Jn-

The most seductive and largely useless information about equipment (or perhaps anything that gets touted) is the hyped up apparently 'good' stuff that makes us want to buy, buy buy. But the most meaningful and useful to the end user is more likely to be the realistic appraisal of limitations and failings.
Few want to hear about the bad stuff (advertisers, readers etc) and so advertisers and sites looking to get people excited and spending money (including via affiliate links) are more likely to include hyperactive fluff.
But it's probably the well considered 'bad' stuff that is most relevant to prospective buyers. A careful appraisal of limitations might make you decide to keep your own gear, or pick another product, the limitations of which are more acceptable.
Advertising will corrupt the ability to deliver that careful appraisal, because it runs counter to the preferred narrative of the advertisers and changes the business model to one which is dependent on receiving the revenue of vested interests. Their interests become your interests. There is no skirting this impact, even at a subtle level.
Over time, it is the continued delivery of good quality information that is actually helpful to the prospective purchaser that will engender trust. It is that trust which will become the distinguishing feature and which will become the foundation of a possible business model. Hence, it must be fiercely defended and clearly articulated. Advertising will necessarily corrode that trust, thereby undermining the whole foundation upon which this particular enterprise is built.
It isn't all about ideology. Trust is hard won, but essential for any business. Pretty much all corporations and businesses rely on developing trust with their consumers. However much of that trust is not well deserved, and a lot of businesses go to great extremes to obfuscate and hide how their apparently trustworthy viewpoints are in fact sullied by vested interests. Their great saviour is a sufficient lack of scepticism and attention to detail by the receiving public, and frequently a public who would prefer to get excited or angry rather than to expend the time and energy to think things through.

I'm a general freelancer so in theory, I'm *supposed* to be doing all kinds of video work, but lately it's been practically full time weddings from June to Oct, just cause there's no damn time to do anything else once they pile up. I think it's ok if you can command the higher price points, but I definitely fucked up working for the rates I am. 

Alternatively, wait until they are a few pints to the wind. Go candid the rest of the time.

good advice.. i agree an assistant is a blessing, i hate doing these gigs solo.. weddings are gruesome. most important is to be quick on your feet. bodies aren't really that important, i've shot with all kinds (D750, A7S2, 5D3, C100..) but your lens selection, gimbal/monopod setup, audio etc.. is as if not more critical even then body choice..

I dunno, if anything, I feel like they should get it. It's a chaotic shoot where getting the moment trumps all. Not to mention alot of it is done in horrific mixed lighting/backlit conditions that look like crap on any camera. Even the people that do high end wedding work have tons of footage that looks pretty junky compared to controlled shoots. Only so much you can do, given the conditions. 

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.

Is it better the A7SII or the 1Dx II? It depends and some will find one better than the other but commenting on something that you don’t know and never used is not a good idea. Andrew was very against the 1DxII and now has one and he likes it, Philip Bloom was also skeptic and now has one and he really like it and so on…
Currently the 1dx II is the only DSLR/Mirrorless class camera to do 4k 60p 4:2:2 and with an extremely good video AF. It may or may not matter for you but for someone like me it is a life saver. Will the next Sony have the same or better spec probably yes but is not there yet.
Now to some nonsense that you have written:
Like the needs of a 5000 usd PC to edit 4k MJPEG files or “shit” as you call it.... does it comes from your experience of every day working with this files right? Because I do it almost every day and I can tell you that 4k 30p is doable in realtime in Resolve with a 1500 usd notebook and a 2000 usd PC can do real-time 4k 60p editing and grading with no transcoding or proxy.
I have already posted here the discussion around formats:
Anyway if you want high quality files be ready to have high bitrates… DJI new 4/3 camera has the minimum bitrate at 4k 30p in prores at 900 Mbits per seconds! Blackmagic at 492 Mbits 4k 25p in prores, C700 XF AVC is 440 Mbits at 4k 30p. Pro people are used to these size and RAW is even on another leauge.
Stabilizing what you call dinosaurs is super easy, just use one of the most popular gimbals from a Ronin M/MX, Letus Helix Jr or any Movi. I use every week the 1DX II on a Ronin M and I can shoot while moving even on rollerblades with a 50mm at F1.2 without a focus puller as one man band, do it with your super light Sony if you can. Is it worth the 3000 usd more than the Sony? For some people yes for some no. For some it will generate more money so they can buy a better car from some other is too much and they will buy a crappy car with the 3000 saved.
The latest scoop is that Canon will drop the EF mount from their camera because the lens selection is too week and nobody in the industry is adopting the EF mount. In fact Red, Canon C series, Panasonic and Balackmagic have all agreed to not offer the EF mount on their top of the line cinema cameras anymore and to offer the Sony one instead:-)
Canon and Sony move at different pace and both innovate and stagnate. Canon was the first to introduce a good HD video with the 5DII, the first to do 4k in a DSLR the first to do 4k 60p 4:2:2 in a DSLR and the first to make autofocus really work for video. So yes is a dinosaur but it moves well just not at your wished price.
At the end I wonder why people criticize so much cameras that they never have used?
Again is the 1dx II better than the A7SII? In some area yes and some not and for some people some aspects are more important than others. Even a Gopro  can be better than an Alexa in some aspects. But please do not misinform people about something that you don’t use regularly or even worst not even have touch in your life.
 

I did get an invite to the FS7 II event but couldn't go to Barcelona in the end due to getting ill.
This is not about disliking one company or liking another. It is about liking one camera over another.
You are free to have a different opinion about your cameras but it's a bit questionable attacking someone for being against your favourite brand. Is this the kind of hyper consumerist world we're living in now? Post-fact?

I'm not sure that wether or not someone commercialises their work is particularly relevant, if that's what you meant. I have seen low quality output from people who charge for what they do, high quality output from people who do not, and a lot of stuff in between. So I'm not sure that commercialising your work is a necessary pre-condition for being able to express an opinion. Nor is it necessarily a good indicator of quality. Hence, not particularly relevant.

I think there is a place for gimbal and IS. A gimbal is fantastic for following subjects and in the right hands can produce longer, steadier cinematic moves than IS can. However, with IS you can execute smaller cinematic moves with longer lenses much more easily and with no rigging at all it's very discrete for public/wedding/performance filming etc. I adore the IS on my GX85, I can work more unobtrusively and I can get shots I couldn't before due to time constraints.

As an owner of 2 Oly cams, I've been sitting around trying to be patient as they play catch up with their video capabilities.  I still amaze myself how much I like using the EM5II.  
They may or may not meet and exceed Pany competition, but as long as they're in the ball park with what they're offering, I'll lean their way.  Can't help it, just like how they've designed and built their gear. 

I'm not surprised. Aside from the unreliable promo videos, with questionable grades, I expect the actual quality of the video to be similar to the 1DX II, aside from the difference in crop and frame rates. Then again, the 1DX II is almost double the price of the 5D IV, so it's reasonable to expect some differences.
The 5D IV is at a similar price point to the Sony a7r II, which has its own drawbacks. Color science versus crop factor? Either will be a deal breaker for some, or minor obstacles for many others. 
Still, the 5D IV has the best implementation of video autofocus on the market, quality 4K (despite the crop), good colors out of the box, rugged body and proven reliability, and of course the widest range of available lenses. 
Right now, there are only two small cameras with usable video autofocus that doesn't have some MAJOR operational limitation (a6300): The Sony a7r II and the 5d IV.
Glad to see more tools out there. 

Ha!  Not quite as simple as all that, but then again...maybe it should be. ;-)
Funny thing is, I still use my 5D for a lot of interviews.  Full frame with a 50mm lens wide open.  Hard to beat that FOV and shallow DOF for a talking head shot.

I'm hoping the delay in announcing a replacement, if that rumor is true, is because they're adding some features that will turn heads and take back a bit of the thunder Sony seems to have stolen. 
News Shooter says the crop is 1.74 in the title of their article.

Nobody in their right mind expected FF 4K, so the crop was always going to be a factor. I assumed it was going to be Super 35mm and it pretty much is. And personally, who gives a shit about the codec? The 1Dc and 1dxii samples I have seen look gorgeous. Never once when looking at any sample from either of those cameras have I ever thought... That would look so much nicer if it wasn't recorded in mjpeg. 

Yeah it is over.
What a shame the 5D Mark II never got a proper sequel to excite video users. It was such a remarkable moment in filmmaking tools. A democracy in the making.
Unfortunately Canon's marketing and margins killed the dream almost as soon as it started.
Cinema EOS is all about extracting massive margins.
The photography stuff has peaked, it is all down hill in terms of sales from now on in the age of the smartphone.
I am happy in the hybrid video/stills niche as we have plenty to look forward to from the other manufacturers...... So maybe it is time to get over the hurt of the past 5 years and move on.

I guess we will just have to disagree on what is "awful" DR.
Anyway... here's hoping the 5div carries over the 13.5 stops of the 1dx ii... that must take canon from awful to average?

That landscape picture is lovely. 
Does it really matter there's no colours in the shadows on the left? My eye is looking at the sun, the smoke haze and reflections on the water. 
 

Yes, I've been holding it for long, waiting for the 5Dmk4 with a little bit of hope but Canon couldn't do it right once again so I'll probably go with the GH5 (already sold my GH4).
I must admit that Canon does such a great job protecting its camera division that I've been buying Panasonic camera and lenses since the GH4 despite my large EF collection. Congrats Canon.

Yeah I know, just making a point about the initial release state of the camera - should never have passed out of the gates!

I think the mythical "motion cadence", separated from rolling shutter, is down to how different codecs and cameras compress motion and how that affects motion blur. Pretty much without exception people pick RAW cameras as ones that have best motion cadence - because there's no compression or artifacting affecting the motion. Then after that come the cameras that do Prores or other flavours of high bitrate codecs, and dead last are the ones that compress the image to ludicrous degrees with interframe codecs such as Sony cameras or GH4.
The best motion comes from a camera with a fast sensor readout and high bitrate compression or RAW. Imho that's all the magic there is to it.

Wrong, technically ef-s lenses are only made by canon, they have a longer plastic bit at the end. Third party lenses like the Sigma's mentioned above will go on any full frame EF camera just fine , even if they're only designed to cover aps-c, they still feature the regular EF lens mount. 

It is worth noting the the 1.7 crop on 4k is purely an educated guess from Andrew... people seem to be using it as a stick to beat Canon with already.... seems odd.

You may as well shoot 4K and do the Ex-Tele in post by cropping a 1920 x 1080 box out of your 4K frame.
This way you can activate it at any time and in any part of the frame.
Also your normal shots will be oversampled from 4K to 1080p, rather than pixel binned 1080p straight off the card, which looks far worse.