Shirozina

I found reading the manual to be very helpful - all sorts of useful information in there.......

I found reading the manual to be very helpful - all sorts of useful information in there.......

Why so angry about camera you don't own and don't intend to own ?

Game over BM.......
Apart from the fact the P4k comes in at less than 1/2 the price of the Nikon / atomos.

Just a few tips - the P4k fits best on the Ronin -S without a cage and no way will the tilta's side mounted battery work unless you reverse the rig . On any gimbal the more weight and bulk you can take off the camera or keep at the center of the mass the better. Sony NP-F battery sled + dummy battery can be mounted on the Ronin grip. The P4k and Ronin-S is a great combo as the 5" screen means you don't need an ext monitor. Like I said earlier a P4k + Ronin-S still comes in cheaper than a GH5s......
 

I find the cooling system there much well designed. Sony would have something to learn with them ; )
Don't compare 4" with 5" camera screens, they are a hell of a difference! : -)

I'd have to disagree  
Construction is fine for a camera at this price level. 
Absolutely love the control layout which is simply the best and most intuitive I have ever used.
Form factor is great and fits on my Ronin-s without a problem and quite how you would fit a 5" screen into an XC10 style body is beyond me - really? As others have said it's form factor is decided by one of it's greatest features which is  5" screen
I can see the voltage fine in my batteries both internal and external.
Yes it needs batteries and a lot of batteries if you are going to drive a bright 5" screen. What do you suggest as an alternative - bigger batteries so you get an even bigger camera or a smaller screen?
A hinged screen would I agree be nice but at what cost in size and price? Until someone does a teardown and we can see the cooling system which may well be for the screen this may be an impossibility without a significant cost and size increase.

Everyone needs to do this.
Though, the gamma problem with video levels needs to fixed in Atomos.
 

Why so angry about camera you don't own and don't intend to own ?

I have used this camera, and I believe it to be a tremendous value! Maybe the most out of a camera, ever.
Consider it as a 5" raw recorder with a free camera on top!
It is truly outstanding, however you see it.
I do not like the form factor either though, a Canon XC has a brilliant design.

I agree I must have been doing something wrong looking at some of the samples here and from my archive. 

I had a GH3 and got rid of it pretty quickly. It was nice to use but the HD quality was pretty mediocre and resolution wise not true HD and looked more like 720p upscaled to HD. 4k-HD is  the way to go and most good NLE's will allow you to work in an HD timeline with 4k material so you have no need to do any manual downscaling. 

The colour and grade on that video looks terrible but maybe that's the 'organic/filmic' look that people want?
I've got the original BMPCC and I liked it a lot but the P4k is better in every way apart from size. The codec ( esp RAW) is so malleable that you can get any look out of it you want as long as you have the grading skills. If these are just limited to slapping on a 'film LUT' then I can see why it may be a disappointment to some people. 

The colour and grade on that video looks terrible but maybe that's the 'organic/filmic' look that people want?
I've got the original BMPCC and I liked it a lot but the P4k is better in every way apart from size. The codec ( esp RAW) is so malleable that you can get any look out of it you want as long as you have the grading skills. If these are just limited to slapping on a 'film LUT' then I can see why it may be a disappointment to some people. 

I mean its not like the downscaling will give more work. It will only offer you better flexibility and image quality. Also just something to think about, a hybrid camera that shoots 4K will have a higher resale value going to into the future. 

If you need to trancode for the reasons you explained I can understand this as a reasonable solution. I tried it a while back and found  an obvious increase in things like banding in smooth tones like skies unless I used one of the highest quality settings with 4.4.4 chroma subsampling but the file sizes got incredibly large. ProRes is after all a lossy compressed codec. Depending on your type of subject matter and how much you need to grade this may or may not be important.

Why are you transcoding? You will loose image quality for a start and Resolve has various methods like Proxies, Optimised media and render cache to enable you to work with easier codecs in the timeline and then render the final result from the original source footage so you don't loose quality.

Why are you transcoding? You will loose image quality for a start and Resolve has various methods like Proxies, Optimised media and render cache to enable you to work with easier codecs in the timeline and then render the final result from the original source footage so you don't loose quality.

Why are you transcoding? You will loose image quality for a start and Resolve has various methods like Proxies, Optimised media and render cache to enable you to work with easier codecs in the timeline and then render the final result from the original source footage so you don't loose quality.

On the basis of reading any amazon review you wouldn't buy anything......
No thin laptop is a good idea for tasks that require prolonged high intensity CPU and GPU use.
 

Only if you're shooting raw. I've been filming exclusively in Prores and editing on a 2015 Macbook Pro and it's 10 times faster than trying to edit h264 footage from a consumer GX80. 

Then you need to learn about  the nyquist theorem and the difference between pixels count and resolution.....otherwise people will be laughing at you;)

Then you need to learn about  the nyquist theorem and the difference between pixels count and resolution.....otherwise people will be laughing at you;)

If you are not shooting LOG or HLG or don't want to grade there is little point in 10bit and 8bit is plenty 
My own tests of 150mbps vs 400mbps show the only advantage ( I only shoot LOG or HLG) is during the grading where the 400mbps codec is easier on the hardware. Visually I can't tell the difference and also can't 'break' the footage when applying even hefty tonal changes in terms of revealing artefacts. One reason you may want an ext recorder is that of you are recording a lot of footage it may be cheaper than V60/90 cards. 
I can see 10bit vs 8bit differences when I grade as its visible in the scopes.
You have not understood the bit depth data that DXO state - more research needed
 

Yes that's true (The HDMI out on my Sony A7s and A7r2  is very robust ) but it still doesn't change the fact that you don't need a 10 bit screen to benefit from a 10bit codec. I have argued many times previously that 10bit is not a cure-all. The advantage in video of 10bit is that in a YCBCR codec most of the data is stored in the Luma channel so higher rates of compression can be applied without running into some of the more obvious tonal artefacts. This I assume is why the 'theoreticaly inferior' 150mbps 10 bit codec can comfortably be used to shoot V-LOG, be subject to lots of tonal correction and still come out looking very good where as most internal 8 bit codecs fall apart.
At the end of the day most users are not choosing their  codecs after doing theoretical data analysis exercises as it's not hard to see the artefacts of a poor codec once you start grading esp if you shoot LOG profiles.