OliKMIA

2 hours ago, ghostwind said:

 

@OliKMIA Thanks for all the details. Yeah, that's the million dollar question - how good to the 8bit files do in post, when shooting in less than ideal or controlled environments? I have to see this one, and for me, would mean renting and using it during an actual shoot, because I know from prior experience that I can never replicate all that goes into a shoot in my home or around it. On a real shoot I find out a TON more. But it's risky...I may end up renting one and just using it during an actual shoot when there's some downtime. I do also wonder if this C200 is really meant for people that want total control and the ability to shoot RAW. Everything else seems secondary, like a calculated afterthought.

I don't have enough experience with this Camera to answer at this point. I think there is no miracle. This is 8 bits footage, even with great Canon color "science", there is less latitude in post. I'm receiving my C200 tomorrow and I will shot a couple of video and put them on this forum with an upload link for the community, including low light and "complicated" lighting.

58 minutes ago, ghostwind said:

One question I can't find the answer to anywhere - what is the bitrate when doing HD 4:2:2 10bit external (over SDI or HDMI)? I would assume higher than the 35Mbps that it records in the MP4 4:2:0 8bit internal, but curious if I could get broadcast level (50Mbps+) for HD recording external.

No idea, I assume it's above 35mpbs. Would be surprising to get 422 10 bits footage with less than that.

6 hours ago, Yannick Willox said:

Also, keeping the mic in the case with plenty of silica gel can help.

Good point. Thanks.

6 hours ago, Yannick Willox said:

Interestingly, an MKH50 costs 1 438 dollar in Germany, excl. 21% vat (against 1200 dollar in the US). There are none on the second hand market.

You should buy a MKH50 for each project, and then sell it in the EU ?

Yes, actually I haven't found much of these mic on the used market. I can send you one from the US if you want

2 hours ago, ghostwind said:

So still researching and trying to decide. It's now come to the C200 vs C300MKII  The C200's RAW I don't think I'll use that often, but nice to have for personal projects/work, when storage, time, processing, etc. is not an issue. I would also worry about just having a single card to write to for RAW (the CFast), so the C200 would be used with the MP4 internal 4K and HD codecs to dual SD cards. But they are 4:2:0 8bit and not just that, but low bitrates - 150Mpbs for 4K and 35Mbps for HD. Numbers don't always tell the story, though, and it looks like Canon has made them quite nice. But I wonder how much they can take in post - how malleable they are to work with seeing they are 8bit and low bitrates too...C300MKII has nicer codecs for internal - 10bit, and higher bitrates too - a lot higher! So not sure if the C200 is more for those that simple shoot in RAW and/or in a very controlled environment, where white balance and exposures are spot on. C300MKII more versatile in this manner. 

C200 pros are that it's a bit smaller and lighter (but not that much) and that it has 4K60fps and 120fps full sensor w/o crop. And it's $2500 cheaper. I also like that the audio controls are on the body, but that's not a huge deal for me. C300MKII has the older screen, but I saw you can get it with the "Touch Focus Kit", which gives you essentially the same LCD with touch as the C200 and a different mic adaptor with XLR inputs, so it's a lot better than that clamshell that's the default. 

So it really comes down to how good are the internal C200 files to work with in post? Again, on paper being 8bit and low bitrates, doesn't look too good. Thoughts? Maybe I'm missing something. I know in a lot of situations I will have to correct white balance and push the files somewhat in post, as I'm not in a studio, so that leans me to the C300MKII. Downsides are more money, and no 4K60fps or 120fps w/o 2x crop. Also writing to more expensive CFast cards (dual for redundancy).

I know you can get 10bit HD from the C200 (not 4K though) by recording external, but not sure if the bitrate will be higher to the external recorder or how much of a difference it will make. Hmm...


 

I can give you a little bit of info on the C200 as I just bought one after using it last week.

• The 8 bits footage looks very good. There is really something with Canon footage. The Wide Dynamic Range profile is very easy to grade if you don't want to go all the way to C-log 1 and 2. I probably prefer Canon 8bits footage than Sony 10bits. That being said, it might be a no go for broadcast situation.
• The lack of middle ground codec is huge dick move from Canon. Usual with this company. And don't expect to record 4k raw/10 bits with an external recorder as the SDI/HDMI out is limited to 2k. The definitive proof that Canon crippled this camera intentionally to protect the C300/C500 line...
• There is no 4k DCI in 8 bits. Only in raw
• Raw is very heavy (15 min per 128GB) and the Cfast cards are ridiculously expensive. This is also a dead media.
• The raw footage is nice but it needs a lot of work, it comes out very grainy and you'll need to denoise which adds more time to the already long workflow.
• The 120fps footage is crap, DPAF is not available in this mode
• Overall, the 4k footage is on the soft side. Not bad but don't expect to crop in that much.
• The C300 will give you the middle ground 10bits codec but you'll loose the 60p

I went with the C200 because it's still a nice package for the price, the camera is relatively small with nice features such as strong ND10 and DPAF. I also have a lot of EF lenses. Low light is good. Perhaps you should rent one before buying it. The C100 is cheap but also cheaply made (eg. horrible EVF).
I'm not a fan of Sony so I discarded the FS5 and FS7. The Ursa mini is not run and gun camera which is what I need. ISO craps out at 800. Finally the EVA1 was very tempting but it's not perfect neither (bad screen, no EVF).

I'll try to upload a couple of 8bits video sample from my C200 when it gets there so you can see by yourself.

29 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

From a proportionality perspective..... if the only audio gear you're buying after the C200 is the MKH50 (plus the odd accessory for it) then you're waaaay out of whack! In terms of missallocating the budget. Unless you're only very rarely solo shouting? And usually shooting with a soundie?

We have a shitload of other mics, shotguns and lav to triple or quadruple tap each indoor interview but a hypercardioid mic is a nice addition to the mix. They'll be connected to two C200 and/or a Zoom F4 based on the setup. The mid-range option will be fine for this personal project. I'm not very concerned about that but I prefer to double check with the community to save time.

And you, what is your feedback on these mics? Some of them are in you gear list (http://ironfilm.co.nz/sound/). I'm all ears!

Thanks you all for the feedback. Much appreciated. Looks like the Audix SCX1/HC is a solid mid-range option, basically the "poor man's Schoeps MK41." I'll try the Audix and report back.

2 hours ago, Yannick Willox said:

If you want to use it in a humid environment get the mkh50.

There simply is no alternative, if it needs to be reliable.

i have MKH20/30/40/80/800/800 twins, I know what I am talking about. The mkh series has been designed to have trouble free operation in humid conditions. Just decide how much trouble the extra cost is if your 500 dollar mic starts acting out.

It will be humid in south Florida but I'm not going to shoot in the rain forest neither. Only for indoor interviews. That being said, thanks for your input, I also read somewhere else that the MKH50 was a very solid mic. Unfortunately, I simply don't have the money at this point after buying the C200. I believe the Audix SCX1/HC will do the job, I also have a shotgun and a Lav as B and C mic for redundancy.

25 minutes ago, Mmmbeats said:

You want feedback on them?  Place a linked output channel speaker within range of the pickup pattern, that should do the trick ?.

I'm here all week (unfortunately).

Yes, I can potentially try them all and return to amazon but It's always helpful to benefit from the community experience. No need to waste time on a specific model if everybody says it's bad. From my research and based and the previous recommendations, it looks like I can't really go wrong with these 3 mics: Audix SCX1/HC,  Audio-Technica AT4053b,  AKG CK93

The Audix seems to be a good option recommended by many. I'll probably compare the Audix and the AKG.

Thanks for all the feedback. I forgot to mention that I will use this microphone in a very humid environment (South Florida). I know that some mic are sensitive to humidity. What do you think?

Thanks for your comments, it's helpful.

1 minute ago, IronFilm said:

I'd rename those three categories instead as:

Standard Pro Gear:
Indie / Prosumer Gear:
No Budget Gear:

 

And what's your take in the Indie / Prosumer category?

Hi,

I just purchased a C200 for a documentary and I'm looking for a super/hypercardioid microphone to pair it with for indoor interviews. Basically, there are three categories of microphones:

- Entry level ($100-$200): Samson C02 and Oktava MK-012
- Mid-range ($500): Audix SCX1/HC, Audio-Technica AT4053b, AKG CK93, Neumann KM 185
- High-end ($1200+): Sennheiser MKH 50 and Schoeps CMC6 MK41

I cannot justify the high-end microphone option after dropping big bucks for the C200 but I don't want to go on the cheap route neither because audio is often overlooked and bad audio rendering can ruin an entire project much faster than poor image quality. Therefore, I'm going to go for the mid-range option which is enough for my project. I'm inclined to get the AKG CK93 because I like this brand (great headsets) and the price is right ($460). This mic is also modular (the capsule can be switched to shotgun). But the other brands also seems fine.

Question: do you have any feedback or experience with these microphones? (Audix SCX1/HC, Audio-Technica AT4053b, AKG CK93, Neumann KM 185). I would love to hear your experience, good or bad before getting one of those. Eventually, I'll probably try them (thanks to amazon return policy) and decide which one is right for me. Thanks in advance for your help.

15 hours ago, Mokara said:

It was dropped to save money.

14 hours ago, Shell64 said:

Mokora, how do you keep doing this argument when ALL of the evidence is against you? 

Someone once said "Insanity Is Doing the Same Thing Over and Over Again and Expecting Different Results"
 

15 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

He's still going...

Holy fuck.

Flat-Earther too but I'm not sure it deserves an article.

Please don't ban this guy. This is very entertaining.

8 hours ago, HockeyFan12 said:

This seems completely delusional to me, but what do I know. Is Canon really so concerned with undermining such a small demographic that they go through the trouble of removing a feature across multiple lines so they can upsell them from a (presumably profitable) $1200 dSLR to a $6500 C200 on which they lose money?

The very fact that the older models had 24p contradicts this conspiratorial nonsense. We're simply not that important to them. They're not out to get you, they just don't care. 

Older cameras had 24p when they still was a huge gap with Pro models. And at the time, the C lineup was not very developed. When canon started adding DPAF and 4K, they crippled it somehow with lack of AF, huge crop and now the removal of 24p. They just want leave a large gap between prosumer cam and pro cam.

7 hours ago, HockeyFan12 said:

 I just don't buy the broader argument that someone shopping for a $1200 stills camera is shopping it against a $6500 cinema camera. 

Someone shopping for $6500 camera might also need a B and C cam with relatively close look, APC-S and S35 are close. A few 90D  might do well with regular C200/C300 footage for quick cut and B roll. Canon try to sell A, B and C cam at full price. Not sure about the reasoning, does it really work for them? Big prods might buy that but how many customers do they lose in the process? I don't know.
But it's not just about price, mounting a M6 II on a small gimbal would be much easier than a C200. Getting B-roll with light and small gimbal is great, doing the same thing with a C200, not so easy.

4 hours ago, PolarStarArts said:

In other words, Canon seem to be trying to protect small markets (eg., their Cinema EOS line) that account for a minority of their sales. It doesn't make any sense.

It's all about margins not sales. They probably make pennies on entry level DSLR but the margins in the Pro camera business are comfortable, even after factoring the smaller production batch:

Need a longer cable? $350 !!!!
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1184818-REG/canon_0887c001_un_10_unit_cable_for.html
A 90 Wh battery? $430
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1159864-REG/canon_0870c002_bp_a60_battery_pack_for.html
A 4" monitor $650
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1340812-REG/canon_2417c001_lm_v1_lcd_monitor.html

1 hour ago, Mokara said:

That is a reasonable and obvious explanation for why something like 24p is omitted. The suggestion that they left it out on purpose just to make their product less competitive is absurd, but that is essentially what most of you are arguing. It is not like 24p was not in their cameras before, so they were not protecting anything then and are not now. The reason for the omission has to be something else.

As soon as they release an entry level cam with DPAF and no crop, they magically remove 24p. Don't you see any link here? As you said, they used to have 24p in the past on anything, including sub $500 entry level DSLR such as the 100D. First they release 4k after everybody else, then they release 4k with with huge crop, to finally implement 4k on cheap mirrorless by removing DPAF and now this. I'm not sure if you are blind or if you playing the devil's advocate.

Crippling and segmentation is nothing new or specific to Canon. All manufacturers do that at some point (Sony with shitty codec on the A7x, S1 with shitty audio) but Canon is just mastering the art. Same as the lack of intermediate codec on the C200 (and no 4k raw out!!), etc. Canon line-up is full of crippling, more than the other brands. That's all.

53 minutes ago, Mokara said:

That is the standard license that is available to everyone. You can negotiate other terms however.

The fact that there is no reason to intentionally cripple cameras doesn't bother you? After all, if that was the case then why do older consumer cameras have 24p in them? Surely Canon would still have been "protecting" other products then as well? Why would they suddenly stop including 24p to "protect" professional products? What kind of professional is going to give up on their Cx00 in order to shoot on an EOS-M camera? Really??? You guys seriously believe that??? Your argument makes absolutely no sense at all. The only reasonable reason for doing this is to reduce costs in order to improve the profit margin, something you would expect them to do in a climate of rapidly shrinking consumer sales.

The reason is to protect their higher margin Cxxx camera business, it's both simple and very dumb, which is why you might have issue to grasp at this difficult reality. They are somehow terrified that people would buy entry level stuff for B cam. Sony and Panasonic don't, FS and EVA exist along with A7 and GH/S1 product. People won't give up a pro cam for a DSLR but these type of cameras could be nice as B or C cam if you already own the lenses and want to maintain a certain image consistency.

Your explanation doesn't add up, no matter how many times you repeat this non-sense on every thread. It just goes against basic observation of Canon release history over the year. Nothing to be mad about but this is just embarrassing for you at this point. Not sure if you are a troll, a Canon Rep or really believe in this fairy tale. That said, I'm out of this discussion. Have fun.

12 hours ago, Yurolov said:

Do you think it will have 24p??

23.976 only

2 hours ago, currensheldon said:

Records 4K60p in Super35 crop internally in Cinema RAW light

Records 2k120p in Super16 crop in Cinema RAW light

They can't help it!!! That would be strange if true, especially in the C500 range. "See impossible"

"The Z6 isn’t a bad camera. Why has the market seemingly rejected it when it’s better specced than the A7 III?"

Lack of native lenses. Feeling like, as Canon, these first mirrorless releases are just half-baked first generation cameras that need improvement.

6 hours ago, ted1000 said:

At least Canon won't sue you if you say something bad about their cameras ?

Ted

They don't have the resource internally to do that, it would be an endless task. Plus, HR prioritized the Video Crippling department over Legal affairs.

Hi Andrew,

I sent you a PM via FB. I'm not qualified enough to talk about the patent things and there are a lot of unchecked facts at this point but this story about defamation and libel against you and EOSHD is very surprising. I would like to try to post this on Fstoppers because I believe that freedom of speech means something but I want to get your side of the story first. However, I understand that you may not want to spread this beyond your forum. I totally respect that. Let me know if you are interested, Fstoppers is not NYT or the Guardian but this is an important matter that should be covered, even at my very modest level. Best of luck with all this.

Be careful about this lens, some have a lot of micro-jitter issue due to the optical stabilization. The problem is widely reported on several Pana lens. Some got fixed via a firmware update. Not sure about this version now but just double check.

1 hour ago, wolf33d said:

I am so tired of this absolute BS argument. First of all neither me or anybody at EOSHD has ever said we cant produce a great video with todays equipment. 
But because we can do great video with an iPhone and a 5D Mark II means we shouldn’t expect/need more????
Because a car from 30 years ago can perfectly take you from A to B means you do not want/need anything newer? 

Stop with that argument that is counter innovation. The fact is that the camera market lacks a lot of innovation.
We should have already a Full Frame camera with full modern touch screen interface, DPAF with AI, Raw video and 4K60P 10 bit no crop, IBIS, new sensor tech, in camera stills treatment and sharing on platforms without having the need to transfer anything. Why not video treatment as well? I have iMovie on my phone and can edit a full movie on it since years and share it in seconds in a device far smaller than any FF camera. Another proof the camera market is just far far behind. Compare the processor in a Sony, their BionzX Bulls*** versus Apple A12.  

The ones who try to innovate the most like BlackMagic are not the big players and have lower resources, hard to blame them much. 

Canikon are the most ridiculous, followed by Sony. Sony while innovating in some regards (or at least not practicing full crippling like Canon) forgets the basics like UI and ergonomics. They would invest 50 bucks a little boy in India he would probably do a better UI than they do today. 

But all of this is thanks to people like you, who gets satisfied with that situation and even defend manufacturers. And people like me, who complain but still buy their shit and give them no reason to invest in innovation. Wait a minute, isn’t the camera market fully shrinking since years now, isn’t that a reason to question a bit?? Oh no, because the reason it shrinks is the smartphones...... sure. 

 

The lack of innovation is debatable. In the past 5 years only we had:

- Generalization of IBIS on many FF camera
- 10 bits video files or even beyond that
- Amazing and affordable lens selection from Sigma and other third part manufacturers  (samyang, tamron, etc.)
- Generalization of 4k and now 4k60
- Standardization of video assist features
- Cheap, effective, and easy to use 3 axis gimbals. I built my first gimbal for drone in the early 2010s and just settings the PIDs of the controller was an immense time consuming pain.
- Cheap drones everywhere thanks to DJI, Parrot and other brands like Autel, etc.

So, yes I'm a bit amused about this level of whining and hysteria. Yes, we should have a lot of stuff in life, I would love to get a "Full Frame camera with full modern touch screen interface, DPAF with AI, Raw video and 4K60P 10 bit no crop, IBIS" but it won't happen ever. Each companies has strengths and weaknesses, technologies protected by patents and we will never get the silver bullet camera with the best of everything. Even Panasonic had hard time to come up with 4k60 in full frame. The phone and the photo industry are two different animals, sales are on the low millions versus billions for smartphone in volume. Not even talking about the margin. It's not hard to understand that the level of investment won't be the same. But Sony UI is just plain stupidity, it just happens everywhere.

People like me denounced Canon conservatism many times in the past, just google my name and Canon, you'll find my articles, I even quoted Andrew there. But unlike a few years ago, Canon is no longer the only option so I just moved on,  I got the right tool for my needs and went out shooting. Incidentally,  I spent much less time on this forum crying about motion cadence, organic feel and other mundane stuff which are a bit irrelevant at this point. That said, I wish you the best of luck with your endeavor and your next video projects. Cheers.
 

I am tired from all these Japanese camera crap company that give us 2010 technology at high price over and over again. 

>>> We have so many options now for video, GH5, Fuji, Olympus, Black Magic, Sony, Nikon, etc. Plus drones and cheap gimbals. The situation is radically different than it was just 5 years ago. If we can't produce great video with all that, Japanese companies are not to blame.

DJI has been crazy innovating for years, they make the best drone with incredible cameras, the best gimbals, best action cam, .., When they enter the market with a new product it’s always the best.
>>> They did push the envelop for sure but some product were poorly supported and/or abandoned by this company. For instance the X5 and X5R. The Inspire 2 has its share of issues and the X7 haven't been pushed since the initial launch. Their ground gimbal are buggy as hell and the Osmo Raw was a joke in terms of usability and workflow. There is a lack of consistency with DJI. They changed their LOG curve many times and the forced updates tend to bring many problems. Finally, have you ever tried to get serious assistance from DJI customer service? Hint: they are not very helpful even when you spend big bucks with them.

They have given us 4K60 and 10 bits in 1inch sensor for years in super tiny cameras when Sony is not capable of doing so in a much larger RX100 in 2019. Ridiculous.

>>> The first 4k60 was on the Phantom 4 Pro and the image quality was quite bad thanks to line skipping. Also, drones offer the advantage of natural air flow for cooling, either from the propellers or the motion of the drone. The architecture is very different than a regular camera, most of the time the sensor and the processing units are not stacked against each other in a small body. The design and heat dissipation parameters are completely different.

This camera could be a game changer with modern touch screen controls and ergonomics associated with clean aluminium body with a last gen Sony sensor and massive specs like RAW, 10 bits, 4K60P and so on. 

>>> Why not, I wouldn't mind to see more disruption in this market. I own several DJI products and I would be open for more competition.
 

8 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

It's the camera industry's "climate emergency" moment. Unless they take radical action and quick, they're going to sink under the murky water.

Sony's earnings are due on 30th July, so keep an eye on this page for those - https://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/IR/library/presen/er/

Also good reading, is Fuji's CEO and his book Innovating out of a Crisis - https://www.amazon.co.uk/Innovating-Out-Crisis-Fujifilm-Vanishing-ebook/dp/B00OFK46V0/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=Fujifilm+crisis&qid=1564310458&s=gateway&sr=8-1

This shows how the company diversified after the film camera era responsible for 60% of their income vanished over night.

They got back on track in digital and have done very well.

Very ironic that now one of their most successful and profitable lines is instant FILM!

The crux of the matter is that digital technology killed the film market and now the tech sector is doing the same to dedicated, stand-alone digital devices.

The tech sector doesn't just make money selling hardware, like smartphones... It's the apps and online services which are so important. The Japanese companies have so far failed to appreciate this. Blackmagic at least gets it - selling a camera to further uptake of Resolve and their other products. 

Most of the eco-system around cameras wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for Chinese companies. 

The software side is largely ignored by Canon and Nikon especially. Canon should, for example, have bought Adobe a LONG time ago. Look how profitable they are now, with their evil subscription model. 

Look how poor PlayMemories was by Sony. They do not have the staff.

Sony at least did enter the smartphone market, but aren't doing that well. No real USP or imagination. Just solid, well specced phones is not enough.

At least TWO of the dedicated camera manufacturers should also have entered the smartphone market in a big way, but they only so much as dipped their toes in the water and fussed around with wifi.

So what do they DO ABOUT IT now?? The ship has sailed. All consumers now have incredibly powerful computational imaging devices, connected services and software in their pocket. Camera makers must now look to how the market might evolve in 20 years with A.I. The work on the next gen processors must be done by Canon / Nikon / Fuji / Panasonic / Sony and not only by Apple or Samsung. We are talking cloud based, deep learning, mega-chips, able to apply artificial digital lighting in real-time, able to sense depth and build a 3D map of the entire scene in real-time, able to apply any lens focal length and depth of field convincingly without errors, able to perform with a small sensor in low light from an incredibly thin wafer of semiconductors in the pocket... And bring all that technology to the screen and consumer in an imaginative and beautiful way.

It's a big ask when Canon can't even get rid of the crop in 4K

Personally I think they are doomed in consumer market and we may even sadly lose Olympus and Rioch completely.

Couldn't agree more. I wrote a detailed analysis of the difference between Fuji and Kodak. Diversification was key as the CEO of Fuji explained in his book.

https://petapixel.com/2018/10/19/why-kodak-died-and-fujifilm-thrived-a-tale-of-two-film-companies/

However, unlike Kodak. Canon doesn't depend on a single line of product. The consumer segment of the imaging division only represents a small share of the Canon's profit (10-15%?). Therefore, Canon will survive the hit but they can only blame themselves for this. They stretched their brand and their outdated production line too far.
 

I can understand your frustration and you raised many valid concerns but what's the point? Nowadays we have so many options to choose from: Sony, Panasonic S or GH series, BMPCC4k, Fuji, Nikon Z, etc.

The video DSLR revolution was all about creativity for the masses (amateurs, indie and small prod). This is what triggered the inception of this blog I believe. That's it! We have everything we ever dreamed of: anybody can spend $3 or $4k and get an excellent 4K60 camera with decent lenses and add a drone on top of that. All of which fits in a backpack.

But where is the film-making here?

There is nothing nightmarish in this. Just the opposite, we have so many great affordable options to choose from now. Even though gear matters depending on the requirements, I don't really care because gear is not a limiting factor anymore. Unlike a few years ago, anybody can shoot a great film or documentary with very low camera budget.

I don't necessarily agree all the time with Mattias but he has a point. All these endless topics about motion cadence, compression, bits, curve X and Y are a bit boring nowadays especially when there is very little actual movie making and demo real going on.

Yeah, my main still cameras are a bunch of 6D and 5D3 for timelapse and I just don't see any upgrade path at this point:

Canon R: basically a reheated 5D4, unusable video in 4k, ridiculously expensive lenses, outdated sensor tech
Canon RP: RIP
Nikon Z6 and Z7: ridiculously expensive lenses, the Z7 doesn't have a dual card slot which place this camera in a weird category (not pro but priced as such).
Panasonic S1 and S1R: potential issue with the alliance, very limited selection of lenses, HUGE mirrorless body, poor battery life, issue with the AF
Sony: horrible colors, horrible interface, lag, feels cheap, lot of sensor dust but at least it's improving (battery life) and the lens selection is good thanks to other manufacturers

The Nikon D850 is great for stills but I don't want to invest in a dying system (F mount).

So I'm sticking with my 2012 canon bodies for now. Keeping a close eye on Panasonic though.

Very interesting piece. Thanks.

https://www.videomaker.com/news/vimeo-buys-short-film-editing-platform-magisto-for-200m/?fbclid=IwAR3K5meVnUtwVjudvAuUcpiSnGObiRQM3ACFjhIpyUSaBF9_Jka_eZtyovo

News has just come out that Vimeo has acquired Magisto, a 100 million user startup focused on creating and editing short videos.

This is a huge purchase for Vimeo. To put it into context, Vimeo in total has 90 million users, compared to Magisto’s 100 million users. So far the terms of the deal haven’t been disclosed yet. Israeli publication Globes is reporting it’s a $200 million deal. However, TechCrunch talked to a source that didn’t deny the figure but did say the deal’s final price won’t be settled on until the deal is officially closed. That should be happening at the end of Q2, according to Vimeo.