markr041

This is silly. Why? Because for those like you who want a big screen, there are big screens already available. What is the point of arguing that you need a big screen? I am sure others like big screens too. But, not everyone is you, or them.
I can focus perfectly well on a 5" screen, so can Philip Bloom - there are focus aids for manual focusing, from pixel-level to magnification, to color outlining. In fact I can manual focus well on a 3.2" screen too, with these aids, if the screen is sharp enough.
If my post was to advocate banning 7"  screens, your pleas would be apt. I am just pleading for another choice for people.

That is some encouraging good news.

I would prefer a 5'' over a 7 inch for anything even remotely run & gun

With more and more cameras providing increased capabilities for recording via their HDMI or SDI ports, the value of external recorders has increased - the GH5 provides 4K 60 422 10bit only via HDMI; the FS5 provides 4K 30P RAW, 4K DCI 120P from RAW, and 240P 2K from RAW; the EVA1 also has increased capabilities like 240P 2k output; and the tiny RX0 provides 10bit 422 4K via HDMI.
But we only have 7"-screen recorders, which are absurdly large even for the bigger, but still portable cameras. On the EVA1, for example, the Shogun Inferno looks ridiculous, adding bulk and imbalance, as the attached photo shows.
Please, (anyone) give us a 5" recorder with the capabilities of the Shogun Inferno, or even better, a smaller recorder without any screen - the battery life will be better and overheating will be less of a problem. BlackMagic? Convergent Design? Atomos? Video Devices? Sony? C'mon.
I actually do not find the Shogun Inferno screen useful even for shooting for HDR - if you go into Atomos HDR mode, the screen becomes very dim and almost impossible to see in bright light. I basically just use the waveform (which is useful, but that does NOT need a 7" screen).

The $249 Z Camera E1 gives you real m43 in a box almost as small, and it does 4K DCI internally.
 

I agree.
However, the RX0 actually has preset zone focusing for video that exploits the 24mm lens - close= 20"- 3.5 feet. Far=3.5+. This is perfect for blind shooting. You just press one button to go from one to the other and one press back (you can actually use this to do a focus pull while shooting!).

I'm not sure 10bit vs 8bit is necessarily a factor for DR. It could be, but I think how the manufacturer implements the codec is more important. It does make a difference for color information and how rapidly footage falls apart while editing in post. If you look at the footage from the 8-bit codec from the Canon C200, it has DR that's definitely better than the GH5/s and Sony mirrorless cameras @8 bit, so there are other factors at play.
Sony's 8-bit SLOG-2 footage holds together better than Panasonic's 8-bit VLOG-L. I would never use VLOG-L @8-bit, only at 10-bit. Yet SLOG-2 edits quite well with only 8-bits. (SLOG3 is a different story. I'm not sure why Sony even puts SLOG-3 on 8-bit codec cameras.) You really have to try out each camera's codecs to see how well they handle post-editing and DR.
DpReview is attempting to test camera's codec performance. The industry really needs a comprehensive test that compares these cameras fairly on a level playing field.

FWIW, I received a questionnaire from Sony, as an A7s ii owner, last week on the features I would like to see added to the A7s ii (along with questions on what I used the camera for etc.). This would suggest that they are at least considering a successor, but it would seem a long way off. I also received a similar questionnaire on the FS5 recently, another camera due for an upgrade.

I downloaded the "original". It is a 15 Mbps file! Junk. This is not what the camera produces internally (50Mbps XAVC S). I will upload to Vimeo later both 50Mbps internal HD XAVC S Slog2 and 4K Slog2 ProRes video clips, not processed.
Report MediaInfo.txt

Yeah I have no clue why there is not one Really good 5" recorder. They all seem to be 7". They are stupid to use for Mirrorless cameras.

1.  We all know this. You shoot in Slog2/SGamut and in post you convert to HLG/REC202. HLG is a delivery format. I could just as well have produced an HDR10 video, but the HLG format is more compatible with REC709 viewers.
And, no, the Sony FS5 also shoots in HLG as well as the AX700 and its Pro variants. 
2.  And, where is your info on 2.?
Another use, not hypothetical:

https://www.atomos.com/cameras/sony-rx0

FWIW, I received a questionnaire from Sony, as an A7s ii owner, last week on the features I would like to see added to the A7s ii (along with questions on what I used the camera for etc.). This would suggest that they are at least considering a successor, but it would seem a long way off. I also received a similar questionnaire on the FS5 recently, another camera due for an upgrade.

We need  a non-screen, small and light recorder that has the same recording capability as the Shogun Inferno from Atomos. Now, I power the Inferno and the FS5 from one battery, using D-tap. That lightens the load considerably. But the size of the Shogun still makes it an awkward combo. My other technique is to to just put the Inferno in a shoulder bag, attached to the FS5 by the thin SDI cable. I really do not need the screen.

This is a good discussion.
While you can shoot HLG internally in the FS5, you cannot externally shoot HLG directly using the Atomos Inferno from the FS5. Internally, the FS5 is set to Slog2, even for SDI RAW output. One has to convert Slog2 to something; could have been HDR10 or REC709. And, the differences one sees are due both to the bitrate difference and the large difference in the amount of compression.
All Sony cameras below $8,000 shoot in Slog2, 8bit. Sony has been touting this ability for many years. It's a feature allegedly designed for pros. So, if you want you can think of this test as a test of Sony's Slog2. But, again, Slog2 needs to be converted to a delivery format for viewing. And HLG is one of those.
One can record RAW video externally from the FS5 and then convert in software to REC709, HLG, or HDR10 using 8bit 420 and 10bit 422 and different amounts of compression for comparison. That would reveal what matters and by how much. But then such a comparison would have little do to do with what Sony cameras actually deliver internally, which is the point. One could also record HLG internally and compare that with HLG converted from the RAW output in post, choosing different bitrates and bit depth.

Is 8bit HDR or HLG a "joke"? Here is an HDR HLG video shot from the same camera (Sony FS5) using its internal 8bit 420 Slog2 XAVC and Slog2 recorded externally from 14bit RAW to 10bit ProRes HQ (Atomos Shogun). So the 8bit is heavily compressed (100 Mbps), the 10bit is not (950 Mbps!). Totally unfair to the 8bit. But, let's see...
Same scenes - for each the first version is from Slog2 ProRes 10bit, the second from XAVC 8bit SLog2 placed on the same timeline. The video was rendered in HLG 10bit DHxNR HQ in Resolve Studio and sent to YouTube. No color correction other than the Resolve presets converting Slog2 to HLG and level adjustments. It is a real HLG video. You can easily tell which is which, since the 10bit source from RAW is 4K DCI and the 8bit source is 4K UHD.

The video has plenty of blue sky, ripe for banding. And lots of detail, and high contrast with those pesky white clouds ripe for blowouts.

There is a difference. But does it matter? Is it fixable? A laughable joke?
 

If you do not like the test ("the test is a joke," "the test tells me nothing," "YouTube converts to 8bit anyway, so what?"), suggest what you would want to see instead. I can do anything with the original Slog2 clips, including making them available for download. 

Finally, why do we care about this? ALL Sony mirrorless cameras and camcorders less than $8,000 that have log gammas (Slog2/3) and/or HLG only shoot 4K in 8bit 420 - the RXxxx series, the A7xxx and the A6xxx series, and the FS5. If shooting in log or HLG at 8bit to make 4K HDR videos is a joke, that would call into question what Sony is trying to sell, and what anyone should consider buying (note, the GH5 can only do 10bit 422 in 4K30p, not 4K60p). No Canon cameras/camcorders do 4K 10bit below $8,000 either I think. And they have log gammas. Is this a big deal?

Is 8bit HDR or HLG a "joke"? Here is an HDR HLG video shot from the same camera (Sony FS5) using its internal 8bit 420 Slog2 XAVC and Slog2 recorded externally from 14bit RAW to 10bit ProRes HQ (Atomos Shogun). So the 8bit is heavily compressed (100 Mbps), the 10bit is not (950 Mbps!). Totally unfair to the 8bit. But, let's see...
Same scenes - for each the first version is from Slog2 ProRes 10bit, the second from XAVC 8bit SLog2 placed on the same timeline. The video was rendered in HLG 10bit DHxNR HQ in Resolve Studio and sent to YouTube. No color correction other than the Resolve presets converting Slog2 to HLG and level adjustments. It is a real HLG video. You can easily tell which is which, since the 10bit source from RAW is 4K DCI and the 8bit source is 4K UHD.

The video has plenty of blue sky, ripe for banding. And lots of detail, and high contrast with those pesky white clouds ripe for blowouts.

There is a difference. But does it matter? Is it fixable? A laughable joke?
 

If you do not like the test ("the test is a joke," "the test tells me nothing," "YouTube converts to 8bit anyway, so what?"), suggest what you would want to see instead. I can do anything with the original Slog2 clips, including making them available for download. 

Finally, why do we care about this? ALL Sony mirrorless cameras and camcorders less than $8,000 that have log gammas (Slog2/3) and/or HLG only shoot 4K in 8bit 420 - the RXxxx series, the A7xxx and the A6xxx series, and the FS5. If shooting in log or HLG at 8bit to make 4K HDR videos is a joke, that would call into question what Sony is trying to sell, and what anyone should consider buying (note, the GH5 can only do 10bit 422 in 4K30p, not 4K60p). No Canon cameras/camcorders do 4K 10bit below $8,000 either I think. And they have log gammas. Is this a big deal?

Is 8bit HDR or HLG a "joke"? Here is an HDR HLG video shot from the same camera (Sony FS5) using its internal 8bit 420 Slog2 XAVC and Slog2 recorded externally from 14bit RAW to 10bit ProRes HQ (Atomos Shogun). So the 8bit is heavily compressed (100 Mbps), the 10bit is not (950 Mbps!). Totally unfair to the 8bit. But, let's see...
Same scenes - for each the first version is from Slog2 ProRes 10bit, the second from XAVC 8bit SLog2 placed on the same timeline. The video was rendered in HLG 10bit DHxNR HQ in Resolve Studio and sent to YouTube. No color correction other than the Resolve presets converting Slog2 to HLG and level adjustments. It is a real HLG video. You can easily tell which is which, since the 10bit source from RAW is 4K DCI and the 8bit source is 4K UHD.

The video has plenty of blue sky, ripe for banding. And lots of detail, and high contrast with those pesky white clouds ripe for blowouts.

There is a difference. But does it matter? Is it fixable? A laughable joke?
 

If you do not like the test ("the test is a joke," "the test tells me nothing," "YouTube converts to 8bit anyway, so what?"), suggest what you would want to see instead. I can do anything with the original Slog2 clips, including making them available for download. 

Finally, why do we care about this? ALL Sony mirrorless cameras and camcorders less than $8,000 that have log gammas (Slog2/3) and/or HLG only shoot 4K in 8bit 420 - the RXxxx series, the A7xxx and the A6xxx series, and the FS5. If shooting in log or HLG at 8bit to make 4K HDR videos is a joke, that would call into question what Sony is trying to sell, and what anyone should consider buying (note, the GH5 can only do 10bit 422 in 4K30p, not 4K60p). No Canon cameras/camcorders do 4K 10bit below $8,000 either I think. And they have log gammas. Is this a big deal?

Is 8bit HDR or HLG a "joke"? Here is an HDR HLG video shot from the same camera (Sony FS5) using its internal 8bit 420 Slog2 XAVC and Slog2 recorded externally from 14bit RAW to 10bit ProRes HQ (Atomos Shogun). So the 8bit is heavily compressed (100 Mbps), the 10bit is not (950 Mbps!). Totally unfair to the 8bit. But, let's see...
Same scenes - for each the first version is from Slog2 ProRes 10bit, the second from XAVC 8bit SLog2 placed on the same timeline. The video was rendered in HLG 10bit DHxNR HQ in Resolve Studio and sent to YouTube. No color correction other than the Resolve presets converting Slog2 to HLG and level adjustments. It is a real HLG video. You can easily tell which is which, since the 10bit source from RAW is 4K DCI and the 8bit source is 4K UHD.

The video has plenty of blue sky, ripe for banding. And lots of detail, and high contrast with those pesky white clouds ripe for blowouts.

There is a difference. But does it matter? Is it fixable? A laughable joke?
 

If you do not like the test ("the test is a joke," "the test tells me nothing," "YouTube converts to 8bit anyway, so what?"), suggest what you would want to see instead. I can do anything with the original Slog2 clips, including making them available for download. 

Finally, why do we care about this? ALL Sony mirrorless cameras and camcorders less than $8,000 that have log gammas (Slog2/3) and/or HLG only shoot 4K in 8bit 420 - the RXxxx series, the A7xxx and the A6xxx series, and the FS5. If shooting in log or HLG at 8bit to make 4K HDR videos is a joke, that would call into question what Sony is trying to sell, and what anyone should consider buying (note, the GH5 can only do 10bit 422 in 4K30p, not 4K60p). No Canon cameras/camcorders do 4K 10bit below $8,000 either I think. And they have log gammas. Is this a big deal?

Is 8bit HDR or HLG a "joke"? Here is an HDR HLG video shot from the same camera (Sony FS5) using its internal 8bit 420 Slog2 XAVC and Slog2 recorded externally from 14bit RAW to 10bit ProRes HQ (Atomos Shogun). So the 8bit is heavily compressed (100 Mbps), the 10bit is not (950 Mbps!). Totally unfair to the 8bit. But, let's see...
Same scenes - for each the first version is from Slog2 ProRes 10bit, the second from XAVC 8bit SLog2 placed on the same timeline. The video was rendered in HLG 10bit DHxNR HQ in Resolve Studio and sent to YouTube. No color correction other than the Resolve presets converting Slog2 to HLG and level adjustments. It is a real HLG video. You can easily tell which is which, since the 10bit source from RAW is 4K DCI and the 8bit source is 4K UHD.

The video has plenty of blue sky, ripe for banding. And lots of detail, and high contrast with those pesky white clouds ripe for blowouts.

There is a difference. But does it matter? Is it fixable? A laughable joke?
 

If you do not like the test ("the test is a joke," "the test tells me nothing," "YouTube converts to 8bit anyway, so what?"), suggest what you would want to see instead. I can do anything with the original Slog2 clips, including making them available for download. 

Finally, why do we care about this? ALL Sony mirrorless cameras and camcorders less than $8,000 that have log gammas (Slog2/3) and/or HLG only shoot 4K in 8bit 420 - the RXxxx series, the A7xxx and the A6xxx series, and the FS5. If shooting in log or HLG at 8bit to make 4K HDR videos is a joke, that would call into question what Sony is trying to sell, and what anyone should consider buying (note, the GH5 can only do 10bit 422 in 4K30p, not 4K60p). No Canon cameras/camcorders do 4K 10bit below $8,000 either I think. And they have log gammas. Is this a big deal?

Is 8bit HDR or HLG a "joke"? Here is an HDR HLG video shot from the same camera (Sony FS5) using its internal 8bit 420 Slog2 XAVC and Slog2 recorded externally from 14bit RAW to 10bit ProRes HQ (Atomos Shogun). So the 8bit is heavily compressed (100 Mbps), the 10bit is not (950 Mbps!). Totally unfair to the 8bit. But, let's see...
Same scenes - for each the first version is from Slog2 ProRes 10bit, the second from XAVC 8bit SLog2 placed on the same timeline. The video was rendered in HLG 10bit DHxNR HQ in Resolve Studio and sent to YouTube. No color correction other than the Resolve presets converting Slog2 to HLG and level adjustments. It is a real HLG video. You can easily tell which is which, since the 10bit source from RAW is 4K DCI and the 8bit source is 4K UHD.

The video has plenty of blue sky, ripe for banding. And lots of detail, and high contrast with those pesky white clouds ripe for blowouts.

There is a difference. But does it matter? Is it fixable? A laughable joke?
 

If you do not like the test ("the test is a joke," "the test tells me nothing," "YouTube converts to 8bit anyway, so what?"), suggest what you would want to see instead. I can do anything with the original Slog2 clips, including making them available for download. 

Finally, why do we care about this? ALL Sony mirrorless cameras and camcorders less than $8,000 that have log gammas (Slog2/3) and/or HLG only shoot 4K in 8bit 420 - the RXxxx series, the A7xxx and the A6xxx series, and the FS5. If shooting in log or HLG at 8bit to make 4K HDR videos is a joke, that would call into question what Sony is trying to sell, and what anyone should consider buying (note, the GH5 can only do 10bit 422 in 4K30p, not 4K60p). No Canon cameras/camcorders do 4K 10bit below $8,000 either I think. And they have log gammas. Is this a big deal?

Why the hell someone at Atomos isn't going "You know what, that 4 year old Ninja Star product could do with an updated version that does 4K" I just dont know.
They do a lot of stuff aimed at other cameras like GH5 and even LS300 and yet there is this Canon shaped gift horse giving them a massive toothy grin and they sail right by.
 Maybe at NAB they might release one and shut me up!!

That's right, and the M50 also cannot shoot 25p or 30p in 4K (only 24p). Anyone vlog in 24p? Cinematic vlogs? And I am sure its IQ will be inferior to that of the NX500 in 4K.

Im pretty sure nx500 still use pdaf even in 4K, unlike m50 uses cdaf in 4K, so nx500 is much better usability wise in terms of tracking in 4K 

Here is the REC709 version of one of the clips based on the assumption that the clip was shot in Slog:
As rendered in Resolve Studio using Resolve Color Management.