tugela

Just make up something similar and quote from your own "book". The viewers of your production won't know any different and you don't have to worry about any copyright nonsense.

Read 620 times....by 22 people.

Sony has clean 1080/120fps with no moire on the A99 II.
Canon can't even give us 1080/24p to match what Sony is doing at 120fps.
Their customers must just not care.
You shouldn't be confused, it's perfectly consistent. We want affordable, small, hybrid GH5-style cameras that do the most beautiful image possible for video purposes, with the minimum of effort and workarounds on our part.
Canon's customers have been asking for that for ages, so they gave us an XC10, which was basically a camcorder, showing that they seem to lack the understand of what we actually want, whereas Sony and Panasonic are providing it without drama, without issues, without massive, crippling expense.
Just about the best thing you can say about the 6D Mk II from an EOSHD perspective, is it would make a great Magic Lantern raw camera 3-5 years later, but there's no guarantee it will even happen.

You guys made me laugh hard. 
You are the same people who said years ago that FHD was completely enough and that 4K was useless, when we were telling you it is not about the people having 4K TV to watch your 4K movie, but about the cropping, stabilisation, noise, resampling, and so on that allows you also to have a lot nicer FHD image. Soon the same will be true for 8K to the 4K content we will deliver. 

You are the same people that said the 12mpx of the D700 were absolutely plenty enough for photography, that more was absolutely useless unless you print on a wall, where I am using 24-42mpx sensors all the time and benefit all day from their cropping capabilities, better noise, better details even seen on my 15" laptop. 

Anyway, just like 90% of the people on earth, you are reluctant to change and with people like you we would still be using nokia keyboard phones. 

Thanks god the 10% do exist. 
Can't wait for 8K 1000FPS 14 bit 400mbps x.268 to arrive in my hands! Stay with your 480p cameras! 
No insult in my message, take it with humor 

Shouldn't this thread really be called "the other issue with my budget"?

Who cares about sales?
Most people are sheep with minimum knowledge, and as I'm not a Canon shareholder I don't care about who is in the lead of sales, I care about what is going to give me the most artistic image, best specs, the most convenient form factor and best value for money.

@Andrew Reid Thank you Andrew, I believe that until the release of the camera (you don't have to edit something that doesn't exist yet!) all major NLE will support the codec (it is Canon we are talking about, not some brand!).
can anyone please provide the specific hardware that needed for 10 bit workflows (video cards, monitors, etc). Don't we need specific video cards (BM, Aja, Quadro at least) and specific monitors (that cost thousand of euros, I mean a lot of thousands, not just 1 thousands!)? What else do we need? Are the requirements same for raw?
@Andrew Reid I do not like the new voting system. First of all it is very antagonistic, why do we have to down vote? It will increase hostilities into the forum I guess, and I can not see easily who is up voting/down voting. I strongly prefer the older system.

No man, it would be pretty hard to hurt my feelings over something as silly as a camera. It's not like I personally designed and developed the thing. I just laugh because I now approach things from a different perspective than you and that's ok. I will respond to your post, but I doubt it will change your perspective. Even if not, hopefully someone will find it useful.
Filmic is an overused term imo. There have been hundreds of thousands of films made and somehow filmic is supposed to mean one single thing that no one can quite put their finger on but is definitely (definitely) a thing. It's as if footage from any camera is either filmic or it isn't. simple, right? Black or white.
I argued that you dismissed most of what made that particular footage look nice by saying something like, "Of course it looks nice, he had good light, color, compositions, movement, etc. but that doesn't mean the camera looks good."
You dismissed the very things that are actually important and instead want to talk about non-tangibles like, "It's also thin like the pixels are spread over a sheet and if you blow on it it will move."
Expert wine tasters have been called out time and time again for this type of talk, because when it comes down to it they can't consistently tell the difference between supposedly great wine and average wine.
I'd bet in a blind side by side test you'd also have a hard time figuring out which camera has the pixels spread over a sheet that are in danger of being blown away and the one with the "thick" pixels or whatever adjective you "feel" applies to the good pixels. And in case it sounds like I'm totally dismissing how something feels, I'm not. I'd just argue that the way to make an audience feel something is to use all of the techniques that filmmakers have used for over a hundred plus years to manipulate their audiences into feeling this way or that. While people feel all sorts of things inside a theater including happiness, sadness, anger, fear, and disgust; I doubt feeling like the pixels are too thin has ever had any sort of serious impact on a movie-goers experience. That's the type of bull that's saved for over anaylizing in a forum such as this one. I've participated before, but now I see the error of my ways and have to laugh when someone like you reminds me.
You don't have to like the GH5 or any camera for that matter, but don't make up stuff like spread out pixels over a sheet to convince yourself and others that one camera is bad and another is good. All cameras are different and I'd bet in a blind test of projected material with the same subject, light, composition, dof, camera movement, colorist, etc., etc. it would be difficult to tell most modern interchangeable lens digital motion picture cameras apart. Even the cheap wines...oops I mean ones and the expensive ones.
If you were to say the footage looks over-sharpened, over-saturated, too contrasty, 60p instead of 24p, highlights too magenta, too much macro blocking, or any other actual physical characteristic and for that reason it's not for you, then fine. At least we're talking about real characteristics. Or heck, prove me wrong and setup a test that shows "stretched out sheet like" pixels that can be blindly identified. That would be fun.
Oh and don't take any of this too seriously, except for the serious parts. You should take them very very seriously.  And sorry for picking on you. You seem like you can take it though.

Those are some loud words. I generally find MacOS and many of its structural implementations retarded and counterintuitive. Especially when it comes to system configuration and file management (which are some of the primary OS functions) -- I find Windows so much more streamlined, efficient and nuanced. And coming from Amiga before this, I hated Microsoft and Windows and wanted to like Apple/Mac (mid-nineties, around System 7/Windows 95 time). Both were lousy at the time but I found Windows to be more flexible and everything changed with the release of XP, from then on I have never had a reason to look back.
The whole stability thing is a myth -- in the older times, both systems were crashing like crazy (and MacOS even didn't have task manager long since Windows already had it), and nowadays, from Windows 7 on, it's been perfectly stable. My uptime is weeks at a time and the only thing that ever crashes is Firefox when they're on a lousy build. While I have no reason to not believe people when they say they have had more problems with PC and coming to Mac has been liberating, there is no such thing in my experience. Neither I have had virus for at least a decade -- and I don't even have an antivirus program installed other than the built in Windows Defender. So I tend to think it's those users who are the problem rather than the perceived OS inferiority.
Of course, I am saying all this from a perspective of Windows user (although I am still forced to use MacOS now and then for work -- and asked to troubleshoot theirs by friends haha) and I respect everyone's choice of whatever works best for them. But the high-horse attitude of people like Wolf33d can really trip me off
BTW, writing this on a 2012 Sony Vaio machine which has seen upgrade (not a clean install) from Windows 7 to Windows 8 to Windows 8.1 to Windows 10 with no stability issues whatsoever and all drivers and software functioning perfectly.
I'd love to have a productivity battle including different tasks between myself and an expert MacOS user -- confident I'd win cause the Mac users only think it's so efficient and effective cause they don't know any better..

If it was true (which I'm 99% sure it's not), we would probably see a new "worst rolling shutter" champion, dethroning the a6300. The 5D iv has quite bad RS, reading out even more of the sensor will make it even worse.
Also how would they suddenly manage downscaling and and XF-AFC (does that mean XF-AVC I guess?) with the same processors and encoders that only managed 1:1 read out and MJPEG so far? Not even the C700 can downscale but uses windowed mode if you use a resolution but full sensor raw and that thing is huge, expensive and has active cooling. Which is the last point: "installing a new heat sink". Like what? Do you think Canon left a huge empty space in the 5D iv body just so eventually a year down the line they can install a bigger heat sink?
Sounds completely fabricated. Manufacturers don't run their product at 60% performance to then suddenly go "surprise mofos! We got a firmware update that makes everything so much better!". If this was Fuji, well maaaaybe, but Canon? Did they ever bring anything meaningful in a fw update except the one to extend the 7D sales cycle?

The only thing that would make me consider a new camera over NX1 would be in camera 10bit recording at 4:2:2. And, for now, only GH5 seems to have this feature. But GH5 has small sensor, so not so good for stills. Summing up, NX1 will stay with me for years to come, I guess

For Canon DSRLs, 1080P exists only on paper

For sure, even if GH5 will be a bit better than NX1 for video (and that's to be seen) it won't be for still pics. Perhaps EM1-mk2 will be more stills oriented, but then you need to have two bodies. Or...you get a GH5 for video and a FF camera for stills, but again two bodies and two systems, here.
 
NX1 is so well balanced that even when other cameras will start reaching and surpassing it for individual specific tasks, it will still be a very good overall solution.

Are you actually here for help? People have given you advices but you're not willing to try anything new because it's a "shitty camera you will never buy."

You've been let down for 10 years from Canon and you're still hanging on like the battered women syndrome.  Hoping for something better but you're still getting beat on and left with second hand love. *shakes head*

That Jimmy is a nob isn't personal, it's an objective fact that can be universally perceived and measured by anyone on the forum!

GH2 was 2010 (October)
6 years later and Canon haven't matched its video quality, overall.
Like I say time and time again, only Canon seem to be able to get away with this year after year. If it were any other company, people would be astounded.
At the same time, since 2009 their APS-C stills quality has inched forward only a bit from 18MP to 20MP and now 24MP with a tiny bit cleaner shadows.

Give me a break. We don't live in the dark ages any more - other people can test the camera and you can go view the results on youtube or vimeo. You can tell the footage coming off the 80d is glorified 720p. Other cameras have their limitations. There is no perfect camera. But there is no excuse for a company with the equity of Canon to be producing cameras that shoot soft, moire-ridden 1080p in 2016. I expect Fuji or Sigma to do this, but not Canon. Not a company with a well-established Cinema line and a low marginal cost of letting innovation trickle down to the enthusiast level if they only wanted to. I think Canon should be openly criticized for this approach and I don't need to order and go through the rigors of testing and posting low-grade footage to substantiate my frustration. The camera is intentionally hampered, the codec is outdated and the resolution is not up to snuff. I have no qualms in saying that. I've seen enough test footage posted by others - including Canon themselves - to make that determination. Those who needlessly stifle innovation deserve to be bashed. But I also expect legions of apologists like yourself to stubbornly try and find a silver lining in what they do. I don't understand it, but I nevertheless expect it.