The Chris

9 hours ago, IronFilm said:

You totally misread his statement. He was referring to cropping when reading out 4K video. 
Both the 1D C and 1D X mk2 crop in very significantly when in 4K mode.
It would be a shock if the much cheaper 5D didn't also do the same!

Ok let me put it another way, the 5d had video before the 1d, the 5d was FF before the 1d, he said they wouldn't have tech in the 5d that's not in the 1dxII. But in Canon's history that's simply not the case.

This is an entirely new sensor and different than what's in the 1dxII. Any statements of fact about the camera is pure speculation as there's almost nothing actually known about the 5d4 right now.

Next week all will be revealed though.

On August 12, 2016 at 9:37 AM, Snowfun said:

Big companies could promote one-off "as used by Ebrahim Saadawi" versions...

This is the funniest thing I've seen all day. Nice.

Not sure what gains a refresh will bring, the new 10bit screen calibrates beautifully and the thing is so damn fast, plus Late 2015 moved to Skylake. Apple seems to be moving toward USB 3.0, I prefer a slew of ports over a breakout box.

Refurbs save about 15%, I bought used off Ebay and saved a little more, plus shipping was free and no tax - my machine was almost 30% off new price. Mine was only used for a couple months, so right now 33 months remain on the applecare warranty. Full spec on mine is 4.0ghz, 1tb SSD, 32gb ram, 395x video card with 4gb vram, it trounced my 6-core 3.5ghz with dual AMD500 video cards, 256gb SSD and 32gb ram. But the new iMac have the updated SSD's and I've read that larger SSD's are faster than the smaller ones. Its a powerhouse machine. My main gripe with the 2014's was the fan noise when pushed hard. That's the reason I went with the trashcan - its so quiet. I've only one the new one for a couple weeks, but I've yet to hear any noise from it at all.

Side note, the built in speakers sound surprisingly good, lots of bass with the sound reflecting off the desk. My studio monitors and headphones sound better, but they should.

1 hour ago, jonpais said:

That's friction' awesome! Here's my machine, late 2013

Yeah, its crazy fast, chews through everything with ease. FCPx is so smooth with my setup. Love it.

Cheers

38 minutes ago, Davey said:

That's the one I have - same specs as yours - and it absolutely eats 4K footage out of the A7s2 and whatever I stack on top of it (usually Color Finale). But that is using FCPX which is a lot easier to use than Premier on these Macs (I have heard).

FCPx is faster, its one of the reasons I've dumped PC's, editing/rendering/exporting is to much faster compared to Premiere.

Apple quietly made a few upgrades to the Late 2015 iMac retina update, most notably the screen is now 10-bit and the SSD's are PCI-e 3.0 - which makes them ridiculously fast. I tested one side by side with my 6-core mac pro and the iMac smoked it. So I sold the trashcan and bought a loaded iMac, 1tb SSD, 32gb ram and the 395x card. How fast? Check this out.

1 hour ago, Cassius McGowan said:

Whatever helps you sleep at night. But the only thing that keep canon relevant on the dslr video side is ML. Without them people would've been jumped ship.

So its been a best seller for more than 4 years because of the small percentage of users running ML? Plenty of shooters are using it professionally without ever running ML. Just a brilliant analysis, absolutely brilliant.

19 minutes ago, swithdrawn said:

This is Canon we're talking about, you expect them to have come up with a new way of reading out the sensor that wasn't included in the more expensive 1DXII? 

DPAF is great, I have used it on the 1DXII and was really excited about this camera. If you never have to shoot wide this camera will be great for you... but unfortunately that's a deal breaker for me.

 

Your argument is flawed, DPAF debuted on the lowly 70d. And the 1dxII is aimed at an entirely different market.

8 hours ago, Cassius McGowan said:

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*

I haven't been let down at all, don't know what the hell your warped analogy is supposed to mean. Canon had the first 4k DSLR, they have the best video/live view AF, and they now have the first 4k/60p DSLR. Plus they have the best Native lens lineup and shooting ergonomics nailed, something Sony really needs to revise with future a7 bodies. If you're looking for a hybrid body, the 5d4 spec looks really good. As always I'll reserve judgment until actual samples are available.

I guess if people on this board keep saying Canon doesn't innovate and the image sucks, one day it might actually be true. 

Is there any confirmation of a 4k crop? I see all this talk about it, but nothing based on actual information. 

2 hours ago, swithdrawn said:

You mention full frame image, but the 5D4 4k crop would be worse than APS-C. I would take the GH4 with speed booster over the 5D4 spec'd as rumored. You'll get around 1.4 crop instead of 1.7 and v-log. DPAF isn't worth all of that sacrifice to me.

Have you used dual pixel? It can pull focus better than you can with a fly by wire lens. The Canon will have better DR as well, and vastly superior stills. AF will be in another league. I'd take the rumored 5d4 over a boosted GH4. YMMV.  

Its pretty funny reading all the comments trashing a camera before a second of footage has been released. Judging by what we've seen with the 1dxII, if the image is similar it will be very, very good. If only Ebrahim were here to write a 5,000 word essay on Canon's colors.

The 5d3 is over four years old and still a top seller, someone must be using it. 5d2's are even regularly used in broadcast productions. All this gnashing over specs is just measurbating.

Dual pixel AF and Canon's native lens selection makes this a very interesting camera for me - and I'm pretty heavily invested in the A7rII and lots of Sony glass.

Looking forward to samples and full details of the spec.

Does anyone get better scoops than Digicame-Info? They seem to be the ones that all the rumor sites feed off, kudos to them for having insiders everywhere.

Agree with others, only deal through the actual paypal portal, those scammer emails look legit, but the address is always wonky and if you click through and log in they have all your into. Paypal specifies they will not do transactions like that through email. Report the fake to paypal.

With the fix, I've just ordered another one. Will run it next to the A7rII and see if its better than the one I had when it was first released.

Here's a pretty good RX100 review from an astrophotographer, has settings info. http://www.lonelyspeck.com/sony-rx100-series-astrophotography-review/

With a 1" sensor and a fixed lens, long exposure night photography is pushing things in terms of IQ.

If you can shoot raw, then downsample the images to your video size noise should improve quite a bit.

Yes, PP's have an impact on raws, the minimum Iso still applies and such. I can't remember if you're getting a 14-bit file either, but its been awhile since I tinkered with slog stills. I would only use it for quick stills in my videos, otherwise no PP when shooting stills. Dpreview talked about it with the RX100IV, and I've seen discussions elsewhere if you search: https://***URL removed***/reviews/sony-cybershot-dsc-rx100-iv/15  

This is from Sony's help guide:

Since the parameters are shared for movie and still images, adjust the value when you change the shooting mode.

If you print RAW images with shooting settings, the following settings are not reflected.

Black Level

Black Gamma

Knee

Color Depth

If you change [Gamma], the available ISO value range changes.

There may be more noise in dark parts depending on the gamma settings. It may improve by setting the lens compensation to [Off].

When using S-Log2 gamma, the noise becomes more noticeable compared to when using other gammas. If the noise still is significant even after processing pictures, it may be improved by shooting with a brighter setting. However, the dynamic range becomes narrower accordingly when you shoot with a brighter setting. We recommend checking the picture in advance by test shooting when using S-log2.

Setting [ITU709(800%)] or [S-Log2] may cause an error in the white balance custom setup. In that case, set the exposure bright first and then perform custom setup.

Setting [ITU709(800%)] or [S-Log2] disables the [Black Level] setting.

If you set [Slope] to +5 in [Manual Set], [Knee] is set to [Off].

S-Gamut is a color space unique to Sony that provides a wide color space equivalent to film cameras. However, S-Gamut setting of this camera does not support the whole color space of S-Gamut; it is a setting to realize a color reproduction equivalent to S-Gamut.

As a taxpayer, I think the government has bigger things to worry about than digital piracy, any policing of this is a waste of time and government resources and any lawmaker that spends a second worrying about it - at least here in the U.S. - is usually bought and paid for by entertainment industry lobbyists. The endless extension of copyright laws is a perfect example.

Any proposal to create an organization to police a medium of free speech seems incredibly overreaching, Nazi and Communist comparisons are appropriate.

And no matter what, it still wouldn't stop piracy. 

The Nikon 1 series has some pretty amazing PADF capabilities, and had it before Canon or Sony, they can do mirrorless AF.

They're in a tough spot to do large sensor mirrorless because of their commitment to the F-mount, Sony isn't exactly lighting the world on fire with the kludgy LAEA adapters that mate A-mount glass to E-mount bodies, reception to and adapter will probably be equally cold. 

2 hours ago, Flynn said:

I wonder why none of them are offering things like raw though? I think BM is a much smaller company than all three of them and look at what they were able to do early on. Is it a lack of vision, a lack of resources...hadn't considered that Sony might force those buying from them to cripple their video.

Blackmagic cameras don't shoot stills and they don't use large MP sensors that need to be compressed into lower resolution video files. Olympus, Nikon and Fuji have a lot of photo-centric features to focus on and very little space in many of the bodies for added processing, cooling and so on. The processing for full sensor readout 4k video is immense, the demands of the spec sheet are moving faster than the smaller players can keep up. IMO the future of the smaller mfr's is shakier than ever. All three could make a killer video camera if they put resources into it, but it likely wouldn't be profitable and all three aren't exactly raking in boatloads of cash from their camera sales. 

Kipon has done it, for now only in Leica and Sony mounts:

http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/kipon-announces-worlds-first-medium-format-hasselblad-v-sony-e-mount-focal-length-reducer-adapter/

Looking forward to seeing samples.

Not a great first flog clip for sure. Nothing in the highlights at all, slog2 on my a7rII looks much better. 

24 minutes ago, Michael Ma said:

I would bet Canon lost a ton of money on the 1Dc, XC-10, C100, C300, C500.  They are all very niche products, so different from each other, compared to the 5D which is the industry standard for photos and was a little bit for video.

Huh? I would bet they've made a ton of money on the cinema line. In Canon's last annual report the Cinema line was spotlighted as a segment for horizontal expansion moving forward - in other words its something they're plowing more resources in order to expand its reach. This isn't something they would do if they "lost a ton of money." We already have rumors of mkIII versions. The KPI's and gross profit ratio's show high margin cameras are doing well for them as unit volume decreases. Expanding the Cinema EOS reach is part of the next 5-year phase of their long term strategy, again not likely if it were not making money. The C100/300's have become one of the standard cameras in TV and news production, and virtually every rental house stocks them. All of those cameras you listed share components with high volume models which lowers development costs.

7 hours ago, Mervyn said:

Impressive, looks like in good light the autofocus can be quite useful.

Any idea which lens they used? I did a video test on an X-T1 to see which lenses could potentially work for video. I concluded that I'd really need a stabilized lens for a usable handheld result. Either that or use a tripod.

I don't care as much about stabilization for photography, but a stabilized version of the 16-55 f2.8 would be really great, perhaps almost essential, for handheld video.

That was from Rico's first look on Fuji Rumors, both shots were handheld using the 50-140 zoom at 140mm, or 210mm in FF terms. 

13 hours ago, jax_rox said:

Sony seem to build this into their modelling - it must work quite well for them!

The flip side of that coin is they're squeezing customers that have already paid a lot of money for a camera that's intentionally crippled, for the express purpose of screwing people over with an "upgrade" that should have been included in the first place, since the hardware already has the capability. Sony shouldn't be applauded in any way for charging extra to unlock features that should have been included with the camera when bought new. Just my opinion. 

I'm not saying what I would do or prefer, that's just Canons way of doing business. Sony is no different, plenty of A7s users, myself included, would love a 4k internal upgrade. Instead we have to buy a mkII. The FS700 raw debacle was a joke. Canon offered the dual pixel AF upgrade, but as far as 4k goes we're SOL. That may not always be the case, I'm guessing C300 sales are robust enough to keep paid upgrades at bay for now.

People always drag Kodak out of the grave when talking about camera company financials, Canon's imaging division is smaller than other divisions like office, they have a large medical segment and they have others. Kodak is a poor analogy, they weren't as diverse and even when they were on top in the mid-2000's, they were still losing money. Imaging was a majority of their business and a significant portion was film and P&S cameras - they ignored video and didn't have office products, medical instruments, broadcasting divisions and so on bringing a bulk of their revenues to fall back on. Canon can survive the downturn we're seeing.

Nikon is a different story IMO. 

2 hours ago, Marco Tecno said:

you are the pathetic One

Sorry about the pathetic comment, the NX1 just keeps getting inserted into discussions on this board that aren't about the NX1. It seems like every new thread about Camera X has post after post showing how/why the NX1 is better than Camera X. Its a very closed system, and its dead. I'll head elsewhere to discuss the Fuji. But I digress, and I apologize.

Cheers

Back to the XT2, here's a little 4k BTS clip.

17 hours ago, tomsemiterrific said:

 I don't disagree with any of these comments. In fact, what you say is obvious on its face. My point was and still is whatever they are thinking it's not about making money. I think that is a serious mistake. It seems there's a HUGE part of the market they are totally snubbing. 

There are many who would be completely satisfied with the status quo of a model...most even. But for those, for instance, would like some added features for the C100 Mk II, but simply could never dream of owning a C300 mk II--and such people are likely to jump to Sony for want of a few simple features.

I know what they've been thinking. In the light of their sales  trajectory the past years what I wonder is why they keep thinking it.

Its all about making money, you say its a mistake, but they're the most profitable camera manufacturer over the last decade, and its not close. Prior to the A7's, Sony imaging was losing a lot of money, hundreds of millions dollars a year. If you want to shoot Canon you have choices. The Cinema line, the XC10 and the 5dsr shows they're looking at ways to adapt the mass market tech to fill smaller but profitable niche markets.  They don't care if you can't afford a C300 vs C100, plenty of others are footing the bill. Paid upgrades with newer features make no business sense, it may make sense to camera owners, but it would have to be priced so high - in order to recoup development costs of new tech and a new model and balance profits from moving fewer units of the new model - that it would go largely ignored in favor of just buying a new camera. Would you pay $5000 for a 4k upgrade in a C100 or a Log upgrade in a 1dxII? My guess is no.