Mervyn

Impressive, looks like in good light the autofocus can be quite useful. Any idea which lens they used? I did a video test on an X-T1 to see which lenses could potentially work for video. I concluded that I'd really need a stabilized lens for a usable handheld result. Either that or use a tripod. I don't care as much about stabilization for photography, but a stabilized version of the 16-55 f2.8 would be really great, perhaps almost essential, for handheld video.

It's a good thing when big companies like Canon become more open and honest to their customers for once. Really appreciate it.

Here's Why You Should Think Twice Before Buying That Fancy New Camera http://nofilmschool.com/2015/07/simone-cade-dslrguide-think-twice-before-buying-new-camera

Isn't the whole point of RAW to have flexibility and grade it like you want? To create your own look instead of a Canon or Nikon or Sony look? If you're talking about straight out of camera jpeg's; It's great when those are of good quality. Personally I only grade a fraction of all my pictures and leave most of the others as jpeg's. I do agree that some RAW files can be a lot harder to grade then others, especially when you're picky about good skin tones or subtleties in color and tonality.

For business do some research in what everyone else in your field is using and get that, if you can afford it. For personal use get any new toy that you fancy. Or not, and just stick with the camera you have and get creative.

Well written and critical review, thanks! I visited a Fuji day at my local camera store this summer and one of the people working there told us that they were afraid they would get a lot of returned 5DS's because most people wouldn't be able to shoot with it. It's a bit like a medium format camera in a full frame body. Thus it requires a medium format workflow, which is slower and requires more patience. Something that most unknowing consumers lack. I think I read on this forum that the 5DS is basically four of their older APS-C sensors stitched together. In that case it doesn't have the level of technology that the latest Sony sensors have. It just has smaller pixels. Which would theoretically mean it has more noise and is less sensitive to light. And dynamic range likely hasn't improved by much either. If it's true it sounds like a lame way to create a new camera. Sure, more megapixels can be nice, but in reality hardly anyone actually needs those. I see it more as a handicap then as a benefit. Also because I'm mostly interested in people, so not much need for more pixels. So instead of this I'd rather have the 5D III... which incidentally also has better video. If I were a landscape shooter (photography) I might give the 5DS a chance. It likely has better color then a Sony or even Nikon.

You're absolutely right, Nikon and Blackmagic too. Nikon supposedly is a tad cooler and Canon a bit warmer but that's easy to adjust in post. I looked at some comparison photo's of Nikon and Canon colors and I didn't see that much of a difference. I always liked Nikon camera's better then Canon camera's, but that's just because my very first camera was a Nikon. I owned both the Panasonic GH3 and GH4. I wasn't very impressed with the color of the GH3, but they definitely made great improvements with the GH4. Did you read Andrews comparison of his 1D C and the Samsung? I'd prefer the subtleties of the Canon instead of the more saturated (and green) look of the Samsung. I don't own either though, so I wouldn't know how bad the difference really is.

If he compares it with his 1D C I think I already know which camera is gonna win... Out of the box I'd say Canon wins big time on color. But with a skillful grade things might actually get interesting! I was disappointed with Sony's colors in the past (A56). But indeed S Log 2 looks like it will be making a big difference.

To be fair to Canon; The one thing they excel at is their color science, and their ergonomics aren't bad. But Canon is not the only one with great color. Think Fuji or Olympus. Too bad they don't have good video. What I dislike most about Canon is their attitude.

The one thing Canon excels at is their color science. I don't have hands on experience with the A6000 but I'd expect you'd have to put some effort in color correction. I used to own a A56. The photo's I made with it had nice colors but when I switched to video all the colors turned into mud. I had to do large corrections in post with heavy banding as a result. But from what I've read things have improved greatly since then. i've read some juicy rumors about the A7000. Think A6000 but with internal 4K and the latest sensor tech. But it will take about six months before it's released and according to the rumors it will be significantly more expensive. Even though I was disappointed with Sony back then, right now I find them one of the most interesting camera manufacturers to follow.

As far als I'm concerned the 5DS is shit. I'd rather own a 2nd-hand 5D3 if I'd insist on using a Canon. I tried to explain to a friend why I think Canon is bad, but he didn't really get it. Most average consumer stores are still mostly filled with Canon and Nikon stuff around here.

Hey Andrew, Looking forward to your review! If I'd have the cash for the A7R II, I'd want one as it sure looks like a very exciting camera. And after reading some juicy rumors I'm starting to get very excited about the A7000 as well. It looks like the more affordable option for me, with the same kind of sensor tech. Might take another 6 months or so though. Personally I'm still not all that excited about Sony's new 1" sensor camera's. I totally get now that it's actually possible to get shallow DoF with the RX10 II. Thanks for all the examples! But like Ebrahim explained in the first look thread about the RX10 II, I'd want to use a larger sensor camera as well, specifically for the shallow DoF shots. Why go out of your way to get shallow DoF out of a 1" camera when there are larger sensor camera's for that, which are more practical for this purpose and do a better job at it? Unless you'd want to make a point, like shooting your whole film with an iPhone. Or if you can only afford one camera, like me actually. Also I'd love to know how good these new small sensors are in low light. I know, the new tech is amazing, but are they still sharp and without too much noise? I tried M4/3, but ultimately I was disappointed. Sure I was able to get some shallow DoF with it, and in good light it was great. But in low light the image just broke down. I know, I should have used lights, right? But when filming a bunch of highly sensitive kids doing meditation and yoga in a dimly lit room, putting a bright light in their face just didn't seem like the right thing to do. And the daylight that was trickling in through the small window looked amazing! And... and... Fuck it, I don't need another camera, I'll just get another lamp. Seriously though, it's exciting new tech. Keep up with the critical reviews! I don't post much myself, but I've enjoyed reading your reviews for quite a while now.

Thanks for sharing! It's interesting to see what shallow depth of field looks like with this camera. It's better then I imagined it would be. Though from the looks of it, it only works in situations where you've got the subject close to the lens. And in the example the bokeh seems a bit busy with the blueish outlines. Though technically a great camera, I'm still not convinced about the shallow DoF. At least when compared to a larger sensor.

Just keep the nice box and throw away the crappy overpriced camera. Seriously though, what happened to the Kendy challenge?

Technically this looks like a fantastic camera. Creatively what seems lacking is the small sensor size. All wide and normal shots will have a large depth of field. Giving a sports / news-like videolook instead of a cinematic look. Apart from the useful slow-mo, this would be a reason for me to skip this camera.