tugela

If you are backing up on RAID and are concerned about storage, use 8TB reds. They are relatively cheap and easy to find. You can get stand-alone NAS servers at reasonable prices (or just make your own), with swappable storage. So, beyond the cost of the NAS case, you just pay for the drives. It definitely will not cost you $17K for 16TB effective backup.

Most people who use this camera are going to be doing events of one form or another, or small infomercial type content. RAW is pretty much irrelevant for those folk I would think. Archival storage is cheap. I personally have 52TB on my main computer, and another 32TB on a secondary server. And that is not including hard drives stored by themselves. I have heard of people who shoot professionally with much larger storage than that, although they have proper server banks to support it.

My experience with pretty much all of the supplied software with Canon cameras (and most other manufacturers as well, for that matter) does not give me confidence on that though. The software they supply with their cameras for doing that sort of thing is mostly pretty crappy and crude. They might do it better for these high end pro models however. At least one would hope so, considering how much you have to pay for them.

He just doesn't like Panasonic, hence their skin tones are "bad". I would say Trumpian logic, but most people do it to some extent.

But RAW is not RAW anymore after it has been transcoded! If you need to transcode it first before you can do anything with it, does that not defeat the purpose somewhat?

It is not necessary to be rude to people who don't agree with you.

For those cameras, pricing is not based on cost, it is based on what marketing has determined the target market would be willing to pay. That is why both companies come up with more or less the same number.

They likely use those sorts of cameras because of the mobility and flexibility it allows. The ergonomics of something like the Cx00 cameras make them somewhat less convenient to use in that sort of scenario. And of course with a DSLR/MILC you can fire off any stills you might need at the same time.

Because it is a sensor and some processors in a body. Inherently there is nothing in there that is not in bodies costing $2.5-3k, so it should not be costing an extra 5K. Manufacturers pile on the MRSP on products like this because the people who buy them are professionals. Manufacturers know that the people who make the buying decisions are not spending their own money, so they don't care about paying that premium. I am a scientist. When we buy equipment and consumables at scientific supply retailers, very often you can find something similar that is sold in consumer outlets, but at a fraction of the price. You get charged a huge premium because it is "scientific" equipment rather than consumer equipment (even though it is the same damned thing). It is a lot like how defense contractors charge the government $100 for a $10 hammer. As soon as you buy a "professional" product as a professional, you are going to be gouged for at least three times what a similar item in the consumer market will cost. Why 8K rather than 15K or whatever? The reason is that Canon's marketing guys have studied the market and have calculated that is the maximum they can charge before even pros think twice about buying one. No other reason. You will probably find that around 8K is the purchasing authority that the sorts of pros who might buy this sort of equipment have. That extra 5K is buying you nothing. For them it is a case of maximizing the gouging without adversely affecting sales too much, and you guys are the ones who are going to be paying for that. The codec is baked into hardware, so there will be limitations on what can be done short of replacing the electronics in the camera. If the encoding logic is set up for 8 bit, no firmware is going to be able to change that to 10 bit. An XC25 would be using the same processor, so it will have the same hardware encoding options as this camera. Most likely without the RAW option of course.

It is unfortunate, but if the size is right for you, there is no other camera that comes close in terms of the overall ergonomics, build quality and image quality package. The only other cameras that I have handled that feel as comfortable in the hand are the smaller consumer DSLRs, such as the Rebels, but those tend to made of plastic and usually have unfortunate IQ/performance relatively speaking. It is a real shame that Samsung got out of the market, the NX1 hit most of the buttons for me, and you can just imagine what an NX2 would have been like if they had polished the line up even further.

In Sweden perhaps. Other parts of the world have 1080p on cable. Pretty much most store sold content is in BluRay for, and almost all of that is 1080p. There is the odd 720p BluRay floating around, but most of those are older productions. There is plenty of 4K content on Netflix, it seems like most of their current in house production is shot and presented in 4K.

Nope. My interest is in hybrids, and this is not a hybrid. It is also far too expensive for what it does. A camera like this should cost around $2.5-3k. So, I am not impressed. It is just another camera that can shoot 4K, and there are plenty of others that can do that which have been around for years. I don't hate Canon cameras. I own Canon cameras. That does not mean that I can't be critical of their shortcomings. The camera itself does not interest me. What interests me is the processor inside it and what it will mean for camera's that might interest me later on. That said, Canon have a history of disappointing in what they deliver. There is always some other camera that is already there and a few steps forward. So we will see. Maybe their new processor will bring them up to par with the competition's 2016 products in 2018, but chances are those competitors will have their own next gen stuff in 2018. That always seems to happen with Canon, at least in this decade. One step forward but two steps behind.

For decoding that might be true, but not encoding. Lower bit rates increase the number of decisions the algorithm needs to make, hence greater processing power is required. The least computationally intensive process is one where no decisions need to be made, in other words raw output.

The reason they have not done that before is because the processors available to them were not up to the task. This is a new generation of processor though, so perhaps the corresponding Digic 8 will be able to handle it in 2018. Powershots usually introduce the next generation of Digic stills processors, so perhaps we might see a Powershot with a Digic 8 in late 2017. That will give us a better idea of how the new processor generation will handle 4K in the consumer world.

No, I don't think it has anything to do with withholding stuff. I have just noticed from their press release that the camera has a DV6 processor - that is a new one. It probably has a different encoder than the earlier DV5 processors, so hardware encoding for 4K will have different bit rates (as well as higher frame rates). There may not be any higher bit rates as a result. The high bit rates with DV5 were likely due to computational restraints to keep the processor in it's thermal envelope. A lower bit rate means more computation and implies that the DV6 is more thermally efficient, which is very good news for Canonites in the greater scheme of things. The implication of the new processor that people are perhaps not picking up on is that there will be a corresponding stills processor, the Digic 8, which will be the sibling of the DV6. It means that hardware encoding of 4K video might finally arrive in Canon consumer cameras (as well as the prosumer ones which currently are forced to use mjpeg as a codec). That is because the hardware encoder in the processor is really designed with consumer cameras in mind. Parts of it will be based on logic carried over from earlier Digic processors (hence the 35 mbps) while other parts are new. The new processor and the implications of it are the really important piece of news IMO, far more important than the C200 itself. It tells us what sort of video performance consumer cameras from Canon in 2018 are probably going to have. If you are a professional, spending 8k on equipment needed to do your job is normal and reasonable. If you were a contractor in the construction business you would not skimp out on your truck for example. You would get the one that was tough enough and sturdy enough to get the job done without any problems. I am not sure why people in the imaging business think things are different for them.

Apparently you get RAW or 8 bit 100/150 mbps H.264 (30/60p), those being the only two options. It makes some sense since RAW has no hardware encoding while H.264 is limited by the thermal envelop of the Digic processor. But, IIRC the other Cx00 cameras can shoot H.264 at higher bit rates, suggesting that the camera the pre-reviewers have is not finished. At the price they are charging unless you really need RAW footage, you would be better off with an alternative camera unless something changes before release. Next gen pro video cameras from Panasonic/Sony will likely be hitting the market in the not too distant future, so this new camera will still be expensive for what you get.

Even free is not free. There are still costs, just because you don't see them does not mean they are not there.

No, Nikon and Canon don't have processors that can perform, so their functionality is compromised in one way or another to stay with a working thermal envelope. Sony have more thermal issues because they are pushing the boundary more than Canikon. Manufacturers with the most capable processors (which is where the heat comes from) are Panasonic and Samsung (now out of the market). If you want(ed) sheer performance, those are the companies which would deliver, not Canikon.

Apparently it is just a warning, but the camera will continue to operate if you set it up to do that. So, basically Sony provides a warning while other cameras maybe not. That does not mean that one or the other is behaving any differently though. Sony is saying "hey, I'm getting hot", while other cameras are keeping mum about it (until they shut down anyway).

That would require physically accessing the silicon. Very few places would be capable of that, even the FBI would be challenged to do that. If you want to see the challenge, have a look at this video to see what is actually inside those cards:

That Lexar has a write speed of 75 MB/s, and since (IIRC) the GH5 uses a UHS-I interface, only half of that is available. Which means the write speed will be ~37 MB/s. The Sandisk card probably writes at around 80 MB/s. If you want faster write speeds, use the 2000x cards. Those have UHS-II write speeds of ~260 MB/s for Lexar, and ~280 MB/s for Sandisk (or half if you use them in a UHS-I device). Both of them will be faster than the Sandisk card you are currently using. As a quick test on this laptop, I wrote to a 128GB 1000x UHS-II card I had handy to see what data throughput it would have. Reading off the hard drive and writing through a UHS-I interface to the card yielded sustained write speeds of ~30 MB/s, more or less what you would expect in that scenario. Any speed issues you see are a result of your equipment, not the card. That is probably just the camera disconnecting from the card. The flashing light does not necessarily mean that data is being transferred, just that some card related operation has been carried out.

I have lots of Lexar cards. The only one that has every failed was a 633x microSD 128GB card, which worked for half an hour (literally) then became read only. That particular one was a half normal price "deal" from Amazon though, and I suspect that it was probably a fake. Or maybe a refurbished/failed batch that should have been destroyed but instead was repackaged by some shady middleman and sold as new through the grey market. Amazon are pretty good in terms of returns though, you tell them what the problem was, and they give you your money back if you don't want a replacement (which is what I opted to do). They send you prepaid return labels as well, so it doesn't cost you anything other than inconvenience. You are probably going to have more issues with the high performance/high capacity cards since those push the performance boundaries and the thermal limits (if you stick one of these things in a small USB card reader you would be shocked at how hot they get when pushing a lot of data). I think many of the issues people have are due to cards spending too much time at or outside a safe thermal envelope and they simply fail due to overheating. Just reading reviews on Amazon I would guess that about 5% of these high performance cards fail like that, and that seems to be common across the board. The write speeds on those particular cards varies depending on the card capacity. The 16GB version for example writes at 40MB/s, while the larger cards write at 75-80MB/s. Also, if you are using a UHS-I bus device you will only get half of that speed, so you would be better off using a high performance UHS-I card in that case. The 2000x cards run at much higher write speeds (~260 MB/s). All of those cards (with the exception maybe of the 1000x 16GB card) will be throttled by your device write speed, not the card write speed.

Not if it damages the controller. The data might still be there in memory but it can't be accessed.

Amazon sells my ancient Canon SD camcorder too ....... but that does not make it any less discontinued. Amazon selling stuff, even a lot of it , is hardly a yardstick for product status. Typically discontinued products happen when production ends, something that takes place when a new model is about to be released.

Are you sure that it is genuine Lexar card? There are a lot of counterfeits out there. As a general rule of the thumb if it is way cheaper than anywhere else, there may be a good reason for that. The card is electronic, so if you pull it out while it is active you could easily have fried something inside. The same thing could happen with cards from any manufacturer, including Sandisk.