BrorSvensson

70D and 80D are used for vlogging because they provide the excellent Canon Dual Pixel AF which is important for one-man shows, especially daily vlogs. Panasonic GX85, Olympus E-M5.2 provide better image quality and stabilization but do net get the AF-job done. The CDAF implementations are simply not reliable enough. You do not see the focus hunting in the small flip-out screen during recording. Of course there is obvious stuff, where the camera focusses on the background an is not willig to change but the problem are the small, nearly unnoticeable glitches, when the face tracking loses the face for a fraction of a second. Once back at the NLE you realize that it looks awful but today's episode needs to be pushed out ...
Vlogging is a growing business, pobably understimated by poeple that are not used to it. A lot of money is involved when the number of followers get over one million and while content is still king the quality level is quite high.

Seems like the new Olympus might be ideal for vlogging no? With the IBIS and flip out screen and improved video quality. 
 

These kind of videos are... useless. A nice fellow, but he just rehash what we read on the net and did not even bother going to Photokina (not that expensive), as a real journalist should do, and talk to the people from Panasonic there to get all the details and bring something that was not yet said or confirmed. Waist of time, just click bait.

He could even had taken his own videos and photos of the beast instead of relying on other's work... 

Sorry if I sound rude, but I have (now sold) ran a modest tech website in English and French from Japan on Japanese tech and being on the go to cover press event or show like these where our first priority to get something that others were too lazy to get.

The GH4 has 96fps, so surely the GH5 improves on that?
Yesterday was not a full launch, just a teaser. There is clearly more details to come.

Yes, at cyberphoto.se
No idea about other countries.
That XLR-thing made it a bit more interesting. But now I can only think about the new MF Fuji and hoping it will be within a reasonable budget for me.

I would take the discount just because he clearly tried to see if he could make those scratches unseen. 
But I wouldn't return it, you made it look worse from the reading until I saw the picture

Personally I call that regular ware. $200 sounds totally fine. I also buy and sell alot of cameras and wouldn't be to worried about a small scratch. People in the market for a 1dx/c buys for preformance and not so much cosmetics.

Or just go with a Blackmagic Pocket (+Speedbooster) if the portability is crucial to you.

Most videographers I know want performance on high ISOs. At least 3200 with perfect performance.
Personally Im on the other side, would love iso 25 and 50 in a BMPCC.

In stock in Sweden today. Im seriosly tempted due to the great colors and DR from the xpro2 but with higher res and less moire.
Whats holding me back is that I currently have no need for a digital stills camera and dont feel like paying for it. Plus a 5Dmkiii is half the cost of a xt2 + lens.
If I needed a hybrid this would be it.

I bought it yesterday, installed on the 5D Mark II without problems. I'm not sure yet, but it seems to output some really smooth footage. Note that I'm using in-camera H.264. Cinestyle appears to have less headroom both in the shadows and the highlights. For example, the Cinestyle footage of a specific scene had blown highlights while C-LOG preserved them just fine and had cleaner shadows. 

I found that C-LOG works nicely with magic lantern when I set the zebras to appear after the brightness level of 235 (about 93%) which seems to be the maximum value allowed by C-LOG. This way I can always know if I've overexposed anything.

I was just thinking, why should the highlight values be limited at 236/255? Is it the nature of log?

Maybe I can answer that with a video:
 

There was a korean guy who sold modified speedbooster with the EF contacts.

Andrew, there is mistake in your calculations fo Sony A7S II (and A7S). It has 1.1x crop because full width of sensor is 4240, not 3840, which is used for 4K and FullHD video capture. In stills image is a bit wider, than in video.

It also works great with camera like the Sony a7 or the T3i which have issues like moire and aliasing, the grain often helps hide those issues in my experience.

It also works great with camera like the Sony a7 or the T3i which have issues like moire and aliasing, the grain often helps hide those issues in my experience.

That's too bad. I think the gh4 has shutter by degrees and also some kind of anti-flckr scanning. It's disappointing a $6000 dslr with 4k 60fps doesn't have features like this.

It also works great with camera like the Sony a7 or the T3i which have issues like moire and aliasing, the grain often helps hide those issues in my experience.

And a telephoto end. Finally

I like a bit of grain, it makes the image feel alive. 
A show like Stranger Things - lovely grain. 
The majority of Vimeo - not so much. 

It also works great with camera like the Sony a7 or the T3i which have issues like moire and aliasing, the grain often helps hide those issues in my experience.

Adding a bit of grain can help dither digital highlights from having razor sharp edge contrast clipping as well as give an overall image the impression of added sharpness without making the edges buzz. When integrating CG elements into live action plates it is still one of the the go-to methods to help get the two to blend together better. An image with grain can still look very clean, as everything is uniformed with the global grain effect....which can be very different from digital 'noise' - which can sometimes only effect the shadows of an image, and is often not as monochromatic as film grain. Denoising an image - then adding grain back in can work great...again, this is often because often the non-uniform colour noise is removed/reduced, then a gentle wash of global monochromatic grain can really unify an image in it apparent sharpness and contrast. Film Convert grain is pretty good, but when I can I use real telecine scans from 35mm and overlay those at varying opacity. It is of course often down to personal taste and how effectively/subtlety it is used.  
I tend to regard image noise from digital as similar to the interference on a badly tuned old analogue TV...can sometimes be very a distracting buzz and detracts from the viewing experience.
Grain is more like the pops and crackles you hear on vinyl...part of the experience and can actually add to the experience when used well - seems to add some impression of physicality (even if emulated digitally). Subtlety is key I think - does not have to be very obvious at all to improve an image (unless you are intentionally going for a grind-house look or trying to emulate old 16mm stock).

It also works great with camera like the Sony a7 or the T3i which have issues like moire and aliasing, the grain often helps hide those issues in my experience.

Film grain is best when used after denoising an image. Anytime I use Neat Video to reduce noise I'll add a layer of grain. Otherwise it looks like plastic. Noise/grain at low ISO's are fine but when you get up to 1600 it can look nasty.

To each their own really. But there are some technical benefits to adding grain, like how it can sometimes help prevent blockiness and banding from youtube/vimeo compression