noone

What prompted Canon to do a completely revelatory camera, in terms of the technology and completely u-turn on their previous strategy of holding back on DSLR video.
Was it seeing so many sales go to Sony?
Was it the need to ensure a new mirrorless lens mount succeeds on the market vs Nikon, Fuji, Panasonic & Sony?
Were they waiting for new manufacturing capabilities to be ready, new factories, to be able to produce such fast sensors and processors?
Did they realise cropped 4K on the EOS R was a bad business strategy?
I'd love to be a fly on the wall at Canon.

The new C300 looks like it will make a very nice accessory add on for buyers of the new 25-250 T2.95 lens they are releasing as well.

I won't be buying it.
Of the two, the EOS R6 is more up my street. Much more practical. Who needs 8K anyway?
Just give me an 1D X Mark III / 1D C in mirrorless form.

I hope 8K RAW will have a burst mode for 4 seconds. Why? Stills. Will be great to select the best shot from 120 frames
I can't see myself using it for video as much as 4K RAW on the EOS R6, or the sure to be lovely 10bit Canon LOG. Much more practical.
By the way Panasonic has something coming which will impress a lot of you. Stay tuned for a few more days.

It's kinda wild how quick people are to trust Canon won't disappoint them, given it feels like only 6 months ago they were getting blasted for removing 24p.

The new C300 looks like it will make a very nice accessory add on for buyers of the new 25-250 T2.95 lens they are releasing as well.

It just dawned on me that NOTHING I own in photo/video currently is newer than about six years old!   (My current A7s was brand new a few months ago but would have still been made years ago) so would not get all that much for any of it.
 

The C500 simply has things the S1H and fuji don't. Same can be said for the Fuji and S1H in comparison to the C500 but its different tools for different jobs. 

None of you can appreciate this kind of dynamic range on a normal display. It is going to look horrible.
HDR1000 minimum requirement.
And I would not but much stock in Cinema5D's testing methodology for dynamic range.
The whole dynamic range technique is total bullshit in the real world... underexposing by 5 stops rather than lighting properly or appreciating good natural light. Nobody actually shoots a film this way. You would have a completely unusably dark frame on the monitor.
The Canon sensor isn't anything special. Really it isn't. The rolling shutter in 6K is about the same as an old GH4. The resolution is lower than 8K or what RED offers. The sensor size is smaller than the current state of the art larger format cameras like the 4K 10bit GFX 100. The dynamic range is no better than the sensor in a $2000 mirrorless camera. The S1H is $12,000 cheaper and good enough for a top-end Netflix show, in terms of the image. The Fuji GFX 100 has still a very powerful processor and 10bit codec in a much smaller body with great battery life. So forgive me if I don't jump up and down in excitement and rush out to spend $16k on the C500 II for creative reasons.

If you're shooting a wedding / musical performance / corporate event, it is nice to put down a couple of mirrorless cameras (such as any Panasonic GHx) as locked off mid or wide shots. So long as their battery & SD cards lasts, and it doesn't overheat, then that is perfect for extra coverage! And having it being a more expensive camcorder is just a waste. 

And for interviews, if you're just one or two person crew then it is quite a distraction from the subject at hand to need to constantly check if you're about to hit the limit. Additionally, even if you're say a four person crew, who on earth wants to interrupt an interview to re-start the roll right at a crucial moment?

Weirdly the built in ND on the X100V cannot be enabled during video mode. 4K, but no ND.
Getting the basic rights not a strength of the camera companies.

I remember reading somewhere that Sony has a patent for in-body electronic variable ND and that's why it's almost inexistent in any other camera apart from Sony FS line. 
That may explain why Panavision came up with this solution: 
https://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/32429-panavision-announce-new-electronic-nd-filter-powered-by-built-in-battery/

I don't understand why internal ND filters are not included in more cameras INCLUDING hybrid/stills cameras.
Having a built in ND filter that can be switched on and off at the flick of a switch is one thing i love about my ancient Canon G10 camera with a P&S sensor.     I wish it had better video but is from a time when that was just an add on.     

Be careful with attaching lenses.  Every one I have seen reviews of is a disaster optically, corners smeared, CA in spades, etc.  Even the most expensive ones.
The expensive ones are at bad-vintage lens quality, and the cheap ones are at "I made this lens with magnifying glasses and tape" quality.  
Think of them as instant very-vintage, which is fine if you lust after IQ that rivals a Petzval, but night-and-day to any real lenses.

Everybody think Nikon started the DSLR video revolution with the D90 in 2009 but actually it started in 1988 for Nikon
With a stills-video camera that you put floppy disks in the back of...
https://www.digitalkameramuseum.de/en/esvc/item/nikon-qv-1000c-1988
They also had a very snazzy 10-40mm F1.4 zoom lens for it.
$15k for the black and white (monochrome sensor) version.


Before that there was the infamous Nikon Color Video Camera fuck-up.
https://imaging.nikon.com/history/chronicle/cousins20-e/index.htm

In the early 2000's they got to the twisty grip XC-10 point, ergonomically, long before Canon!

No 10bit 4K though.
If pro cine cameras are still going to be a no-go for Fuji, then they should at least do this with the X-H2...
- Internal electronically variable ND like FS5
- Same small body design but larger and clearer display to focus off
- Detachable EVF like GFX 100
- Wider than APS-C sensor (multi-aspect)
- 4K 120fps
Or failing that just the ND and larger screen with X-T3 sensor, thanks.

One little sliver for me during this crap is that some buildings I go past on my daily walks usually have a heap of cars blocking the view but right now I get a clear view.

One little sliver for me during this crap is that some buildings I go past on my daily walks usually have a heap of cars blocking the view but right now I get a clear view.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXRCi6zxBFE
I had one hour to shoot a quick music video, the A6300 did the trick. Let me know what you think 
 
 

Check Facebook Marketplace as well, took me only two seconds to find a C100 for $1K and a C300mk1 for $2.2K in Sydney. 

Here is a Nikkor AF 28-85mm f/3.5-4.5 SLR zoom lens mounted on my X-T3,
with the basic Fotodiox adapter for Nikon F.
The lens focus is parfocal from 28mm to 85mm, with a smooth zoom ring, great for video zooms:

 
So I was surprised to find weeks later that it suddenly was not
holding its focus, it was focusing farther at wide angle (??)
At 85mm, focused manually (a screen grab cropped into the video):

 
Then zoomed out to 28mm, the focus shifted behind the subject:

 
Eventually I realized that I was using a different Fotodiox Nikon F adapter this time,
and the only difference was an aperture control ring built in for G lenses:

 
I compared the thickness of the two adapters with a small C clamp.
The G adapter was a hair shorter than the basic adapter,
and the G adapter had the lens focus going too far past infinity.
So I decided to extend the G adapter’s length a slight bit.
I removed the back of the adapter by removing four screws,
and I added a thin layer of tape to extend the adapter’s overall length:

Finding the right thickness of tape was trial and error.
Thin cardboard, too thick. Duct tape, too thick. Black masking tape worked.
Now after zooming out it is back in focus:

 
So a mounting error of the thickness of masking tape threw off the zoom’s parfocality!
How thick was this tape? I have an old caliper from my grandfather, and it measures
in 1/1,000 inch increments. (But not wide enough to measure the Nikon adapters):

The masking tape is seven thousandths of an inch thick. That's about a sixth of a millimeter.
The moral of the story: if your vintage zoom lens adapted to your mirrorless camera
appears not parfocal for video, try another brand of adapter, especially if it has infinity focus
adjustments. Apparently all it takes is a few thousandths of an inch to throw it off.
 

Thanks for your opinion.
So just to be clear...
No more 5-6 videos per post. Just select 1, a good one. Or better yet, get your camera out and help others to figure out that particular model and what works well with it in terms of lenses, workflows, etc.

Indeed.    It was a lot of fun to use but not something I would use in low light very much (though with the right lens, more than any P&S camera with the same size sensor)....but that ALSO applies to M43 for me and it really is chalk and cheese since getting an A7s.     My last M43 camera was a GX7 and I loved it (a wonderful day time street camera and it did ok in low light...better than the first APSC DSLRS i used and better than the 35mm film cameras I used) and if i never got a A7s I may have been happy enough though still looking for more....with the A7s I am not looking for more even if "more" comes along.      Being able to stick ANY lens on the camera and walk around in any light (you have to have SOME light no matter how dim) is what i have always been looking for.     Funny thing is the GX7 could auto focus at EV -4 but that is not a light level i would ever want to USE it at unless on a tripod at or near base ISO).     A7s is horrible for tracking or even AFC other than slow moving things that do not move far but it also has EV -4 AF and workd even beyond that for AFS (DPreview said EV -5) and it really works that low.....I would endlessly turn the lights off and put them both up against each other experimenting (playing more like it) with how low i could go.
 

The Pentax Q has a pretty gnarly crop-factor..  and probably needs all the help it can get with fast lenses for low light exposure!

I guess I should have clarified that an MFT + fast lens setup is cheaper than a FF + prime setup.  It's the FF mania that makes that platform more expensive overall.
Once again, there are many many variables, and we are not considering them, but on the whole those other variables total up to be much more significant in the choice of platform than just low light, with the exception of extreme low-light where you need the FF option.
We can disappear down the rabbit hole of FF vs MFT, but we've all been there and done that.  Instead, my point was that MFT can be a good option with its own advantages which FF has not yet matched/surpassed for all users with all sets of requirements.

One thing that is interesting is that they didn't cover the effects of sensor size on DoF vs exposure value.  For example my Voigtlander f0.95 MFT lenses are faster than something like a f1.2 FF lens, and they are if we're talking exposure value where they're brighter, but they're not if we're talking about shallow DoF where they have the same DoF as a FF F2 lens.
This gives a very interesting advantage for my GH5 which is that I can shoot in low light conditions where an F1 exposure value is required (especially considering the GH5 isn't dual-ISO and not that great in low-light) but I only have to focus with a DoF equivalent to an F2 lens, which is far more manageable in practical terms.  
The video spends time talking about the limitations of how to work with such a shallow DoF and most of the time it's a liability in terms of limiting actors movements, having to film things backwards in order to nail focus, etc.  Yes, the OOF areas give it a surreal and very interesting aesthetic, but in the context of getting usable exposure in a low-light scenario a smaller sensor is better.  Also, the price of the f0.95 MFT lenses is a fraction of the price of F1 or faster FF lenses, they're smaller, lighter, etc etc.
If you wanted to do extreme low-light shooting today I think that you have to go the Sony FF + prime lens route and use the high ISO performance of the camera, but if you only need low-light and not extreme low-light then a modern MFT camera with a F0.95 lens can also be a practical choice.  My GH5 + f0.95 lens combination can see better in low-light than I can, and I have much better night vision than most other people.