ade towell

that's the problem, you can only imagine

the Sony 35mm 1.8 oss is a great lens for the a6300 .Use the kit lens for the wide and use the image zoom on the 35mm to get a pseudo 50mm field of view

yawn - are you also user Satoshi who has just repeated the same fanboy talk on another thread....

Here's a link to the VENICE shot film they showed at the presentation http://ps.sony.co.kr/pro/article/broadcast-products-venice-videos

what looks like more than 14 stops DR has gota count for something

It is a meaty camera spec wise and $7345, £6215 plus VAT here in the UK

No - I'm a Canon c100 and Sony a6300 user. Just a bit frustrated with what Canon offers up as a dslr b camera - and not sure the 5d mk4s mushy 1080 cuts it these day

yes it's 2x crop, not too far from 5d mk4 with its 1.7x crop that Django seems to recommend...at least the gh5 has lenses suited to its crop

the a6300 4k exported as 1080 to me looks nicer than the a7s but then I really didn't like the colour science of the a7s and sold it pretty quickly. The colour is much improved I think with the a6300 and it is great in low light up until about iso 6400 - then the a7s pulls ahead.

I think the colour is much nicer with the a6300, the 4k is pretty spectacular, but rolling shutter is really bad

sorry should have mentioned that's not my footage - maybe ask on Vimeo

The SLR Anamorphot-40 1.33x, mounted on a very cheap Panasonic 25mm f/1.7 looks pretty sharp for the money That this is all hanheld is testimony to Panasonics implimentation of IBIS

I tried the 16-70 on the a6300 - problem is if you're wanting to go handheld or just move the camera, anything above 50mm is going to induce pretty severe rolling shutter. Because of this I went for the cheapy kit lens 16-50 for wide shots and predominantly use 35mm 1.8 oss for everything else - and as mentioned the clear image zoom function at 2x makes the 35mm a 70mm with less rolling shutter than the Zeiss 16-70 at 70mm would be. There is a little noise at higher iso but in video mode at least it is quite remarkable how little sharpness is lost with the clear image zoom Also if you're going to use lenses with image stabiliser I'd save your pennies and get a lightly used a6300

I like the 17-55 more than the 24-105, more pleasing image overall for me, nicer bokeh, obviously better in low light and the 24-105 loses light as you zoom unless you have it wide open.

Isn't there a setting on the c100 where you tell it not to compensate for iris stepping when zooming - sorry not got the camera with me and can't remember the actual terminology

am not sure it's an unrealistic standard to expect a camera costing £7,700 to have a 4k 10 bit codec. It's also my only major grumble with what is otherwise looking a fantastic camera

that af does look good. Canon please put 4k 10 bit in the XF-AVC firmware update

Ah that could be cool for on a gimble I guess if there's no lag

You'll need to buy the monitor as well to get touch DPAF but yes seems a good deal...had a play with some of the mp4 c200 files https://cloakroommedia.digitalpigeon.com/shr/-OA1sEmuEeeZtgbiYUDn_w/qLRcnaMmCLYfe_7L74Exeg the UHD 25p file looks nice but clog3 falls apart fairly quickly with the 8 bit - think you're going to need RAW to get any more DR than my c100. The 100p is quite soft relative to the 25p, 50p maybe a tad soft too but definitely would cut ok with the 25p

I thought the c700 sensor was bigger than the c300 mk2 sensor? Now I'm confused....

I hand the footage over to the production company, they edit it and for the better jobs ask for 10 bit - they don't want RAW, it's not part of their work flow for obvious reasons I love playing around with RAW on my own projects and I can see how for you having got a taste for it with the 5d, that the c200 would be the obvious next step. I've got a kid to support, need to earn money with the camera and so have to give them what they ask for

Hey no worries am not offended just putting over another viewpoint - to me the price of the 2 cameras in question is fs7 territory which has been gobbling up the mid tier market for a while now and so their 4k 10 bit XAVC codec has become well established and often asked for - mainly production companies with in house editors in my experience - and going forward it would be foolish of me not to buy a camera that offers this. If you've ever played around and pushed log footage in 8 bit and then 10 bit the difference becomes fairly obvious. Admittedly Canon clog in 8 bit plays nicer than Sony's 8 bit slog2 and especially slog3 - but times have moved on and we are now talking about clog3 with the c200, and hopefully more than 12 stops of dr. 10 bit would make this so much easier to work with

Your obsession with RAW has very little basis in how 95% of people are going to use this camera... no production companies I know will touch RAW, but the mid tier ones do want a decent 4k 10 bit file (If the Canon c200 had 4k 10 bit I would be seriously considering that too). They are both great sounding cameras but are aiming at different folk with different needs - no need to keep trying to think of ways it's not as good as your beloved Canon... And until they actually announce the actual price we don't know for definite how much the EVA is. It was mentioned in another thread that Panasonic said the hvx200 was going to be under $10k when 1st announced and it came in at $6k...granted that is an extreme example but let's just wait and see. Am excited for both cameras, they both have their strengths and weaknesses

Yes exactly I don't need RAW I need 4k10 bit. For me the c200 wouldn't be thousands cheaper at all, and would probably have less dr as it's limited to 13 stops in 8 bit. Don't yet know the Pannys full sensors capabilities but dual native iso and true vlog with v.gamut and Varicam colours are all hugely promising to me. Of course we need to see some footage before any of this is relevant

For you maybe...obviously depends what your needs are but for me spec wise the Panny is way ahead. I'd have to spend $1k to record 1 hour of 4k footage 10 bit footage with the Canon - that is prohibitive to me Both great looking cameras though - exciting times