leeys

Couple of thoughts:
I hang around in a few high volume forums that aren't as technical as us (including a deals site and a couple of general tech forums) and the prevailing mentality is that Canon video is #1. So as long as people keep on buying their cameras in large quantities, along with pros padding the profit margins with the Cinema EOS line, Canon will say, why do we have to change anything?
 
The other thing is that Canon, like most companies, don't like bad vibes. They won't tell you anything that makes them look bad, hence the silence.

Why? Can't see the word 'DSLR' in it and E stands for electrical, O for optical and S for system. Sounds pretty relevant to me.

mirrorless with a great EVF is the way to go , Panasonic or Sony are the best right now
 
I dont ever use my Canon DSLRs for video any more just for stills
 
DSLRs are dead for video for me -
 
no peaking -
 
glass optical viewfinders not working because you have to put the mirror up for video is a no no !!
so you are just stuck with the rear screen that always has to be on ....so it eats battery
 
Mirrorless with and EVF lets you see exactly what you get and your focus is spot on with peaking too
I rarely use the rear screen ....so battery life is huge with just the EVF on

Of course - there are and always have been better and more practical options. But certainly not at a price:feature point that many will accept!
 
You can purchase a handycam, or even a prosumer cam but you get a tiny sensor (deep DOF) and limited dynamic range. You could buy a cinema camera, but then you're spending a lot of money!
 
DSLRs have become the de facto entry level video camera because they are cheap and give an image that's closer to what many might call cinematic out of the box. That and the fact that you can do video and photo on the one machine, which means you don't need to take two cameras.

Average D810 demographic: male, 25-55yrs
Average demographic for this film: female, 13-23yrs
 
Odd.
 
Image looks good though!

if you want to shoot some thing that looks like it has Hollywood movie 'field of views' just remember these 3 focal lengths
 
27mm for your wides
75mm for the close ups
40mm for the rest of the coverage
 
all referanced to a 35mm motion picture camera or APSC or Micro 4/3 with a speedbooster
you can shoot most of your movie on these 3 lenses - or use a 28-70mm zoom that covers almost them all (NIKON!!!)
 
shoot at f2.8 - and off you go .......all else is irrelevant cross referancing to full frame and will just slow you down
 
I ignore full frame totally as I just dont like the look of it.

100% agree with you! 

5D MkII and MkIII look is so "videoish"! Hollywood has a shallow depth of field, but not an extreme, unusable depth of field! And a lot of movies just haven't!

Now the thread just sounds sexual...

When you're walking, make sure to step with the ball of your foot first and sort of roll into your step. I used to be in a marching band in high school and we had to practice taking smooth steps so the whole band wouldn't appear to be bobbing up and down.

My experience is that straps are a freaking pain for video work. They always get in the way.

My experience is that straps are a freaking pain for video work. They always get in the way.

They're NOT the same! SD adapters are just a pass-through. CF to SD adapters have to translate the protocol.

> almost like Canon OWE them something.
 
They do, the relationship between company and consumer is not a one-way street. You buy a product with the expectation that it will live up to its advertising and be fit for the purpose it was intended.  If Canon wasn't claiming that their DSLRs are designed for videographers and are excellent for that task (read their ads for the 7D Mk II) then there would be no problem, but they are so there is.
 
> Compared to 10 years ago we are living in a dream land...
 
If we are, it is only because consumers have learned to start pushing back on some of the less-than-nice business practices of the major camera makers.  I think we have the Internet to thank for that - it's provided a place for people to gather and discuss these issues and work on unofficial unauthorized hacks like Magic Lantern to get more out of the hardware than manufacturers like Canon are willing to provide. In the interview Andrew did, note Canon's hostile reaction to the mention of Magic Lantern. They are taking active steps to stop ML, for example by requiring that the higher-priced cameras be sent in to get firmware updates.
 
Remember, the first push for "affordable" ($20K) digital cinema cameras came from a little company called Red, not from the major players like Sony who were charging close to $100K for CineAltas that were less capable at the time.
 
So yes, go out and "shoot", but also keep in mind what it took to get to where we are, and that Canon's policies are unlikely to change if we don't continue to speak out regarding these issues.

watermark it with the person who signed the NDA's name on it and give it to them low resolution? that's how i get screener material that hasn't been released yet. if it gets out, someone gets sued, heads roll, people jump off balconies etc. 

What is it about new cameras that has such a magical power to transform professional filmmakers into arrogant, bratty children? It's incredible, really.

You are making this up. The D750 was announced on sept 12, images and final specs of the camera leaked out only a few days before. If it was out for a month already it would be all over the internet.
 
Unless you are talking about people who have signed NDA's and receiving pre production cameras before the announcement for initial testing. But that list isn't very long and as far as I know dpreview, Imaging Resource and the likes aren't porn producers.

I know they say porn can be on the forefront of tech but wow that's really fast; the camera's barely out for a day!

How is this new D-LUX a better choice than the LX100? Sleeker design? What sleeker design? They removed the grip and changed the labelling a little bit. I actually prefer the grip of the LX100, it's rather practical. Besides, you're not all of a sudden going to make the camera more compact by losing the grip, the lens is still the main thing sticking out. And you can put on a red dot that says 'Leica', well whoopty-effin-doo, congratulations. Maybe you should add a red dot to your nose too, because if that's the reason you get a certain camera, doesn't that kind of makes you a clown? Free lightroom..? Ok, so you pay more to get less, some sprinkles of Leica make-up and then you're praising them for including a software that you, if you're serious about photography, probably already have. I'm sorry, I do not follow this kind of reasoning. Then they can include Lightroom with the LX100, up the price by the costs, and sell it as a premium package with 'free' Lightroom as well. You're still paying for it (although perhaps at a reduced fee, because of the partnership). And I'm not sure about the firmware... but I think Panasonic will care quite a lot about firmware support and fixes and upgraded features, especially concerning video, I'm not sure if Leica would follow with the same upgrades right after... so you might be missing out here...
 
But whatever makes you feel better. I mean, I always say: a certain camera wouldn't exist, if there wasn't a single soul found to buy it. If you feel like you can cheat your way into having a Leica by buying a relabelled LX100, then by all means be my guest. But if you want this for the sole reason it has 'Leica' written on it, I'm not really sure if that's the right reason to spend some extra dough on it. But again... you're in charge of your own wallet, whatever rocks your boat. I'm laying off the Leica and Hasselblad rebrands myself. It's like an Apple. People are willing to pay for the 'name', 'image' and 'philosophy' more so than specs and performance. In fact, it's much like a religion. But I'm open to any brand. If they have incredible performance for a justified price, I'm going with them and Panasonic is doing a damn good job at providing the best bang for buck lately.

HDMI is 4:2:2 8-bit.
 
ISO performance is unlikely to outperform the best 24MP sensors, so I expect usable 6400 images with 12800 as an emergency option. 
 
If the AF is like the NX30 it will be plenty competent. Not sure how it will do in video, or whether it will have the Olympus E-M1's issue.
 
I'm having a good laugh at the control layout though - it reminds me of both Canon and Nikon.

As much as I agree with all of your points, asking these questions is simply useless. You're questions are not really questions, but you are just trying to make the same point with every question:
 
"Look how far behind you are when it comes to video & technical advances compared to your competitors". Don't you see it?"
 
It is rhetorical. Of course they know. They don't care. And you don't need to ask, you can see it from their current line up and releases. They are focussing on the photo market and gave up to compete on video.
 
The only question you should ask is: "Why?"
 
To make more money for a couple of years and then stop the business? A principal? Thinking they will appeal more to photographers if they don't have good video modes? To protect their C-line? (and thus be stupid?)
 
For the rest I would save my breath. You're not going to change them. But we as buyers will.

You should hire Sacha Baron Coen to ask those questions to them :)

Anyone who spends their hard-earned based on a rumour is truly a twit.

Not sure I can place much faith in this one; stills resolution is much higher, so the lenses actually have to work harder. Cine lenses advantages are in areas other than resolution.

This is a full production with lights, crew, make up, dolly, focus puller. Nice job but I'm not seeing anything I wouldn't expect to see from this type of setup.
 
If you put these lenses on and start filming your cats in your lounge room in whatever light you will get a much different look :P

Not sure I can place much faith in this one; stills resolution is much higher, so the lenses actually have to work harder. Cine lenses advantages are in areas other than resolution.