal and by the time Canon charges me sales tax the price difference was less than $20.   I sold the kit less for $100.  So I got the T3i for $350.  When picking a Canon camera you need to see which body has the most developed version of Magic Lantern.  The T3i does really well in that regard.  It also has a fold out screen.  As far as sensors are concerned it has the same sensor as the 7D, 60D, T2i, T4i... and maybe others.  So image quality in general is not going to be markedly different between the models.  Some may be able to have a bit better RAW performance because the bottleneck for RAW is the SD card control write speed (I believe).   So you take $350 and spend another $295 on a VAF-TXi and now you are at $645.  Put ML on that for free or a small donation and you have a very usable camera for less than $650.  That's HALF the price of the GH3.  Interestingly the Panasonic Lumix DMC-G6 KIT is only $100 more than the T3i refurb body... assuming you can find the G6 in stock.     Advantages APS-C Narrow DoF Good Low light performance Minimal Moire Aliasing with VAF-TXi Fantastic photo mode Swivel Screen Optical view finder for photo   Disadvantages Have to remove VAF-TXi to use photo mode VAF-TXi doesn't work in 720p 60 fps mode No practical raw CODEC is poo poo   People have made some impressive movies with the sensor in the T3i.  I'm not sure how they have done it.  I suppose if you limited DoF and are cognisant of every piece of cloth and brick wall you can make it happen but who has the time for that?  The Panasonic G-6 is interesting but I find myself constantly wishing I could go wider on my 600D.  With the 3x zoom on the 600D images look good even without the VAF-TXi so going long isn't an issue.  For me I couldn't imagine going in the other direction.  You'll see when you start looking fo lenses.  It's a lot easier to get a solid fully auto 50mm lens for a full frame than something with the same field of view for a Micro Four Thirds body.   So the end result is you have to pick your poison.  You are making compromises with any camera body.  You just have to decided whch compromises you can live with.  The images out of the Panasonics are very impressive.  But you have to decide whether you can live with micro four thirds.   RAW... don't know what to say here.  I think eveyrone was being charitable and beating around the bush.  RAW requires tons of resources.  If you have an i5 notebook with 4 gbs of RAM your life is going to be painful for editing and rendering prores let allow RAW.   Anyway it sounds like you were happy with the 550 besides moire/aliasing.  I would just get the 600 and VAF-TXi and forget about RAW.  My 2 cents.