maxotics

Yes, one actually looks at RAW frames from Canon cameras, as you will with ML, then they see those focus pixels in frames, which lead to the "pink pixel" problem.  There can never be a perfect camera!  I suspect that Canon adds more red to their filters, which reduces dynamic range, but gives a more pleasing image for many people, whereas Nikon goes for wider dynamic range with neutral colors which aren't as "psychologically" appealing.  Since even a video 4:2:2 compression will essentially double up on every 3rd pixel of color it's no wonder that dual-pixel effects on color are not noticed in video.  My wonder is if dual-pixel auto focus, because it requires pixels made slightly different (my guess) makes it more difficult to get 4K, definitely 4K with focus peaking (which is Nikon's problem).  Bottom line, for Nikon to keep its lead in still photography dynamic range, I can't see how it can implement Canon's video compromises--EVER.  Mirrorless may get them to similar video features as Canon, but it will be at the expense of their still frame photography technology which one can best appreciate by shooting with a D810/D850.

I couldn't agree with you more!  I mean like, triple AMEN!    I have never worked with a camera SDK that seemed like it was designed by half-competent developers (unlike the main ML devs).  Indeed, recently I wanted to control Sony cameras.  Did I load up the SDK?  NOPE.  Been down that road, with unanswered questions on life-less forums.  So I installed the USB Camera Remote and used a library that basically does key-stroke pressing on the application's interface.  When it comes to SDKs, all the camera makers are pathetic.
Now this may seem like a tangent, but I want to prove a point.  Adobe Premiere just re-vamped their whole TITLE making process.  THREW OUT THE WHOLE THING.  Now there is a "Graphics" interface.  When you create a title you get bountiful properties and methods in the Graphics pane.  It's been built from the ground up.  Should be perfect, right?  Yet it has everything but the TEXT OF THE TITLE!  In order to change the text of the title you have to click on the "Text" tool on the timeline.  Is the text of a graphic a property of a timeline?  WTF!  It makes me speechless! My brain freezes trying to comprehend how Adobe management could let something like that pass.   It's a KLUDGE of monumental incompetence.  My 2-cents   
There are very, very few software developers who have a real talent for programming.  Just like there are very, very few bloggers who have a talent for writing about cameras   The world runs on computers.  There is still a fair amount of managers at Canikon who weren't brought up on computers.  In short, there is a chronic shortage of talent.  If Adobe can't get enough good talent, what hope everyone else?
Look at ML, of the 28,000 members my guess is there are only 50 or so people with hard-core programming skill.  And if more, they don't have the time.  Put another way, I bet 8 out of 10 software guys at Canon don't even understand what the ML devs do.  It's over their head.
 

Dual pixel AF with 45MP final output image would require a natively 91MP sensor and for continuous AF purposes all of this data would have to be read and processed during focusing. Cross-type phase detection with a quadruple pixel design would require 182MP (if 2x2 are used instead of some other pattern). These things are easier to implement in a camera that isn't intended to produce high-resolution stills. Dual pixel AF is limited by the processing power available and having a high pixel count makes it more difficult. Notice that Canon's 50MP models don't have dual pixel AF either.
D2H and D2Hs had an LBCAST sensor.  I think the main problem wasn't the technology of the sensor but the fact that it was 4MP while Canon's was 8MP. The D2X had a 12 MP sensor but Nikon hadn't yet cracked optimal high ISO at that time (the breakthroughs came later with the D3s).
In my opinion, the details of how Nikon collaborate with their partners to make the sensors for their cameras should not matter to the customer. Users should be interested in 1) image quality, 2) performance, and 3) cost. If the results are excellent that is usually enough. It is clear that Nikon's focus isn't in video but they offer video as a feature (instead of the primary function of the camera). Nikon seems to prioritise still image quality over features such as video AF. This is neither a good thing or a bad thing, every company would do well to concentrate on their strengths. I do think Canon may be more motivated to offer full frame 4K in the near future because both of their main rivals now offer it. Since Nikon are planning on releasing a high end mirrorless camera system in the future, that will surely require some kind of on-sensor PDAF which then can be offered on the DSLR side as well.

It's actually the former, Nikon has had an in-house design team for a very long time; the D1x's oddball configuration was from them, and it's not always a hit either: the disaster that was the D2x's LBCAST sensor was from them too.

@maxotics to further go down this tangent let me just say that I despise the new title workflow. For some reason my computer slows to a crawl when trying to use the new title tool and much of the UI seems like a backwards step. I hope Adobe fixes this soon. I think the parallel you draw here is accurate; often times programmers overlook the user experiences when adding/updating features.

I couldn't agree with you more!  I mean like, triple AMEN!    I have never worked with a camera SDK that seemed like it was designed by half-competent developers (unlike the main ML devs).  Indeed, recently I wanted to control Sony cameras.  Did I load up the SDK?  NOPE.  Been down that road, with unanswered questions on life-less forums.  So I installed the USB Camera Remote and used a library that basically does key-stroke pressing on the application's interface.  When it comes to SDKs, all the camera makers are pathetic.
Now this may seem like a tangent, but I want to prove a point.  Adobe Premiere just re-vamped their whole TITLE making process.  THREW OUT THE WHOLE THING.  Now there is a "Graphics" interface.  When you create a title you get bountiful properties and methods in the Graphics pane.  It's been built from the ground up.  Should be perfect, right?  Yet it has everything but the TEXT OF THE TITLE!  In order to change the text of the title you have to click on the "Text" tool on the timeline.  Is the text of a graphic a property of a timeline?  WTF!  It makes me speechless! My brain freezes trying to comprehend how Adobe management could let something like that pass.   It's a KLUDGE of monumental incompetence.  My 2-cents   
There are very, very few software developers who have a real talent for programming.  Just like there are very, very few bloggers who have a talent for writing about cameras   The world runs on computers.  There is still a fair amount of managers at Canikon who weren't brought up on computers.  In short, there is a chronic shortage of talent.  If Adobe can't get enough good talent, what hope everyone else?
Look at ML, of the 28,000 members my guess is there are only 50 or so people with hard-core programming skill.  And if more, they don't have the time.  Put another way, I bet 8 out of 10 software guys at Canon don't even understand what the ML devs do.  It's over their head.
 

I can't speak to stills as the Nikon VS Canon debate is like android VS iOS or Mac VS PC....but I can confirm through experience that usability wise the Canon is superior for video. The Dual Pixel AF is incredible. The flip out screen is fantastic. Obviously its not 4k but the 80D really has great 1080p. 
All these things are my opinion... but what is a fact is that a TON of YouTubers and Wedding videographers that I know shoot with and LOVE the 80D. Just shot a wedding last night with mine on a MoVI and it was a workhorse. Having a LED on the MoVI kept me at ISO 350 which really helps. The 80D doesn't do well over ISO 800. 

Musicians?  Where most stuff happens in low light?  I'm with @noone  If EVER there was a camera made for that world it is the A7S.  Why?  There's only so much software-engineering (reducing noise) that one can do around small pixel sizes.  The tech is probably at its limit.  The pixel pitch of the A7s is 8.4 microns.  GH5 is 3.3.  Let me put this in perspective.  You want to race two cars with same transmissions.  Do you go with 8 Litres or 3 Litres?  This isn't to say the GH series cameras don't have their strengths, like running all night, flexible software and working with inexpensive glass (which may be more important if you're recording whole shows).   A7S...beg, borrow, or steal   Otherwise, any other full-frame.

A7s.
I have been shooting live music for a long time for stills and it is the camera for me for this.
I don't have to worry about ISO and I don't need to just use a fast lens/aperture.
Video is not something I have done much of but have been doing more since getting the A7s.

I couldn't agree with you more!  I mean like, triple AMEN!    I have never worked with a camera SDK that seemed like it was designed by half-competent developers (unlike the main ML devs).  Indeed, recently I wanted to control Sony cameras.  Did I load up the SDK?  NOPE.  Been down that road, with unanswered questions on life-less forums.  So I installed the USB Camera Remote and used a library that basically does key-stroke pressing on the application's interface.  When it comes to SDKs, all the camera makers are pathetic.
Now this may seem like a tangent, but I want to prove a point.  Adobe Premiere just re-vamped their whole TITLE making process.  THREW OUT THE WHOLE THING.  Now there is a "Graphics" interface.  When you create a title you get bountiful properties and methods in the Graphics pane.  It's been built from the ground up.  Should be perfect, right?  Yet it has everything but the TEXT OF THE TITLE!  In order to change the text of the title you have to click on the "Text" tool on the timeline.  Is the text of a graphic a property of a timeline?  WTF!  It makes me speechless! My brain freezes trying to comprehend how Adobe management could let something like that pass.   It's a KLUDGE of monumental incompetence.  My 2-cents   
There are very, very few software developers who have a real talent for programming.  Just like there are very, very few bloggers who have a talent for writing about cameras   The world runs on computers.  There is still a fair amount of managers at Canikon who weren't brought up on computers.  In short, there is a chronic shortage of talent.  If Adobe can't get enough good talent, what hope everyone else?
Look at ML, of the 28,000 members my guess is there are only 50 or so people with hard-core programming skill.  And if more, they don't have the time.  Put another way, I bet 8 out of 10 software guys at Canon don't even understand what the ML devs do.  It's over their head.
 

Hi,
Wanted to make something new so I worked on this video for several month.
 
Most of the tilt-shift effect is simulated in post (masking in AE), it's not as good as the real out of focus blur created by TL lenses but much more practical than having a huge drone carrying a DSLR camera. I also modded a GoPro lens that was mounted on a custom made drone (TBS Discovery with Pixhawk FC) to get the "native" effect. The inspiration for this project came from Keith Loutit, the god of tilt-shift timelpase.

Yes I totally understand that. I'm not asking for crazy specs on Canon DSLR. I tried raw on the 5D3 and the whole process is a nightmare with the file size, instability and need to transcode.
Raw is the extreme end of the spectrum however there is a middle ground. First I don't think that many "John Q Public" would buy a $3500 camera. Then there are plenty of missing features which are not related to hardware AND would not confuse the average soccer mom. For instance why did we have to wait for so long for 1080/60 ? Plus the peaking, zebra and all these non-computing intensive stuff. Hell if Canon is scared of customer support issue, be my guest and make it a paid upgrade like Panasonic supposedly did for the VLOG on the GH5.
 

I suppose it solves the problem of the stills camera part, as the D850 can do things, with nicer ergonomics, that a mirrorless camera can't on the stills front - optical viewfinder, 45MP, best AF system in the world from D5, all in one body... Add on video we already have on the A99 II, tweak the colour science and skintones to Nikon's taste, add flat profile instead of S-LOG, making the footage easier to grade, and you have reasons to buy it... but a lot of reasons not to as well, for example the fact the GH5 exists and soon probably the A7S3!

I've seen many wedding shooters who prefer shooting 1080p, and guess why? They say the size of 4k files are huge! And Nikon bitrate is only 144Mbit/s! And you say 500 is ok? We're a very small minority. 

there's a happy compromise though which NX1 users can tell you about   For what I do 24-28MP would be more than enough for stills. 
Any canon still shooters here should try to borrow a d800/810/850 and shoot raw for a couple of days. I went from canon to nikon and it totally changed the way I shoot. Exposing for the highlights and not worrying too much about the shadows... knowing the deepest shadows would be a purple banded mush.  If you know shoot in high dynamic range situations its no biggee.

Me either!  I remember when I first joined this forum everyone was looking forward to the next GH camera with a higher bit-rate.  What will the GH5 do now, 400?  Years ago, a couple of posters would say something along the line of, "The C100 has a great image so I don't care about bits or CODECs."  I was watching "Abstract" on Netflix a while back and the Roku was buggy so showing the bitrate, it hovered around 19mbits.  They're shooting Red Epic Dragons with anamorphic Primes, RAW I'd assume, 16 gig a minute..  But in the end, all I see is 19mbits.  So the question is, if a camera can give you 19mbits a second and it LOOKs like "Abstract" what difference does it make how many megabits are recorded in the forest?

Anyway, mjpeg is the "RAW" version of jpeg compression.  It is frame by frame, unlike video CODECs that calculate compression through a series of frames.  That is, mjpeg is the camera's BEST stills compression technology at 24 or 30 frames a second.  Why wouldn't one want that?  I mean how can you say that's bad and the 400mbits nonsense (sorry) of the GH5 is good?
 
 

Me either!  I remember when I first joined this forum everyone was looking forward to the next GH camera with a higher bit-rate.  What will the GH5 do now, 400?  Years ago, a couple of posters would say something along the line of, "The C100 has a great image so I don't care about bits or CODECs."  I was watching "Abstract" on Netflix a while back and the Roku was buggy so showing the bitrate, it hovered around 19mbits.  They're shooting Red Epic Dragons with anamorphic Primes, RAW I'd assume, 16 gig a minute..  But in the end, all I see is 19mbits.  So the question is, if a camera can give you 19mbits a second and it LOOKs like "Abstract" what difference does it make how many megabits are recorded in the forest?

Anyway, mjpeg is the "RAW" version of jpeg compression.  It is frame by frame, unlike video CODECs that calculate compression through a series of frames.  That is, mjpeg is the camera's BEST stills compression technology at 24 or 30 frames a second.  Why wouldn't one want that?  I mean how can you say that's bad and the 400mbits nonsense (sorry) of the GH5 is good?
 
 

I don't understand all of the hatred for the 5D Mark IV and its mjpeg codec?
It's a 4:22, all-i video codec that is easily editable on most computers, but it has big file sizes. ProRes has big file sizes. Raw has big file sizes. The GH5, after the update, will have big file sizes.
Where else are you getting a FF stills camera with a S35mm, Cinema 4K, 4:22, Log image, with arguably the best color science around, and definitively the best AF, for $3000?
With all that being said, I hope some of these D850 specs start to trickle down into the lesser models. A 4K D5700 with focus peaking, even if only in 1080p, sounds like a great camera to me. 1080p for the daily grind and some 4K, even cropped, for some novelty shots every now and again. 

I can't for the life of me imagine any sane person buying the D850 primarily for video.  Canon's dual-pixel auto focus is more than a piece of software, it is a combination of sensor technology (pixels set aside to double as focus receptors) and tech.  They've been working on it for a long time and it keeps getting better and better.  What this article tells me is Nikon is becoming more of a weather-sealed professional stills-photography eco-system built on Sony sensors.   As Andrew pointed out, too many sensor similarities to Sony's other cameras.  When will Nikon build dual-pixel auto-focus for video?  Looks like never; or at this point it's too late.  As for 4K, as someone above pointed out, 4:2:0 shouts chroma-compromised.  I recently bought a Canon C100 for $1,500.  Don't flame me, but for video it makes my Sony A6300 seems like just TOO MUCH WORK.  The D850 has only made up some 4K ground, on paper,  against the Sony A7S line or Panny GH line.  In the real world, fuggedabout it   In video, NOTHING BEATS sensors with fat pixels (in a 4K space), like the Canon Cinema line or Sony A7S.  Panasonic does a nice job turbo-charging those MFT sensors for video.  But use a GH camera for professional stills photography?  Again, don't flame me  
We went on vacation recently and I shot a lot with Sony's FDR X3000 Action-cam.  That is one cool camera!  It even has mic-in so with a rhode videomicro mini-boom you can get what the D850 can do in good light just as well, actually better.  The X3000 has kick-butt image stabilization.  Nikon put out a similar action-cam recently.  That didn't go well for them.  Nikon just doesn't have the institutional video chops to compete head on in video--anywhere.
As from the beginning, video on Nikon is only an emergency feature for photojournalists.  Unless I'm missing something, the D850 offers little above the D810 except a few more pixels.  All that said, I wouldn't shoot Sony professionally for stills.  The D850 is nothing to trifle with on the photography front.

But Max, I dare you!:) Browsing through the Merrill pictures on Flickr reveals some breathtaking images. A Merrill in combination with its fixed lens is a winner in price image ratio,
you cannot reach with a D810. But speed, easy of use, flexibility and high iso are fair trade offs, of course. I think Merrills are putting out a nicer image than the Quattros.

No.  You can take great photographs with any camera.  But almost all serious "model" photographers use Nikon or Canon full-frame, if not medium format if they can afford it.   Not Sigma, they're too slow.  That's a fact, take from it what you will   Sigmas appeal to two types of photographer in my experience.  1) The ones who come from film and are very fussy about color (though Foveon has trouble with red).  2) photographers who are super picky about printing and deplore bayer color artifacts.  The question for you would be is full-frame good enough that you don't need that extra clarity of a Sigma?  So, I suggest you borrow/rent a full-frame and try it out.  Even an old one.  If you don't see a difference between that and your GH5 then I'm fairly certain you'd find the Sigma camera a complete frustration.  As much as I love the Sigma look, if size/weight isn't a factor, a Nikon D810 is close enough for me.  IF I want something small with the best look possible, and I can take my time, then Sigma is the way to go.

I think the Merrills are the best of the bunch regarding image quality. Their best images just look thick, to say in forum speech.
The Quatros, when viewed at 100% on a monitor sometimes look dithered to me, when browsing through Flickr.
The three Merrills lens sensor combinations are unbeatable for the price.

Quattro sensors achieve higher resolutions be splitting the top blue layer into 4 pixels, sort of like Bayer's use of green pixels to increase apparent resolution over color.  There are some (like me) who believe the Merrill's are still superior because they don't add mosaic issues into the image. 
I can't see Foveon replacing Bayer.  As @Shirozina mentioned above, bayer sensors could already do better against Foveon by thickening their filters.  Or they could go back to CCD.  The fact is, only a small minority of photographers look to maximize color in native ISO shooting.  
Someone mentioned that Foveons are dynamically-range challenged.  Couldn't agree more.  However, capturing a wide dynamic range is immensely over-rated.  As others will point out, within the 6 stops of DR Foveon likes to play in it crushes other camera's color-wise IMHO.  Our eyes can only perceive 6 stops of DR at a time. 
One of the problems with Foveon, as I understand it, is that although the sensor has three layers, they aren't as distinct as bayer filters.  Photons move through the silicon and a lot of computations must be done to calculate what color each layer is registering.  They've been working on this for a long time.  I don't see any magic algorithm in sight.  Foveon sensors have always been slow.  They don't get faster, just a little bit less slower!  These cameras are labors of love for Sigma; my guess is that either lose money or don't make any.  If they really cared about reaching the public they'd license a different lens mount, or make it easier to create adapters.
Normally, I would say that these cameras have nothing to do with video.  However, the kind of images they can capture in the right conditions are the closest thing to film one can get.  An image from a Sigma is THE image you want your video equipment to produce.   These cameras can make you fall in love with photography again.  
 
 

There is nothing intrinsically inferior about CMOS in comparison with 'other' technology - MF digital, CCD, film, Foveon etc. The main reason it's colour performance is inferior in current implementations is that the RGB color filters over the photosites are so weak. This is done to enable better high ISO performance  which everyone demands but it seriously compromises color fidelity. If we had CMOS sensors with denser CFA's we would have  better colour fidelity but they would not be profitable as they would be ISO limited and the market is limited. i think I'm right in saying that MF digital backs are now CMOS ( they used to be CCD) but likley they have better CFA's optimised for colour fidelity over light transmission as the pro user base wants this. Sony also does some baked in NR to RAW files even at base ISO which is visible in fine irregular detail like foliage. It looks like a watercolor photoshop filter has been applied to it. Mostly though with such big files you are never displaying at 1:1 to see it.

I have 14 studio and it certainly is an upgrade and resolve has been my main editing and grading tool for a while now but I wouldn't want to be without Adobe Creative suite at all. Premier has a clunky layout and certainly needs a revamp but it's integration with Adobe Audition and After Effects means it's got advantages over resolve even with the Fairlight panel. As far as I can see the Fairlight panel at present is just a mixing desk (which is not bad in itself) but it's not yet an audio processing tool like Audition anymore than the FX library in Resolve is any serious challenge to aftereffects if you want to do serious FX and compositing work. No doubt in teh future you will have to purchase extra Audio Plugins for Fairlight to get a complete set of audio processing tools? Any serious filmmaker should have a range of tools at their disposal and I don't see Premier vs Resolve as an either or choice - you need both!