jax_rox

The sensors are different, though they use the same CFA. And really, 'not nearly as good' has a slightly different meaning when talking about the F65. You're certainly right, but the F55 has been used extensively on numerous ultra high-end TV shows and feature films and I would posit that plenty here wouldn't even know.
But that's kinda the point. Canon has tweaked Clog to get more out of it, but it's essentially designed as a 'pseudo-log' for consumer use that was able to hold more dynamic range than would otherwise be possible, however still be workable in 8-bit and be easy to pull it back to 'normal'.
S-log is entirely different.
And that's the problem. You really need to learn your log curves to make things look 'right' - otherwise you shouldn't shoot log. Many people did (and still do) come from Canon and attempt to apply their basic knowledge of Canon log to Sony footage and then get upset when it doesn't work the way they want. 
S-log3 puts skin tones at about 35-40%IRE or something. Which is super low. You look at that in your live view, assume the skin tones are underexposed, crank the exposure so they look right, and then when you come to grade it can't figure out why your skin tones look so bad.
Turns out S-log doesn't put as much information into the exposure where you've ended up putting your skin tones, so of course they start to look ugly. Then you blame Sony for not being able to make a camera that looks any good.
Man, it's cheaper than an Alexa SXT. Alexa, which uses SxS cards or needs Codex cartridges and a more expensive card slot for raw, doesn't have a full frame sensor, doesn't shoot in 8k and doesn't have auto focus.
 

The F3 has Slog1, a radically different curve to both Slog2 and Slog3. I remember plenty of people struggling with SLog3 on the F55, for example, who had come from Alexas and not put the time in to learn the curve.
Exposing 'correctly' using a LUT is entirely different to learning how the curve works and placing your exposure where you want it. Which you need to do. I was disappointed with the noise and dynamic range out of Alexa's until I learned how LogC works and exposed accordingly.
CineAlta is Sony, so they have Slog2 or 3. They're not pseudo-logs. Canon's C-log started as a pseudo-log. It's morphed since then, but it's original intention was to have a 'lightweight' log that was easy to grade and get a good image out of quickly. It comes at the expense of dynamic range (though Canon cameras also use digital gain for ISO, rather than the Sony/Alexa/RED method of shifting mid-point, which also affects both dynamic range and noise). Sony's intention is a more aggressive curve that gives you the maximum dynamic range possible. It's a more aggressive curve than the Alexa's LogC.
If you expose it with knowledge of SLog and how it works and where it's best to expose the things you want exposed, it looks great. If you treat SLog3 like C-log or LogC you're going to think it sucks.
That's not really a fault on the manufacturer, and realistically there's nothing forcing you to buy or use a Sony camera if you're dead-set against it. Many continue to at all levels of production, despite how supposedly terrible they are.
 
It's a different curve to all of those. You should learn any curve you're going to be shooting on and expose for that particular curve as they're all different and they all put their exposures at different values and hold more or less information in some areas. SLog3 (and 2) are much more aggressive curves than all of those. None of those other curves put skin tones at 35 IRE.
I've honestly never had an issue with Sony's white balance, so don't know what you're talking about. 
Do you mean AWB..? 
Look, I ain't no Sony fanboy, but I've used Sony's a lot (just as I have Alexa's and Reds and Panasonics). But I spend more than 5 minutes testing how to appropriately expose cameras. Of course I have camera preferences. But I'm a DP who shoild be able to make any camera look good.
So when the best the rental house can do on our budget is an F5 or F55 or perhaps an FS7 (and/or I have to use my A7sII in some capacity), I'm going to say 'sure, I can make them look good' because I know I can. I'm not going to complain because Sony make 'such terrible cameras' (that somehow only a small subset of people seem to have trouble with...). I don't really like the images out of the C300. I'm not a fan of Canon's orange tints and ultra-warm skin tones generally. But I understand it and can work with it if necessary. I'm not going to hit up an Internet forum and talk about how bad Canon is because I don't like their camera as much.

The sensors are different, though they use the same CFA. And really, 'not nearly as good' has a slightly different meaning when talking about the F65. You're certainly right, but the F55 has been used extensively on numerous ultra high-end TV shows and feature films and I would posit that plenty here wouldn't even know.
But that's kinda the point. Canon has tweaked Clog to get more out of it, but it's essentially designed as a 'pseudo-log' for consumer use that was able to hold more dynamic range than would otherwise be possible, however still be workable in 8-bit and be easy to pull it back to 'normal'.
S-log is entirely different.
And that's the problem. You really need to learn your log curves to make things look 'right' - otherwise you shouldn't shoot log. Many people did (and still do) come from Canon and attempt to apply their basic knowledge of Canon log to Sony footage and then get upset when it doesn't work the way they want. 
S-log3 puts skin tones at about 35-40%IRE or something. Which is super low. You look at that in your live view, assume the skin tones are underexposed, crank the exposure so they look right, and then when you come to grade it can't figure out why your skin tones look so bad.
Turns out S-log doesn't put as much information into the exposure where you've ended up putting your skin tones, so of course they start to look ugly. Then you blame Sony for not being able to make a camera that looks any good.
Man, it's cheaper than an Alexa SXT. Alexa, which uses SxS cards or needs Codex cartridges and a more expensive card slot for raw, doesn't have a full frame sensor, doesn't shoot in 8k and doesn't have auto focus.
 

That is because on one hand you have color professionals and on the other people that don't even know how to use picture profiles. Once you know what you are doing, PP offer the most flexibility in terms of color in any consumer camera. 

Cue all the comments about how terrible Sony's skin tones are and how unusable SLog is  

Sony & Panasonic didn't have as established a stills shooter customer base. The Sony/Panasonic stills shooters were casual weekend shooters. Conversely, Canon had and still have the vast majority of their customer base - the people buying their products - who are professional shooters.
Sony & Panasonic were able to be much more nimble in the market and take bigger risks because they had less to lose in that market. Canon takes a risk on a product - say on a product that caters to a smaller market - and they have a lot more to lose.
You're very good at being condescending, but perhaps spend more than 3 seconds comprehending what you're reading before jumping in with a comment. 
And really? Big words? I didn't know words like disingenuous were big words for anyone that passed middle school...

It's pretty disingenuous to use Panasonic as an example considering their sensor sizes are literally half that of the Canon. Use Sony's A7 series (which only the most recent iteration of included internal 4k, by the way - though sure they at least offered 4k externally before that), and a6000 series - sure. They've been able to make 4k internal happen in a much smaller body, though they still took longer than Panasonic. 

There's significantly more data to process on a full frame sensor in 4k vs an m4/3 sensor. 
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Video shooters are not a huge market for Canon DSLRs and mirrorless. That's why the compromise you talk about has come at the costs of video. That's why they're attempting to develop better photo feartures first. Does that mean they couldn't have developed the technology to do everything you want? Course not. But obviously their focus is and always has been still shooters in the DSLR line-up. That's why they have a Cinema EOS line-up to cater for video shooters.

Sony and Panasonic don't/didn't have the established customer base and were/are much more able to be nimble and take bigger risks. That's why they were able to make such a dent.
 

It's pretty disingenuous to use Panasonic as an example considering their sensor sizes are literally half that of the Canon. Use Sony's A7 series (which only the most recent iteration of included internal 4k, by the way - though sure they at least offered 4k externally before that), and a6000 series - sure. They've been able to make 4k internal happen in a much smaller body, though they still took longer than Panasonic. 

There's significantly more data to process on a full frame sensor in 4k vs an m4/3 sensor. 
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Video shooters are not a huge market for Canon DSLRs and mirrorless. That's why the compromise you talk about has come at the costs of video. That's why they're attempting to develop better photo feartures first. Does that mean they couldn't have developed the technology to do everything you want? Course not. But obviously their focus is and always has been still shooters in the DSLR line-up. That's why they have a Cinema EOS line-up to cater for video shooters.

Sony and Panasonic don't/didn't have the established customer base and were/are much more able to be nimble and take bigger risks. That's why they were able to make such a dent.
 

This camera takes SDXC, and let's get real for a minute: raw is wholly unnecessary for 98% of the camera's target market. 
The Varicam LT may be 'only' a few thousand more - but Starr factoring P2 cards and the price jumps drastically. And since when does the LT do raw internally..? 
The FS7 doesn't even have a proper EVF. Stick a loupe on the LCD and voila - you've got the same solution as the FS7. 
You know the URSA Mini also doesn't come with an EVF? And really, the 'back of the body' EVFs on the C series and FS5 are next to useless.
But sure, feel free to denigrate a camera based on the cost of wholly unnecessary accessories

This camera takes SDXC, and let's get real for a minute: raw is wholly unnecessary for 98% of the camera's target market. 
The Varicam LT may be 'only' a few thousand more - but Starr factoring P2 cards and the price jumps drastically. And since when does the LT do raw internally..? 
The FS7 doesn't even have a proper EVF. Stick a loupe on the LCD and voila - you've got the same solution as the FS7. 
You know the URSA Mini also doesn't come with an EVF? And really, the 'back of the body' EVFs on the C series and FS5 are next to useless.
But sure, feel free to denigrate a camera based on the cost of wholly unnecessary accessories

The problem is no MFT glass that covers a S35 sensor. You're suggesting Panasonic shoot themselves in the foot with an obscure (at pro video level) lens mount, one that already doesn't lock, and you want to build that up with adapters...?
As I said previously, when they were building the LT, they did extensive market research, and the cry was for EF mount - not MFT. I understand the adapting possibilities. I do it myself with Sony. But I just don't believe that it's a huge market at this level.
As for why no locking ring? Why no locking ring on the FS5? Why no locking ring on the C300? 
And what 'action' do you think the FS5, FS7, C300 et al see? Weddings, corporate interviews, doco/run 'n' gun, reality tv, etc. Many FS5/7 users have adapted their E-mounts to take EF glass.
If you really wanted to, any of these cameras could be used to shoot a feature film. You really think that the only reason major production companies are say not shooting feature films on an EVA1 is because of a non-locking lens mount..?
These cameras are aimed squarely at 'weddings, corporates, run 'n' gun' etc. I'm not sure where you got the idea that they weren't...?
What's the point of releasing a S35 camera with a lens mount that forces you to crop hugely without adapting lenses...? Sure, the JVC may have done it, but how popular is it..? 
You can shoot a feature on any camera if you really want. The lens mount is not stopping you from shooting. I'm invested in E-mount glass. I think it's great that Sony have expanded their E-mount offering both in lenses and in cameras. But I'm under no illusions that E-mount is going to be around forever, or that all cameras will have E-mounts. If Sony release another FZ-mount, or PL mount camera, I won't bemoan them for not catering to me. If I really want lenses that will last a lifetime, I'll buy PL. I can't afford to buy the sets I want, so for the moment I'm sticking with what I have.
If Sony's next camera is an $8,000 EF-mount camera, I'll probably say things like 'confusing for Sony, seeing as they already have two E-mount cameras'/'I wish it wasn't E-mount'/'I wish I didn't invest so heavily in E-mount'. I certainly won't say things like 'omg with this lens mount, there's absolutely no way anyone is going to take this camera seriously!!!!! lololol'
Panasonic's market for this camera is not people who want to shoot micro-budget features. If you want to shoot a feature, they want you to get a Varicam - which, by the way, is PL or EF mount only....
You want to shoot a feature with an MFT mount, I guess you have to go to Blackmagic... If there really was a market for S35 cameras with MFT mounts, don't you think Blackmagic would've gone there already...?
Not really... I've never liked Canon's colour all that much, always hated the ergonomics of the C-series, and never use auto focus. As for internal raw, I don't have the need for it at this level of camera. If I'm shooting a project where raw might enter the equation, I'm not going to be shooting on a $6k camera. And even then, I'm more likely to shoot ProRes444 or similar because I just don't really see the need for it in most of the stuff I shoot. I used to shoot REDraw because it was the only thing you could shoot on a RED, and comparing the workflow to an Alexa shooting 444, I'd much rather shoot ProRes unless we really truly have the budget to deal with raw.
As for everything else, specs and price-wise it's positioned more as a competitor to the FS7. And again - the FS7 doesn't have an EVF. It's always surprised and confused me as to why the FS5 does. 
We still don't know the final price either, so who knows. Silly, I think, to make assumptions without: final price, any footage or even final specs...
Then it becomes a more expensive camera. A swappable lens mount alone would make the price rise drastically, and I just don't think at this level that there's enough market for it to justify.
Consumer and professional divisions are always separate. Also, that lens came out like two years ago... M4/3 just isn't a lens mount or sensor option that is available in really any high-end camera. That doesn't mean it can't be used to create high-end work... But it also means that competitiveness of the market dictates what lens mount you should go with. And if you release a camera with pretty decent specs, in a cropped sensor and with an obscure lens mount, you're dooming your camera into obscurity.
And yes, I know that you can have an MFT lens mount with a S35 sensor, but it just doesn't really make sense from any standpoint, unless Panasonic decided to start making S35 MFT lenses, and then everything gets confused - as it did for Sony when they first started making full frame E mount lenses and cameras.

This camera takes SDXC, and let's get real for a minute: raw is wholly unnecessary for 98% of the camera's target market. 
The Varicam LT may be 'only' a few thousand more - but Starr factoring P2 cards and the price jumps drastically. And since when does the LT do raw internally..? 
The FS7 doesn't even have a proper EVF. Stick a loupe on the LCD and voila - you've got the same solution as the FS7. 
You know the URSA Mini also doesn't come with an EVF? And really, the 'back of the body' EVFs on the C series and FS5 are next to useless.
But sure, feel free to denigrate a camera based on the cost of wholly unnecessary accessories

This camera takes SDXC, and let's get real for a minute: raw is wholly unnecessary for 98% of the camera's target market. 
The Varicam LT may be 'only' a few thousand more - but Starr factoring P2 cards and the price jumps drastically. And since when does the LT do raw internally..? 
The FS7 doesn't even have a proper EVF. Stick a loupe on the LCD and voila - you've got the same solution as the FS7. 
You know the URSA Mini also doesn't come with an EVF? And really, the 'back of the body' EVFs on the C series and FS5 are next to useless.
But sure, feel free to denigrate a camera based on the cost of wholly unnecessary accessories

This camera takes SDXC, and let's get real for a minute: raw is wholly unnecessary for 98% of the camera's target market. 
The Varicam LT may be 'only' a few thousand more - but Starr factoring P2 cards and the price jumps drastically. And since when does the LT do raw internally..? 
The FS7 doesn't even have a proper EVF. Stick a loupe on the LCD and voila - you've got the same solution as the FS7. 
You know the URSA Mini also doesn't come with an EVF? And really, the 'back of the body' EVFs on the C series and FS5 are next to useless.
But sure, feel free to denigrate a camera based on the cost of wholly unnecessary accessories

This camera takes SDXC, and let's get real for a minute: raw is wholly unnecessary for 98% of the camera's target market. 
The Varicam LT may be 'only' a few thousand more - but Starr factoring P2 cards and the price jumps drastically. And since when does the LT do raw internally..? 
The FS7 doesn't even have a proper EVF. Stick a loupe on the LCD and voila - you've got the same solution as the FS7. 
You know the URSA Mini also doesn't come with an EVF? And really, the 'back of the body' EVFs on the C series and FS5 are next to useless.
But sure, feel free to denigrate a camera based on the cost of wholly unnecessary accessories

It's cheaper than both the FS7 and the C300, and it overall should give a better image (and better specs, in general) than an FS5. URSA Mini Pro is still a bit of a gamble IMO. I'm still not convinced by the BMD image.
I attended the launch of the VaricamLT and it was expressed that EF mount is what most professional users want, if not PL. They did a lot of market research, and the VaricamLT has an interchangeable EF/PL mount.
The GH5 and Varicam lines are two quite different lines. To really be competitive, they were going to have to make a S35 camera, and MFT is simply not that. 
 
I mostly question the timeline: it seems they really wanted to get the jump on Canon. Why else would you release incomplete details of a camera (you don't even know yet what the Dual ISOs are...???) and without footage? Sony, Canon, RED, all release some sort of official footage when releasing a new camera... and I can't imagine any of them releasing a camera without an idea of what the native ISOs are.....
I wonder if maybe they were expecting the product to be at completion by Cinegear, but some unforeseen circumstance has kept that from being the case, but they'd committed to releasing details of a new camera... I just don't quite get it. The camera looks great, but how will we know until we see some footage..?

You're saying they're 'worse than Canon' (what does that mean? Worse than a company who didn't innovate for years and then brought out a camera with few modern features?) purely for the omittence of a small feature that has little effect on the product's target market. 
Not only that, it's possible the feature will even be implemented down the line.
At the end of the day, Sony, as with every company we discuss here, are still a business - and businesses' main goal is to make money.
If there were no video mode, I might agree with you. If Slog and other Picture Profiles really made a night-and-day difference on the A7 series, I might agree with you.
But as far as I can tell, they've omitted a feature that is often complained about by the same people now complaining it doesn't have it, has never made sense to me anyway given the 8-bit codec and really doesn't increase the effective usable dynamic range all that much...
There are certainly times when Slog and Cine profiles are very useful. But I'd be interested to know how many who are complaining about this have personally tested it themselves, know how the curves work and when and why you'd use them.
Every single sub-$5k camera launch, I know there'll be complaints on here unless it's downsampled 4K 10-bit 422 ProRes internally, raw externally via HDMI, an image that looks like an Alexa, Canon colours, 100% perfect AF, log (but not really log, just a log-ish mode that increases DR but has a magic button in Resolve that will turn it into beautiful imagery), noiseless images up to at least 12500 ISO, and a battery that lasts for at least three days on a single charge.

Available from June
http://avid.force.com/pkb/articles/en_US/FAQ/Media-Composer-First-FAQ

The Japanese market is very different. I had discussions with Panasonic at the release of the VaricamLT and there are definitely features in that that are there due to other markets' persistence that the Japanese just didn't think was important.
Interesting to see what transpires. Panasonic and Sony obviously get it now, and 'got it' a lot sooner than Canon

The Japanese market is very different. I had discussions with Panasonic at the release of the VaricamLT and there are definitely features in that that are there due to other markets' persistence that the Japanese just didn't think was important.
Interesting to see what transpires. Panasonic and Sony obviously get it now, and 'got it' a lot sooner than Canon

Avid publish recommended specs: http://www.avid.com/media-composer/specifications
But you could get away with less. I've personally never had much issue.
Given you can get a (admittedly crippled) version for free, I'd definitely recommend anyone download it and give it a go. There is a learning curve, but stick with it...
Avid also tend to listen to their users (for the most part), which is a good thing.
Unfortunately, I don't think the market for NLEs provides enough money to make it as most would want....

Of these, Blackmagic's really the only company that has traditionally announces camera slates at NAB. Usually these companies prefer their own event or IBC.
The new Panny looks good but perhaps they're not ready and/or are after an audience a little more in-line with who they're but targeting.
Also, most of these companies already have relatively new cameras, and usually camera manufacturers don't supersede or replace particularly quickly anymore (unless you're BM), especially when there's not all that much more to offer in the grand scheme.
And btw, Arri did release a new camera. And Sony released the A9.
I think there's heaps of exciting stuff from NAB this year, and I'm looking forward to seeing Panasonic's new cam.
I wouldn't call it a bust at all. Sure, there are significantly fewer new cameras announced, but you just can't have a slate of new cameras every single year....
Took them long enough! Seems they're finally hitting their stride. Hoping for good things. They've always made really good cameras, they just went through a weird and incredibly slow-to-adapt 5ish-year phase...

Lot of talk here about content vs art.
I'd posit that both are forms of content. Anything that has an intended audience is a piece of content. And in fact, if you take the vloggers you spoke to as one extreme, and arthouse filmmakers as the other, there's actually a broad range in the middle (including those here) that many people will sit along.
I think preoccupation and obsession with gear is silly regardless of the type of content you're making. I think it's very easy to forget that gear and equipment are there to support the procurement and production of the content. You can have an audience shooting on an iPhone and you can have an audience shooting on an Alexa. The audiences may be different (and there's potentially some crossover), but they're both viable.
Making a video and making a film are inherently different as well. 
Figure out what you want to make and make it. Personally, I think as audiences we connect to what we relate to. Yeah, maybe sometimes we like to watch stuff that looks nice as well, but overall if you can make a connection to your audience - whether that's through the way something is framed, the lighting within, the performance of the person in front of the camera or otherwise - that's when you know you're doing a good job.
Both extremes connect with their audience, they just go about it in slightly different ways.

Lot of talk here about content vs art.
I'd posit that both are forms of content. Anything that has an intended audience is a piece of content. And in fact, if you take the vloggers you spoke to as one extreme, and arthouse filmmakers as the other, there's actually a broad range in the middle (including those here) that many people will sit along.
I think preoccupation and obsession with gear is silly regardless of the type of content you're making. I think it's very easy to forget that gear and equipment are there to support the procurement and production of the content. You can have an audience shooting on an iPhone and you can have an audience shooting on an Alexa. The audiences may be different (and there's potentially some crossover), but they're both viable.
Making a video and making a film are inherently different as well. 
Figure out what you want to make and make it. Personally, I think as audiences we connect to what we relate to. Yeah, maybe sometimes we like to watch stuff that looks nice as well, but overall if you can make a connection to your audience - whether that's through the way something is framed, the lighting within, the performance of the person in front of the camera or otherwise - that's when you know you're doing a good job.
Both extremes connect with their audience, they just go about it in slightly different ways.

Me 
Sony F65 or Alexa are IMO the best you can get colour-wise on a digital camera.