norliss

Australia is a continent, with huge natural resources, thousands of miles from anywhere else. Canada is half a continent, next door to the biggest market in the world, and if you think that neighbour exerts no influence on Canadian policy-making, you haven't been taking notice. New Zealand is the most remote developed country in the world and the USA is the world's richest economy.
The UK is a small-middling tiny island, riven by some of the worst (entirely home-grown) inequality in the developed world, on the shores of the world's second richest economy, which also happens to be an existentially-important market for our exports. 80% of those exports are services, the continuation of which will rely on us satisfying EU standards across almost the entirety of our own economy.
Up until January 1st 2020 we had one of the most important says in the formulation of EU policy and regulation. We now have none. No say at all. When the EU brings in new regulations or laws that impact the sectors in which we rely on our exports to them - most sectors, that is, we will have to adhere to them or face sectoral disasters, complete with job losses and bankruptcies. Took back control there, dincha?
I'm dipping out of this thread now, as we're only re-prosecuting the same old arguments. You Brexiters don't have and never have had a single cogent argument in favour of leaving the EU, save for nonsense about sovereignty and patriotism. Your victory was built on lies and ignorance, fuelled by racism and will benefit nobody except the already-wealthy. Your arguments are glib, ill-thought-out, facile and mostly easy to debunk or disprove. Your yearning for simplicity, in a complex world, is bringing us close to ruin and you'll be remembered, every one of you, as fools led by charlatans and rightly damned across decades to come.

That's the thing that would be hilarious if it wasn't so tragic. The anti-elitists' answer to their woes was to elect a 'billionaire' to the US Presidency (who filled his cabinet with other billionaires, who promptly gave themselves a massive tax cut at the expense of programmes designed to help those at the bottom and in the middle), while in the UK they elected the most old-Etonian-heavy cabinet in living memory (while also ditching our most important and valuable international alliance at the behest of a bunch of public schoolboys).
Yet apparently it's bad form to characterise Leavers and Tory voters as numbskulls and racists.

One of Brexit's results will almost certainly be Scottish independence (and who can blame them? They were told in 2014 that voting to stay in the UK would protect their EU rights and Single Market membership - both of which have now been removed from them despite their having decisively voted to remain in the EU). The loss of those Scottish seats, combined with our antiquated first-past-the-post electoral system will make it a lot easier for the Conservatives to remain in power for as long as they keep the South East happy. The north, the midlands - well, it's not as if they're not used to being ignored by central government, is it? At least in the EU those regions had access to billions in regeneration funds - you may well say that those funds were the UK's contributions, re-routed by the EU - but just watch to see how much of that cash gets 're-routed' by the Tories.
The fact is that all those who voted to 'take back control' are in for a surprise - the control won't be taken back by them, it's being taken back by those who hated the fact that there was a higher level of regulation that meant they couldn't get a worker's right removed here and an environmental regulation there removed by having a quiet word with a chum in a private club. They'll no longer have any barrier to whatever they wish to do in order to further enrich themselves. The mostly non-working people (look it up - one of the highest correlations with a Leave vote was economic inactivity) who voted to leave have bequeathed those of us who still have to work with a couple of decades of declining rights, incomes and environmental protection, while handing the Rees-Moggs of this world yet another mouthful of gold.
At the end of the day, you didn't need to know much about the EU to figure out that Brexit would screw everyone but the rich - you only had to look at the collection of crooks, spivs, chancers and nutjobs who were front-and-centre of the Leave campaign. But sure - it's going to herald a new age of localised democracy and levelling up - Michael and Boris said so, so it must be true.

Given the recent article by @Andrew Reid I just spotted this vid and thought it may be of interest here:
 

Given the recent article by @Andrew Reid I just spotted this vid and thought it may be of interest here:
 

Given the recent article by @Andrew Reid I just spotted this vid and thought it may be of interest here:
 

First vid on the forthcoming F6 from the ever-reliable Curtis Judd:
 

Not camera-related but I'm predicting (hoping) that Zoom unveil either an F4n or perhaps another model in-between the F4 & F8n....

I think you may be in luck with that one

More information here
https://www.miroc.co.jp/report/prolightsound2019-zoom/

ah those well known matching colour profiles - PP1, Eterna and Neutral!

Ah yes thanks for spotting that. Should say:
"Until now my two favourite cameras for shooting 4K video with manual focus lenses have been the Leica SL and Sony A7 III."

At first glance this looks like a good idea, even a necessity in a certain sense. But let me play devil's advocate for a moment.
The problem is with (a) availability of  S35 sensors with the same properties as the one in the BMCC4K and (b) the lens mount. 
If they somehow manage to overcome the first problem, the one with the mount remains. Having an EF or PL mount defeats the purpose of such a camera; a BMPCC4K with a speedbooster will be its equal or better. They could go for a m43 mount (it can cover a S35 sensor for video) and also perhaps offer their own SB versions, with embedded ND, but I don't consider it probable. 
I still find the idea of such a camera highly interesting, especially considering the larger physical format could enable updated battery power, cooling, different storage media or even a clever modular design. 

I think there's room above the Pocket 4K for the same image quality in a better built body with more features. Seems like a no brainer to me. People love the image and the back-end monitoring on the Pocket but it's never going to have the depth of features of a GH5 for the price it is - they would have to up the price to make it more ambitious. Around $2500 would bring us all sorts of goodies. I also wish the form factor would be more along the lines of a GH5 as well with an EVF.

Firstly: apologies if this has been discussed here before (if so I've never read anything) but a thought just occurred to me....
At the moment Blackmagic has the Pocket Cinema Camera 4k at £1055 +VAT and the URSA Mini Pro at £4845+VAT with nothing in-between. What are the odds of them coming up with something in-between i.e. something a bit bigger than the Pocket with an APS-C/Super35 sensor but about £2500-£3000? Surely there are loads of people that want something a bit more than the pocket (ie a bigger sensor) and able to spend more but unable/unwilling to go for the URSA Mini: it would be a winner, no?

It's been noticed in the back-end of the site that some new users are joining in order to future the agendas of PR and marketing at some companies.
It's a tricky area for me to deal with, but I'll get some advice on how to better detect it and prevent it from happening in the future.
Whilst I know it is happening, the evidence as to what exact company is responsible for which posts isn't solid enough yet to go naming them.
But rest assured if I do find out, they will be named and shamed on the front page of EOSHD.

I'm making an assumption here... given that you are in this forum and not some other forum, you are more inclined towards video.
And, given that you are not invested in any ecosystem, I recommend that you stay that way... if you are going to invest in lenses look at PL lenses. May be get 1 kit lens with whatever camera you want... this is the advice I give anyone, this way you are not disappointed with a particular brand/system for not bringing out the latest/finest. 
My current recommendation is get the X-T3.
If you want to wait for the Panasonic FF or A7S3... then wait... but you could be waiting and waiting and waiting for something better to come along all the time... if you need something now... well look at the options you have now.
 

I'd never heard of this bloke until this recent controversy and have no intention of looking at any of his content, neither.

Don't you mean "Egypt" what with you being a Pharoah n' all....

I seem to remember a lot of chat about these Kinefinity cameras: many interested alas many people a little hesitant to go for what seems such an unknown quantity (compared with all the usual suspects of manufacturers) so I salute you for taking the plunge 

I think it's the things that are happening behind the scenes that you should be worried about....

When I worked for them I had my suspicions they would try and suppress the strident tone of my reviews when it came to Canon's shortcomings in video.
Now it's plain for all to see what is going on there -
https://***URL removed***/articles/9717214609/filmmaker-scott-dw-trades-his-pro-video-gear-for-canon-eos-80d-watch-the-results
I will be sure to get my fix of Canon PR marketing there from now on and of Ebrahim's latest forum frauds.

I don't understand the video and don't understand why it is being given as a good example of cinema.
This is mainly a cinematography forum, about cameras and shooting images.
It isn't a content lab.
OK you get 5,674,515 people to endorse your message, you move some of them, you get 48,000 likes and 179,000 re-tweets. I am sure the content must have some merit. But I am equally sure that it won't be remembered in 30 years like the work of great cinematographers is.
There is poetry not just in faces, words, music, dialogue, messages, content, stories...
Images are poetry.
If you cannot grasp this point and think that images are meaningless without shoving some kid's story in front of the camera, then reconsider and go and see Koyannisquatsi immediately. Cinematography in the purist sense IS content and HAS a message. Incredible camera work, beautiful rendering, the lenses used - the medium is the message.
Cinematography can also elevate almost ANY kind of content so that it has more impact and is more memorable.
I am SICK TO DEATH of people saying that boringly shot content is all we should aspire to because hey... it works... of course it does... but it doesn't mean to say a cinematographer should stop speaking the language of cinema and go and become a writer or a one-man filmmaker instead.

Excellent article, Andrew and I find myself agreeing with you rather than Tony Northrup. Then again, I'm not sure how much Tony Northrup really agrees with Tony Northrup: his video smacks of being one to pull in an audience with a headline-grabbing title...
Sure, I'm all for improving usability wherever possible but proper photography and "hey, look at my friends having lolz tonite" pictures on social media are two different things. There really is no point trying to make cameras operate exactly like mobile phones because for the vast majority of people, it wouldn't make any difference: they'd always opt for the phone and the phone-alone because it's 'good enough' and the extra performance of the dedicated camera just doesn't warrant the cost/size etc.
Ultimately, if people are genuinely interested in photography they'll move up to a 'proper camera' and learn to use it. I don't subscribe to this dumb-down/ race-to-the-bottom mindset that says we should gear everything toward the people that have grown up in the smartphone/iPad era.

Northrup's point is the tortoise-like advance of dedicated cameras have been bypassed by smartphones, leaving cameras that feel clunky and archaic, esp from a consumer UI and ease-of-use standpoint.
However he did NOT address that this was likely an unavoidable development, rather he implied it was poor decision making by the camera manufacturers. 
Apple is on track to spend $10 billion per year on R&D -- Nikon spends $550 million. Apple spends more on R&D than every camera company on earth combined (unless if you consider Samsung a camera company, who spends even more than Apple -- $14 billion). For many people the cost of their smart phone is subsidized by the cellular carrier. This produces a mobile device that is unusually powerful, very refined and artificially cheap relative to a consumer camera.
It is not just limited to cameras. I have the highest-end automotive Garmin GPS. It is OK but the UI is nowhere near as responsive as a 2016-model smartphone. Garmin's annual revenue is 1/100th that of Apple or Samsung -- they can't spend the R&D of those companies, and there's no cellular carrier to subsidize their product.
Of all the companies making cameras, Samsung might have the highest annual revenues. It's further interesting that the NX1 was probably closer to Northrup's ideal camera than most others.
My point is there is a lot more to implementing Northrup's vision than the *idea*. Implementing that at a polished level and a consumer-affordable price requires an *immense* and ongoing R&D investment. Admittedly there are also the corporate cultural issues of a camera/instrument hardware manufacturer in a software, UI-centric world, but I question whether Canon and Nikon could have delivered Northrup's ideal consumer camera in a timeframe to make any difference -- even *IF* they had the vision.
Like you, I am not sure if it would have made much difference anyway. This is a tidal wave of change sweeping across the photographic landscape. The idea that consumer cameras could somehow "carve out" a protected little enclave by adopting a  few more consumer-friendly features is questionable.

Thanks Andrew, this is a good article. 
I think consumers will be perfectly happy with their smartphones. They will get better, and consumers will have no need for another camera - it's not perfect, gorgeous, well composed shots they are bothered about. 
This reflects through platforms Instagram and what content is popular.  Long gone are the days when Instagram was a creative photo sharing network..... you get FAR more likes on Instagram for a noisy, badly lit selfie of yourself eating a takeaway pizza, rather than a magnificent, beautifully lit, well composed shot you'll never match again. 
Again, because of the consumer onslaught of constant videos and photos being uploaded and shared online, there's some great stuff out there which isn't getting a look in. Actually getting anyone to give a crap about your latest masterpiece is much harder. A video of a drunk fat man dancing is widely far more interesting. 
Coming to cameras - we are that the point where they actually matter less. Models are getting replaced within months, users are on and endless buy-sell cycle to have the latest, and many people are not really learning their craft properly because they can't keep hold a camera for long enough. Lenses, lighting and camera movement have a FAR FAR greater impact then your camera. There's really no point in constantly changing, swapping , upgrading. It's a waste of time. 
Recently, I got an FS5 and soon an external recorder. I can grade the Slog footage well. I have everything I need - LOG, HFR, ergonomics, audio, blah blah. Man I can now do 200fps RAW!! But since having the camera, my videos haven't improved at all. I have more bells and whistles.. but it all comes back to what the hell I am actually filming with it. 
Sometimes, something does arrive which will dramatically improve your work, or will heighten creativity or make your life easier. However this camera race is far too distracting for many of us, and for a large bunch I think some people have took the eye off the ball as to why they are using cameras in the first place. 
I'm sticking to what I've got, and will be spending time on throughly improving my skill set, rather than my camera arsenal.