StrangerSong

Where'd you hear about that? It was rumored for NAB last year, and it'd make sense as a move if they want to move on to legit 4K cameras soon, but people who just bough Alexa SXTs would be pretty disappointed. I think Panasonic is relying on appealing to the broadcast crowd foremost with the Varicam line-up. The prices they're touting make sense for that. I'm guessing they don't really want to compete with Canon and Sony in that price range, a C100 Mk3 might come out soon enough and saturate that market up further.

I doubt there's much to be done about the RS, except hope it's better in 1080p mode. Can't do much with a set processor speed holding you back.

One of the reasons they're probably going to charge more is that they expect to sell less A7s sensors than any other FF sensor, because it's so unique and low demand. Since they produce less every loss is magnified.

Ignoring video, and solely for the photography stuff, they have a great system.

These 60D films would only ever really fall apart if they were projected on a theatre screen, but they most likely never will be and they play to their medium really well. The complex thing about film really, and what I'm realizing now, is how much doing everything other than the camera costs. I mean you need good sound, grip equipment, writing, planning, lighting, stands, transportation. At a certain point there are just diminishing returns if you're investing so much in the camera instead of the rest of it all, it's only 30% of the equation. Especially if you're doing narrative stuff, where the post production and stuff like capturing performances is much more essential.

Honestly Canon is still years ahead of Blackmagic anyway. The C500's sensor is already in the C100, only the processors to deal with the 4k RAW are different. If Blackmagic looked like it was going to truly revolutionize anything Canon would just release a version of these same processors (or whatever their next one down the pipeline is) with all the RAW high bitrate stuff enabled. In a few years it'll be cheaper too. Meanwhile Canon's colour science, how they deal with IR, egronomics, ect are all very much superior. Canon's just reading the market, and their entire Cinema line has been super successful and from a business standpoint they're doing what the market wants without breaking the bank producing more than they want. That's always been the key to their success. Are they over priced? Could they do better? Yes. But from a research standpoint they're ready for anything the market will demand, probably. I'd say the phenomenon you're describing would probably apply more to something like GoPro, which has carved a niche in the market that Canon would probably have a hard time breaking into, due to all the tech that little company has come up with. Blackmagic's doing a great thing though, hopefully they'll find their niche too, with their future cameras. But in a world where the F35 used to cost 250,000 and can be bought for 8,000 now, it's easy to assume that in 4 years the script will be flipped completely, again. How the camera market looks after April will be very interesting.

If Panasonic came out with a camera that shot great 8/10-bit 1080p internally, but had the proper connections for expandability into better formats via something like a Ninja, then they'd succeed in giving the market what it wants. That kind of quality is only necessary for people working on productions that are least are able to take enough time to deal with that kind of extra hassle. There's no reason why the Blackmagic Pocket camera should be able to shoot RAW and all that jazz, and a camera that will cost 3x as much can't find a way of pulling it off. That to me is the whole key with this potential camera: can I get the quality of a Blackmagic camera, but with the extra thousand buck going into the small usability features that are missing from it? So far, asides from workflow issues, the Blackmagic cameras simply haven't had the same design team behind them to make the experience of using them good enough. Panasonic has had years of experience solving those same little problems, and they can come up with effective designs three times as fast. If they can undercut the market with a great camera we all win. All Panasonic has to do is pull off the standard HD quality we want, but also give us the option of making higher quality images, even if they're a pain in the ass to deal with, for those who need it. Canon has done a brilliant job of creating super usable Cinema cameras, Blackmagic has done a brilliant job of creating super high quality for cheap. Unfortunately many of us still feel there's a tiny bit still missing from either one. All that being said: this discussion could be moot, and all we're going to get is an AF200. Which would be a fine usable camera, but if it costs as much as a C100, then not worth it.

The 7D will just be the 5D mk3 for video except with a cropped sensor and Dual Pixel AF, and hopefully it'll be a thousand bucks cheaper. It's not going to be revolutionary though, it'll just be the best Canon cropped sensor camera for sports and birding photography that you can get outside of the 1D series. It's going to have a 22-24 MP sensor that's going to line skip and hopefully have an AA filter, or else you'll have to deal with moire. It's not going to have better video than a C100, while missing all the extras that make the C100 great. It'll be one third the price of a C100, but twice as much as a GH3. The times have moved on a bit, the 7D mk2 won't be enough for most film makers when there are some amazing cameras available for half of what it's gonna cost, and much better featured ones for just a thousand more. Of course there are two reasons why you'd want to get it rather than something else: RAW video potential (if Canon doesn't go with a single SD card slot) and lens investment. But honestly, will it really be much better than a 70D for video (right now weather sealing is the only big adv. for video usability)? Will it be much better than a GH3 (other than slightly better low light)? Plus the RAW capability for the Canons is severely overrated for non-short form projects, for example ones where an actors performance or usability is the real key, not aesthetics. They're not A-cam material if you have a small budget and need to rely on its footage. I was initially excited. I don't need a full frame sensor, or to shoot much at 3200 ASA, so a 7D mk2 sounded like a better choice if it were to come out cheaper than the 5D. But looking at how the market is shifting, I could get a FS100 one of these days soon for the price of a 5D mk3. It's been almost 3 years since the C100 came out, someone's going to come up with something cheaper, but just as good, soon too. These Canons are fantastic stills cameras, but they're not worth their price for video anymore.