Juank

From my understanding 8k and 4k are not  cropped but scaled at least from the product page. 
So you should get 4k, 8k and 12k all raw and the same field of view that makes it much more practical.
 

https://www.eoshd.com/news/blackmagic-casually-announces-12k-ursa-mini-pro-camera/
https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/blackmagicursaminipro
Oh no! The megapixel race has come to cinema.
$10,000 with an 80 megapixel Super 35mm sensor, the new URSA Mini Pro shoots 12K BRAW.
The technology in this camera is practically unheard of.

If this thing works I definitely want CFExpress on GH6 or any future camera. Or better yet, release a battery grip with a slot to take one of these larger M.2 SSD cards + extra battery.

On the UK Sony site the small print is:
"The α7C is the smallest and lightest full-frame digital interchangeable-lens camera with optical in-body image stabilisation"
A weird confusion going on in the heads of marketing people there of optical IS and mechanical IBIS.

Honestly the GoPro era feels dead. These past couple of releases haven't interested me, both because of how over saturated the action camera market became and because of their yearly release schedule. They've ceased innovating. Yes, the stabilization is incredible, but each iteration is a modest upgrade over the last. While they're focusing on media mods, a company like Insta360 is innovating in much better ways in my opinion. 
I honestly feel, at this point, most people would be better off buying used or one of the cameras released by DJI or Insta360 instead. Hell, for a lot of people one of those cheaper ones from Yi would be sufficient if your primary use for an action camera is putting it in a tight / risky environment, like me. 

In my opinion, here is what GoPro needs to make next year to truly stand out and offer a worthwhile upgrade: 

- GoPro X. Bigger sensor than the 9 and 4K120p along with 10 bits recording. 
- Gopro Max 2. Dual 8K30P sensor that gives a 4K image when you use it in Hero mode. It's like having a normal GoPro in every direction, no need to frame. And a mode that gives 2.7K60P when in hero mode (unlike FHD today). Same sensor size as today to make all that possible. 

 

Hmm still no WB and ISO adjustment for a7S3's prores RAW

Tinkering with the raw files, no LUT, just basic exposure adjustments and balancing the RGB parade on the first, the second has a little more saturation. I'm a novice with grading and working on my skills. I've been told by others here I can't see good color because I like what's coming out of the a7s3, so if its shit, it is what it is, but I'm still buying the camera. Plenty of detail on the guy's face despite not being oversampled like the a73. Looking forward to my copy shipping.
Cheers.
Chris
EDIT: colors pop more in my FCPx window than looking at this page on chrome. 

There's a new kid on the block... just launched to follow Samsung's 980 Pro announcement and actually is the fastest drive of its class to come and be available very soon (price TBA):
http://reviewcentralme.com/2020/09/01/sabrent-unleashes-rocket-4-plus-the-worlds-fastest-pcie-4-0-nvme-ssd/
 
I guess heatsink is somehow removable so can be adapted to the Zitay adapter, even though overheating handling is everything a Canon user can ask for these days...
 
 

I can't compare it directly to the P4K as I don't regularly shoot with one. But it compares quite well with the P6K and the Alexa. As I said elsewhere the P6K has 1.3 stops more range in the highlights at IOS800 when highlight recovery is enabled. But the Komodo has nicer finer grained noise with no CMOS smear.
I'm getting pretty much the same image from both. The P6K requires a Rawlite OLPF filter though.
Usability wise the P6K is maybe a bit nicer. So much quicker to shoot with assignable buttons, 2 sec startup time.

Who could imagine we gonna have point and shoot camera with full frame sensor in 2020? 

I know I'm just one customer and Canon obviously couldn't care less about my business but I know I had planned on replacing the GH5 with the R6, replacing the 5DIV with the R5 and eventually replacing the C200 with an RF mount equivalent along with RF mount lenses over the next 2-3yrs...so I'd say they lost around $60K of my business so far. As it stands now, if a GH6 comes out I'll use it as a b-cam to my C200, keep the GH5 and use it as a c-cam.

Sony Semicon imposes strict licensing restrictions, one of these restrictions is that certain sensors can only be put in specific products (eg. mobile phone only).
This is why drone cameras from Autel/DJI have only recently started using the more than 3 years old IMX586 sensor.

Just confirmed that the Date change "hack" is still live with New firmware on R5. 

I've used the XH1 and now own an XT4.
The XT4 is definitely just... better when it comes to IBIS. I found the XH1 to be sickeningly bad for the way I shoot, I had to get rid of it asap. Those little quantised jumps in sensor movement were destroying shot after shot. The XT4 has similar but more well-controlled issues I suppose. It's not up there with Panasonic IBIS though (not like GH5 anyway).
 
You're right about the planes of movement thing, this is the key with Fuji IBIS I guess. It just can't handle any sort of movement in more than one plane at a time. Tilt while panning? You'll get tiny jerks and catch-up movements in the stabilisation. Likewise strafing or raising the position of the whole camera in space while panning or tilting. You have to be very deliberate with the XT4 handheld movements. I never use the DIS digital stab. The IS Boost seems to be okay, to be honest I can't tell the difference in what that's doing half the time. It's performance may have been altered a bit in one of the firmware updates and I'm just confused about its efficacy now at this point.
Something about the XT4 footage stabilises pretty nicely in post, thankfully. Maybe the good performance for rolling shutter is important there. Stick (in DaVinci Resolve anyway) to the straightforward 'translation' type stabilisation and you can avoid the dreaded "warpy shit". So if you're happy enough to polish your footage after that way, you'll get perfectly great results with the XT4 IBIS, yes. Especially with a heavier setup, I guess.
The codecs are really great. I'm delighted with how well they hold up in terms of noise and dynamic range. They playback/edit fairly well for h265 and all too on my laptop.

This is a good post.
CFExpress cards do get very hot to the touch. So not surprising to see that they have built in overheating protection.
However the EOS R5 is not alone in overheating. Other cameras without CFExpress do too.
And other cameras with CFExpress do not (1D X III).
So the main factor is not CFExpress.
I think CFExpress probably does contribute some heat into the innards of the EOS R5 and makes the problem a bit worse.
But the main problem is always going to be the throttling of the CPU. Just like in your laptop when it's over the thermal limits.
In place of the CFExpress card slot on the EOS R5 should have been a passive heat sink like the Sigma Fp.
And the CFExpress card slot should have its own tiny heatsink like M.2 SSD drives do in a PC.
A bit of a re-design would be required, but it could all still fit into a mirrorless camera body the size of the EOS R5.
They just haven't been proactive enough in wanting a solution.
They know that pros should get a Cinema EOS camera, and they want to keep it that way.

UPDATE:
I have tried the date/time trick without defeating the battery door sensor. Just pull the battery as normal and it works.
https://www.eoshd.com/news/magic-lantern-users-create-practical-canon-eos-r5-overheating-timer-workaround/

E-mount already dominates.  RF sells because it is...well...Canon there are a ton of Canon enthusiasts who will buy anything from them.
 
I think they work closely together to fill out the system. It’s curious the Sigma fp and S series cameras don’t really step on each other’s toes. At this point any traction in L-mount, wether sigma selling glass or Panasonic, is good for the mount’s future.
 
Leica is in a good position at the moment. They control the L-mount. Panasonic and Sigma cameras are a potential “gateway drug” for users wanting to buy a Leica L-mount camera (other L-mount glass will work on it) so the investment is less. They sell their name to be attached to lenses without doing much at all except making sure they don’t soil their good name with crappy performance.
I think if anything, Leica needs to lend something more to the L-mount besides their name if they want it to survive.
The relationship between Leica, Panasonic, and Sigma already existed before the alliance. I think many of the PL lenses were perhaps designs by either Leica or Sigma, manufactured by Sigma or Panasonic, and sold under the Panasonic Leica name for Panasonic cameras.
The companies have proven they can work together, I just think Leica could do a lot more to promote the mount.
 
This is the single biggest reason, by a long, long mile, that Panasonic doesn’t break into the professional market.
If the S5 had competent PDAF it would be hard to ignore for people waiting to see Sony’s A7IV hybrid and how things shake out with the R5/R6. It would at least be on peoples top 3 lists.
Even if you don’t use AF it has become a required feature in any camera. It’s like Bluetooth in cars now they just all have to have it and it has to work well.
I really do believe, if Sony doesn’t cock up the A7IV, that after that camera is released the market will shift in their favor for the years to come.
Many many people in the wedding and event shooting scenes are going to migrate to a A7SIII and A7IV. They have all the features people want and need right now and best in class performance. Sony has done an amazing job with their AF since the A7SII.

Panasonic were first to the mirrorless market but late to the full frame mirrorless market.
They need to take a long term view and hope that Canon RF / Sony E-mount lenses don't come to dominate.
The lenses are very important.
Panasonic have made great cameras, and in Micro Four Thirds had a great range of optics at all price levels.
With the S-series optics they are starting all over again, but E-mount is already very well established.
This is a problem.
Sigma are competition in their own backyard with more appealing lenses across the board at better prices.
With Leica and Sigma on board, L-mount has a enthusiast and professional niche of customers, who will be around long after the mainstream has moved on from cameras entirely and Canon has gone back to concentrating on medical and selling photocopiers.
But if Panasonic want to compete for Sony and Canon proportions of the market in terms of volume, I think they need to take the long term view... And get people on board with the L-mount system. Lacking phase-detect AF or good AF with EF lenses doesn't help.
Fundamentally I think Panasonic can only continue to move forward in cameras.
It is Nikon I am more worried about!

You are 75% wrong.
For years we are talking about the E.U "tax", everything here is a lot more expensive and include tax/VAT, while the U.S prices, maybe they do, maybe do not.
Most things are a lot more expensive in Europe, even European things, like Sennheiser mics, MKH50 par example, one of my favorite microphones ever, is around 1.200$ in U.S, and around 1550euros =1850$, and it is made in Germany.
Canon cameras for years are a lot more expensive in Europe, for many posts I was saying how expensive the C200 was, while relatively modest priced in U.S, in my E.U country was thousands of $ more.
You can order something from U.S, but you have to pay V.A.T/tax and customs. Maybe A7sIII is too new to send copies elsewhere, wait a month or so.
Some things are closer to what you are saying, I am just not sure, that is why I give you the 25%!

RF 15-35mm is quiet, fast, stabilized unicorn lens. All you really need for narrative film in most cases.
RF 50mm 1.2 is possibly the best image I have ever seen from a lens, better than any cinema lenses I have used. But it’s also the full frame and autofocus that probably play a major factor in that. But it is regular USM so it’s about as noisy as the regular EF lenses. 
If you don’t need on camera sound, and watch distortion, I’d go with the Drop in Variable ND with way cheaper EF lenses. I think the EF 24mm 1.4 is stellar. 

The GH6 will need to be an absolute monster now the A7SIII offers up to 4k120 10bit full frame with no cripple hammer, and ProRes RAW. 
I think they should use a Super35 sensor but with MFT mount with 6k60p 10bit, external RAW and internal ND filters for less than $2000. 
That would be very relevant and head turning enough. 
 

I have no problem if the GH6 is $2,000 as long as it has the features to justify the price tag. If Panasonic ignores/abandons their loyal M43 user base, particularly those of us in the enthusiast and professional community, I would also likely end up with Sony or Fuji, instead of their full frame offerings, out of principle alone. I couldn't justify supporting a company that abandoned me; I see people that stick by Canon no matter what and that will never be me. 

Yes, this is a big claim.
Allow me to explain how I came to this conclusion, and prove it to you.
First off, the evidence.  This is a video containing 5 compositions that were each shot with either 2K, 2K (and processed in post), or 4K.
It should be easy to tell the difference - so see if you can tell!
Not so obvious is it....
In the video I encourage you to download the video and pixel peep, please do.  
I have pixel peeped the shots directly on the timeline in Resolve, in the output file I uploaded and the YouTube file I downloaded.  It took me zooming in to 200% and finding the place in the video with the finest details, to be able to see the differences, and I know which is which!
Now, the details, to show that the test is valid.
I shot each scene with the GH5 and 42.5mm Voigtlander (stopped down several stops) in either:
4K 422 10-bit ALL-I 400Mbps mode 2K 422 10-bit ALL-I 200Mbps mode (with Resolves Super Scale) 2K 422 10-bit ALL-I 200Mbps mode (with no processing) I exported the timeline to an RGB Uncompressed 10-bit file (65GB - 6,500Mbps!!) and compressed that file using ffmpeg to a 4K 10-bit 422 IPB 225Mbps h265 file, which was then uploaded.  I tried uploading an 10-bit 422 ALL-I file but YT only interpreted that as 1080p.
YouTube then compressed that 225Mbps file to the pathetic 10.42Mbps file you see if you watch the above YT video in 4K.
As far as I can tell, there's nothing I could have done differently to get a higher quality result out of YouTube.
But what about other platforms or delivery methods?
This is just YT.  If you pay for Vimeo, or deliver via any other mechanism that has a higher bitrate than YT this thread should make you feel better about that!
But 4K is useful for things like cropping in post!
Yes, and this test doesn't apply to doing that.  I've tested how much you can upscale an image without it being visible in another thread / test (spoiler, it's something like 150%) but let's leave that aside for now.
But YouTube supports 6K and 8K and ......
Sure, and when people start watching YouTube with their 6K and 8K TVs then they'll start to benefit from that.  Until then, they're getting the 10Mbps file above.
Are you saying that a 4K camera is not required?
There are advantages to having a >1080p sensor.  Downscaled video is much nicer, and there are times when shooting in 4K or higher can have advantages.....
So, when IS it useful to shoot in >1080p?
Lots of times:
Cropping (significantly) in post Overcapture for things like stabilisation If your cameras 1080p isn't that great (which is most cameras TBH) etc. I have nothing against 4K or higher resolutions except that I think most people are making their life harder than it should be thinking that they're somehow getting better results when for many people it simply doesn't matter if they shoot in 4K or not.  This was me.  I fell for the hype, and have gradually been doing tests like this to actually see for myself what is true and what matters - rather than just believing the marketing hype from the camera industry.
Ultimately, the lesson here is that what matters is that you publish in 4K, not that you shoot in it.
Let the questions and comments (and flame wars from resolution fanboys and fangirls) begin...

Same here.  I have a Canon imagePROGRAF PRO-2000 printer, a 12 catridge (1,100 mL each) 24" wide printer and will absolutely be printing full 24" prints from my a7SIII as well as posting them.  I too had a D3 back in the wedding photography days and many times printed A3 and A2 size prints (I still have a nervous twitch from weddings, lol).  
Just to prove a point, I will be doing some 3 to 5 shot panorama's in portrait mode and guarantee you I will get beautiful 24" x 48" pano prints.  I have a small color lab, where I have 2 BenQ SW320's that I keep calibrated weekly (with XRite i1 Studio) and I use Color Byte's ImagePrint Blank RIP software to manage print jobs to the PRO-2000 and currently stock 10 different paper types that are all calibrated with my paper supplier and RIP software.  Even ImagePrint Black allows me to upscale. 
Most of the time I print 300dpi, but TBH the sweet spot is 240dpi, with little gained after that.  The most important thing is High Quality image with excellent colors, proper focus and exposure, and high dynamic range helps create realism in the prints.
I print out a lot of my photo's, making calendar's, selling prints for walls, etc.  And have a lot of experience printing 8 to 12 MP camera's.  Unless you are going 36" or greater, or need to crop in, 12MP is more than enough.  Most people don't even print out their work, and when they do, they do like 11x17 or A2, max.  There are a very few number that can actually justify it for printing at least.  So that leaves the other place they consume their work, which is online.  Like LightShooter said, most places don't take above 2,048 pixels (~2MP), so that's no argument.
One place that make a little sense is for cropping.  But again, majority of people who get prints done are usually professionals, who usually frame the shot properly and don't crop much.  Most cropping is just for fun.  The small amount that is actually done at a pro level is wildlife photography and maybe landscape photography and some astro.  Those fields are the most likely ones that can actually justify the extra MP.
I would rather have a 12MP image to print from an old D3 or the new A7SIII any day over a 104MP smart phone camera any day.  I am just making my point here, that MP size isn't everything.  Image Quality is.  And the way that 99% + of photo's are used today, a good quality 12MP image is more than is used AND you use less disk space, the images load faster, they process faster, etc..   I guess I don't get it either, lmao!!