leeys

Wait... I closed the thread when it got too political.
And this guy comes on, reopens another political thread and rants that he wants to stop.
Yep.... makes perfect sense to me.

GOOD satire.
He's too busy at the DPReview forums

Andrew isn't quite wrong about multiple sources being the sum of a PR move. Canon famously doesn't let anyone with negative words about them get their hands on a review unit - I was denied any form of Canon gear for review after pointing out how Canon likes to "castrate" features for product segmentation (I think it was for the EOS 6D). O&M, Canon's PR firm, told me as such in polite terms. So if Canon only lets bloggers and reviewers who say nice things about their cameras have review units, you get this wall of positive noise about their cameras.

Andrew isn't quite wrong about multiple sources being the sum of a PR move. Canon famously doesn't let anyone with negative words about them get their hands on a review unit - I was denied any form of Canon gear for review after pointing out how Canon likes to "castrate" features for product segmentation (I think it was for the EOS 6D). O&M, Canon's PR firm, told me as such in polite terms. So if Canon only lets bloggers and reviewers who say nice things about their cameras have review units, you get this wall of positive noise about their cameras.

Hehe.
I seem to remember when the honesty doesn't work in their favour they just leave the glaring flaws out of reviews entirely
And they have so many relationships with so many PR and marketing people at the manufacturers, you can never be honest while you're constantly looking over your back at a bunch of friends imploring you to be as nice publicly to them as you are face to face at trade shows.
I know how this works, I have felt the same thing myself.
It's not a pressure or a strict form of censorship - it's more about just common politeness and a good career move.
But it makes for a bloody boring website, believe me.
And they get very highly rewarded financially too, so they're hardly a charity. What do they want? Reader donations on top of their latest $40,000 commercial video work?
$2000, a 6K H.265 mode, anamorphic support and much better low light performance than the GH4.
Yet they didn't mention any of that.
Far worse though is they chose to make a small flaw HEADLINE news - a ridiculous click bate headline out of a tiny flaw in compression... then to imply the 10bit implementation was faulty and V-LOG completely useable for serious work, which we all know is bullshit, was the final straw for me.
BULLLLLLLLsheeet. Panasonic loaned them the GH5!
I have some suggestions!

A smart move by Pentax (until they gave in and brought out a FF... Hmm) and FujiFilm to just have APS-C  and Medium Format.
 
As the future is 1" compacts for those who want ultra portability. APS-C for those who want lens choice flexibility but are budget (or size) constrained. And Medium Format for those who the sky is the limit. So called "Full Frame" will hopefully die away as it gets squeezed in by APS-C/MFT on one side and Medium Format on the other side.
Unless Sony is successful in entrenching  their FE camera/lens range in time before Medium Format arrives as a truly affordable option (relative to an a7R or a9 series etc).

People don't shoot movies full frame, well very few its not the norm  , super 35 /apsc is standard all those loveley cinema  lenses won't work full frame , plus I really don't like the full frame look on movies , I'm used to guaging all my focal lengths relative to super 35 .
So this new camera in apsc is a bonus !

Seems odd, but I guess the full frame market is seen as quite conservative, and getting pro Canon and Nikon shooters to shift to mirror-less is a big challenge, especially now that Sony has such a developed mirrorless full frame operation. A whole new lens system, just to catch up with Sony?

I couldn't say the last time I visited Cinema 5D.  EOSHD and the community here gave me the courage to finally branch out from Canon to Blackmagic and Sony.  One of the things I've always appreciated is how Andrew not only doesn't pulls any punches in his reviews, but backs up his conclusions with accurate information.  Probably why I haven't been to C5D in awhile.

I agree, it's about the only blog I visit for DSLR video. As Andrew mentioned, pressure from PR firms is REAL, having felt it myself, so I generally don't take a lot of stock in any review site that's not particularly large (DPReview can sort of get away with it, but even then I suspect their influence is waning).

"Like I say, I have loved my time writing EOSHD but I am thinking I might soon stop. What has tainted it has been the sheer snobbery of some of that pro-video industry. The poor attitude so many pro videographers in particular seem to have towards newcomers and enthusiasts and artists."
For what it's worth, yours is the only website that feels authentic.  We all know the internet is now just a brown stream of corporate content, so to have a place where things are real is welcome.  Enthusiast used to have places to go in the past untainted by monied nonsense.  
Through a confluence of timing, ambition, and opportunity, and attitude, yours is a place that's remained "clean" from all of the corporate PR clutter.  No small feat in this modern life.
I'd suggest that if you decide to bow out as a guy writing content, maybe become the creative director --and then bring on board a select like-minded-few that might be willing to provide the same ethos that makes this place so special.  Or curate the more interesting organic bubblings that arise from the forum and turn those into front-page blog entries featuring input from the main players of the thread.
As for crusty snobby "pros" that bitch about people with "toys" that "don't know the first thing about making a film"... well, that sort of curmudgeon is a scared little snowflake because they rest their ego on the tech, which is always getting easier to use and better.  Not exactly the best foundation in the digital world.  There's enough of them to make a blizzard sometimes, but ultimately snow melts, doesn't it?
 

Yeah, these were almost exactly my comments there. C5D does far too often technical mistakes like this, it happens in basically every article. They look more knowledgeable than they actually are and I've seen this in so many articles, enough so I follow the news, but take any technical report with a grain of salt.
They are confusing compression issues with color depth issues, two very distinctive things, propagating terrible misinformation for those that know even less than they do.
To clear this up, they should have done an external recording to rule out compression and codec issues before jumping into 10-bit is no good. Plus, I'm not really into this level of pixel peeping anyway. They even missed some other observations about the other cameras artifacts or even other GH5's advantages too.
In the end, they are spreading a lot of misinformation which will only confuse even more people that already don't eff understand what color depth and chroma subsampling is, this is already a complicated topic to discuss out there because there are already a lot of poorly done tests about this matter and this isn't doing it any favor at all.
 

I think it's best you ask around in the music circles where most of their exposure comes from. Any musicians here as well?

If anything, I'd expect some Super! Exciting! New! 1-inch sensor! mirrorless cam announcements from Nikon that nobody wants and nobody will buy. Then again, Nikon has revealed time and time again that they only really care about what Canon is doing, so maybe they go all out and try to rival the marvelous *cough* EOS M, since Canon is doing so well with those, right? I'm afraid they're not going to make it, which, sadly, will let Canon become even more dinosaur with their pricing and innovation without a direct DSLR competitor on the market.

Don't get me wrong, I would love to see an awesome video-centric mirrorless Nikon just like the rest of you would, but I just don't think the video enthousiast market is big enough for these companies to bother with--or turn much of a profit on. We would all buy it, yes, but us camera/video/hybrid/mirrorless nerds are definitely not the most common demographic. Look at Canon, who happily ignores our pleas and survives and thrives with the intro-DSLR market, soccer moms and high school kids who go into Sam's Club or Best Buy and want to buy a "real camera". Most of the time the 18-55mm kit lens is the only one they ever use, and eventually it collects dust. Canon doesn't care, because that's their bread and butter! If Nikon is really planning to axe their lower-end camera lines, I just don't see that being a good move business-wise. Sure, there is higher mark-up and higher return on prosumer bodies, but also way less sales. Too little, too late, I'm afraid. 

Well don't we really want to admit you can go out and buy a BMPCC, BMCC, shoot raw, and be happy with a Lot less hassle than shooting Film for normal stuff that is not a Hollywood Feature?

Yep, tends to be big boy stuff, and I understand it.
Funny though, the paradox is that it's *very* valuable for quick and dirty, low budget stuff, and events. The very places it's used the least is when it can help the most. A lot of times, lighting is minimal, set up time is minimal, they don't want to mess around staging stuff and repeating stuff, so you end up getting what you can get quickly and on the fly. It's very freeing to not have to worry about getting an accurate white balance while shooting. So many times I wish I could go RAW at weddings, but the storage would be horrendous. Crappy mixed lighting conditions,  quickly moving between indoors and outdoors, harsh exteriors during mid day. All sorts of things where Raw and lattitude is invaluable. 
I love only having to worry about composition, focus, lighting ratios (if controlled) and getting a fat negative. The rest is all done in post. 

What horror film is shot in 25,600 ISO?! 
There are specialized security cameras with infrared and other technologies, you are not going to put a A7s as a security camera, first of all, it would be the first to be stolen!

I have a rule. Even with A7S. If you need more than 1600ISO, you probably shouldn't be shooting there in the first place. Either change the scene's location, or use lights. Simple.

It seems like DPR shot the scenes as though they were shooting RAW stills. Very much ETTL and willing to err on underexposing to not clip ANY part of the scene.

Knowing IR, you're comparing JPEG engines.

Yes, you're right. Like I said, the Nikon 1 (which the DLs are based on) have some strengths, but Nikon never did anything to market its strengths. I mean, look at this:
I can tell you straight off, the FZ2500 and RX 10 III will not come close to the operational speed of the DL 24-500 ever. For a big zoom camera this is a great advantage to have, but Nikon just doesn't seem to know how to (or worse, want to) market it, so it leads to people thinking that they're all very similar cameras. They're not. The DL 24-500 had a chance of capturing that segment, along with the 18-50 owning a special place, but Nikon just... well, they're just useless at the moment.

Nikons biggest problem I suspect is Canon. Like it or not but Canon easily outsells all the others. With old models. Panasony is bleading money in development without really taking of. Canon can take their sweet time and still stay in the green.
Ironically Fuji is kept alive with film. And their Instax film division is currently the best selling cameras. Not best selling film cameras. But all together. Fuji Instax Film cameras outsell Canon. With lesser profit per unit of course.
But still...

As someone who was a Nikon shooter for a LONG time and was looking forward to the 18-50 this is very disappointing.

Not very.  The controls are very straightforward --but you will most likely crash before you come to terms with it.  I felt pretty confident after a day of practice with an old and used camera-less drone.  
Then, I flew my actual camera drone into a tree a few days later during a shoot.  Boom.  Basically, it takes some wisdom to learn how to interpret spatial dynamics from a distance.  More important than that is just learning how not to over-react to stuff when flying.
All that said, I basically gave up on aerials.  I don't find them particularly compelling anymore.  Understood that your clients just want it "because," but I really have a hard time rationalizing 'em these days in my own work considering that it's so prevalent elsewhere.

Don't worry about it.
Someone is just misconstruing the adverse lighting/exposure situation for actual camera performance. 
This is the YouTube world we live in. 
A beautifully lit scene on a crappy 10 Stop camera can look better than an Alexa in a bad lighting situation... but try explaining why to a beginning enthusiast is always gonna be a challenge.