BenEricson

Nah, a hobbyist would have used a slider, drone, and some sort of other unnecessary tool. 
This is well shot and very intentionally feels candid and on the fly. Any cuts would also ruin the feel they are going for. 

Nah, a hobbyist would have used a slider, drone, and some sort of other unnecessary tool. 
This is well shot and very intentionally feels candid and on the fly. Any cuts would also ruin the feel they are going for. 

I certainly wouldn’t object to inviting him back (he had interesting and useful stuff to say) but possibly with a request to stay on topic and less of the pseudoscience?
Wasn’t there also an issue with him selling stuff (“skin tones”?) for Canon on here?
 

Shall we ask him back, by popular demand then?
I must admit I do miss the guy a bit.
But it was a bit like having a spambot around.

Because his budget isn't realistic for having anything workable? What's the point of a hacked 5d if he won't be able to afford any decent lenses, storage or a monitor to see what he is doing? He would be much better served by something like a g7 with a speedbooster. Nobody was being condescending or rude, there is no problem.

It has been pretty bad with spammers here lately....

Looks like the Micro is already going down in price on the second hand market. I got one for under $700. This is my first test, also my first time shooting Raw. Love this little camera. My Micro and Pocket should compliment each other well.

Speaking of the 5D2. This company Lucid did a lot of really nice work with that camera. It is crazy what that camera can do with such small files. I know the DP got into using filters to raise the black level to eliminate noise.
I think the 5D2 was sharper, but also had problems aliasing and moire. I don't know much about the color either, but I still think the images are so beautiful. 
 
 

Seriously, you must be the one and only. I did a moderate estimation of everything I needed to be productive with the Ursa Mini Pro, and I reached 9000 euros. As a hobbyist maybe you can get away with 7500-8000 euros, but still this is quite a substantial amount of money. What do you do with this camera then? I assume that an a6300 is sufficient for most hobbyists, but...
...there are no DOP's with an a6300 as their main camera (or second), and no serious DoP would say something stupid like this, except if you mean 20 years old film school students that declare "DoP", "director", "screen writer" after starting the second semester of film school - I have met tons of those, most of them never made it in the industry.

I agree. This is what prevents me from buying a C200. The C300ii is much more suited for the work I do. Recording long interviews and mic'd up b roll for 30/40 minutes at a time. You can buy a recorder, but that takes away from what makes the C series so awesome.
Raw seems suitable for the hobbyists and the top pros, but not the in between. This depends on the scenario of course. 

Can you post some frames? In my experience F3 is up there with the C300ii and the Red. I found it much easier to work with than FS7 or FS700.

Yes

It's not so much the crop itself, but the inconvenience of it if you're using it as a hybrid camera

"With a crop factor of 1.6x (or 2.56x total crop relative to full-frame) the video mode is almost unusable." 
The stock photo literally has a 15mm lens on it. Sounds useable to me. 
The pocket is 3x and looks better than any Sony or Panasonic DSLR. 
Will there be a speed booster for this camera? 
Canon color + 4k for 800 is great. Depends what youre using it for. I imagine on a gimbal or for interviews this could be rad. You really don't totally need auto focus with a crop so high. 
 

I think there is a common thread from people that have used canon and tried other companies. A camera is much more than its specs, and that's why I will never purchase a sony again. I used to own a C100 and not only could no other camera at that price point compete with the ergonomics but I would argue that still to this day no dslr comes close to getting as good an image, including the GH5. Canons are just much more cinematic and easy to use. Look at all the films shot on the c300 and the documentaries of the time. They are all still beautiful till this day, and that is with minimal post-processing. That's from a 8 bit camera. In fact, you look at some of the movies shot on the 5d Mark II and damn do they look cinematic. 
I have a cinema camera but I want a nice portable camera to do quick run and gun type work for which a dslr or mirroless is perfect. Canon is the only company that has the ability to provide something that could cater to all my needs - it doesn't need to be 10 bit. Sony is all specs and no substance. Their cameras aren't intuitive nor do they create a pleasing image imo. 
Eventually there will be a 4k aps-c dpaf canon camera with a decent codec, and that will be the end of this conversation I hope. Cause if I am honest nothing comes close to competing.     

Im surprised so many call it overpriced, all the stores I've seen are listing it very cheap.

Looks like cinema. I would guess this was Arri, Alexa, or C300ii. That camera is still on my list of cameras to try. Looks so nice.

Developing at home is very easy and cost effective. No darkroom required. And if you have a digital camera that shoots raw you can make DIY set-up that is just as goos as the best scanners out there. Most pro labs around here have switched to camera scanning.
This is Kodak Vision 50D from Cinestill. I also have the medium format version but haven't used it yet.
(Im glad you dig my IG)

Some lovely stuff there @Rodolfo Fernandes (I just hope no-one quotes your post in full, though!)

c200 IQ recognition, to me, reveals a causation vs. correlation issue. 
Are the c200 videos better because they use a c200, or are the people and organizations that use (and can afford to buy) the c200 simply more accomplished?

I was also in the market for a variND filter and decided to go with a set of fixed ND filters.  
Variable ND is a basically two (non-circular) polarizers on top of each other.  My reasoning for not getting a variable ND was the following:
1 - chance of accidentally changing the ND strength. 
2 - not vary accurate ND strength value marking. 
3 - making it difficult matching two different shots from different cameras if I ever wanted to have a B-cam 
 
At the end having bunch of NDs is going to take more space and it's more work ( @DaveAltizer - h/t for XUME) and more expensive. But it'll provide better image quality, and more repeatability and lower chances of accidental exposure changes in middle of a shot. 

4K if you like 15fps! Lol

That last frame looks like a RAW still from the 5d. Wild.
I can't remember the program, but isn't there a paid version that lets you bake out c-log footage? You can preserve highlights there.
Edit: Also the straight REC709 out of that program looks amazing as well. You can't really use it in extreme lighting scenarios though.

That last frame looks like a RAW still from the 5d. Wild.
I can't remember the program, but isn't there a paid version that lets you bake out c-log footage? You can preserve highlights there.
Edit: Also the straight REC709 out of that program looks amazing as well. You can't really use it in extreme lighting scenarios though.

That last frame looks like a RAW still from the 5d. Wild.
I can't remember the program, but isn't there a paid version that lets you bake out c-log footage? You can preserve highlights there.
Edit: Also the straight REC709 out of that program looks amazing as well. You can't really use it in extreme lighting scenarios though.