Eduardo Portas

It has already been provided in this thread, Fritz. Check out the DigirectTV video. I'm referring to that.
Also, the Panasonic ambassador video of Griffith Hammond shows significant skew when panning.
 
Hey E. I lived the video transition from tape then to digital tape and then to digital cards, so I became accustomed to having very little RS and jello effect in my work.
And yes, this was back in the CCD era. In the last decade resolution has improved exponentially at the expense of RS and jello. 
Guess it's and either/or proposition.
Unless I leave the camera static on a tripod, skew and jello affect every kind of shooting I do. It's not aesthetic and I detest it. 
But deep down I'm an optimist. I'll just have to wait a bit more until a camera maker solves that problem and gives us both a moderate price.
Cheers from Latin America

Thanks, checked it out. Sadly RS is still quite notorious. 
Guess I'll keep browsing until good yet old-ass CCD videocams drop a bit more in price.
 
Ouch, I just saw them. I expected a lot less jello effect and RS, honestly. Guess I'll keep searching.

No young filmmaker is going to spend 4,600 dollars on a 35mm T1.5 Canon Cinema lens, as I noted above.
At least they had the decency to leave a shot in the video showing the lens and the whole rig used in the video,
which when summed costs far, FAR, more than the 80D with a kit lens.
If Canon places clear and readable texts of the lenses used on the videos used to promote other cameras, why did they not do it here?
Seems a bit too deceptive, no?

No young filmmaker is going to spend 4,600 dollars on a 35mm T1.5 Canon Cinema lens, as I noted above.
At least they had the decency to leave a shot in the video showing the lens and the whole rig used in the video,
which when summed costs far, FAR, more than the 80D with a kit lens.
If Canon places clear and readable texts of the lenses used on the videos used to promote other cameras, why did they not do it here?
Seems a bit too deceptive, no?

No young filmmaker is going to spend 4,600 dollars on a 35mm T1.5 Canon Cinema lens, as I noted above.
At least they had the decency to leave a shot in the video showing the lens and the whole rig used in the video,
which when summed costs far, FAR, more than the 80D with a kit lens.
If Canon places clear and readable texts of the lenses used on the videos used to promote other cameras, why did they not do it here?
Seems a bit too deceptive, no?

Speaking of Nokia, I remember them making a big deal out of the cameras on their phones. Now, sure they were amongst the best, if not thé best, but then they would say 'ha! This was shot entirely on a Nokia' and then there was like insane rigging, lensing and staging involved, nobody would actually shoot with smartphone that way. Kinda what Eduardo was getting at. It sorta defeats the purpose if you're working around its limitations by covering it up using the best possible pro lighting, equipment, crews et cetera.

For the sake of transparency,
it would be nice to note the lenses the director used to shoot the video.
This is common practice I have seen on other Canon videos. This video has a Canon logo on it, so there.
And if Canon does not do this, it should be clear in the copy published on DPReview.
It would be even nicer if you noted that the director used a huge and expensive
Canon cinema lens for the majority of the shots: a 35mm T1.5 that costs 4,600 dollars!!!!

I noticed that one of the writers on DPReview did something similar a few months ago.
Canon also sponsored that video and was, not strangely enough, about the 80D.
It features some kayak building.
https://***URL removed***/videos/0287044739/canon-eos-80d-field-test-barney-builds-a-boat
At least this time the "Sponsored" tag was clearly visible.

The content is shit though.
Tag or no tag.

I try to shoot old style to keep a certain look through the whole product.
That is, full Manual control with 180º shutter at 24fps. Aperture is cemented at F8. And yes, I really like deep DOF.
For me, only ISO is variable. I don't mind a grainy shot. But if I'm indoors, I'll ad some light myself or move my subject to available light.
I've found that keeping variables fixed, save for ISO, saves a lot of time in the field. 
(Setting with APS-C sized cameras. Could change with other sensors)
 

Really good points all around.
However, there's one aspect that everyone seems to have forgotten: ergonomics and haptics.
I absolutely love to take pictures through the visor with my Canon gear. It just feels right.
That same feeling is shared with all the Canon gear I've owned: T4i, 6D and now the 7D mark II. 
I can't say the same about my iPhone. I hate taping on the screen, placing it away from my eyes to focus, etc, juts to snap a pic.
The final quality of the pic may be superior on the iPhone, but the experience just ain't there.
Now I teach various university courses to people in their early 20. The subjects I teach are media studies, journalism and media theory.
These kids can not live without their phone. Their level of media consumption with their phone is insane, round the clock, 24/7.
But the same can not be said of their level of media production. The consume a lot, but they do not produce in the same quantity. 
When I place them in front of any kind of camera, video camera or NLE most of the are completely dumbfounded. 
Our profesional tools are not relevant to the vast majority of them and they don't seem in the least interested. 
Also, when pressed, they seem to crack under technical pressure. I can squeeze good results from them, but they naturally gravitate towards their phones again. 
So yes, the original post hit the nail on the head: cameras will become more expensive and feature rich, but the market is not massive.
Dedicated cameras and video cameras will be for purists only and the masses with get another iPhone and be content with it.
 

Finally had the time to post some results. 
Here are some before and after shots using Andrew's C-Log. 
This was shot incorrectly, though. I used very high ISOs to brighten the image.
Instead, in his included guide Andrew recommends using a very low ISO and exposing for the highlights.
Afterwards, ideally, you can bring up the shadows in post. 
Gear used: 7D Mark II, 17-50 F2.8 at F8, 30 fps and ISOs in the 8000 range (lots of mosquito noise when seen at fullscreen size)
In post I just used a bit of Film Convert and bumped up the saturation. 
Notice the shadows below the tree trunks. Those would never be visible with Canon's standard profiles. So overall very happy with the results,
taking into account this is a bit of a torture test for an 8-bit codec.

Finally had the time to post some results. 
Here are some before and after shots using Andrew's C-Log. 
This was shot incorrectly, though. I used very high ISOs to brighten the image.
Instead, in his included guide Andrew recommends using a very low ISO and exposing for the highlights.
Afterwards, ideally, you can bring up the shadows in post. 
Gear used: 7D Mark II, 17-50 F2.8 at F8, 30 fps and ISOs in the 8000 range (lots of mosquito noise when seen at fullscreen size)
In post I just used a bit of Film Convert and bumped up the saturation. 
Notice the shadows below the tree trunks. Those would never be visible with Canon's standard profiles. So overall very happy with the results,
taking into account this is a bit of a torture test for an 8-bit codec.

If you intend to buy you should do it now. 
Canon and other foreign companies will have to adjust their prices upwards
in the UK to compensate for the lower value of the pound vs. the US dollar. 
Having said that, if you really want to help them, you should buy
products that are MANUFACTURED in the UK or spend some time as a tourist in the UK.
Otherwise, your help is minimal. 

If you intend to buy you should do it now. 
Canon and other foreign companies will have to adjust their prices upwards
in the UK to compensate for the lower value of the pound vs. the US dollar. 
Having said that, if you really want to help them, you should buy
products that are MANUFACTURED in the UK or spend some time as a tourist in the UK.
Otherwise, your help is minimal. 

Thanks, I'll give it a read.
I completely agree that better acquisition will improve your final delivery.
However, seeing that an enormous amount of streamed video is watched on tiny displays I struggle to find any differences at all between well done HD and 4K while having two or more windows open at the same time in my Mac or PC. 
I would propose that we are slowly veering towards a "YouTube aesthetic" versus a "Hollywood/BBC video aesthetic" were the latter is more pleasing for narrative visual work, instead of 4 minute clips of people ranting about why the new iPhone sucks.
Cheers.
 

I second this opinion. I will normally reduce my streaming resolution when watching videos online during peak hours (on a laptop they look fine at 480p with at least another window open side by side whilst I multi-task).
Very rarely will I stream 1080 content. At the moment, over here in Mexico, it is almost impossible to stream a 4K video, even with a powerful computer. Even then, I know I'm not getting the whole experience because my monitor is not 4K. 
So yes, I also believe other factors are paramount in producing a pleasing image and giving the impression of it being "sharp". 

​Sorry if i was unclear. I'm very happy with the results! Was just expecting more faults to pointed out, as I know it's not perfect. But as Eduardo said: it's good enough for it's primary audience and that is what matters.

​hehe, well done Sir. 

Yes it's functional.
EOSHD is more about the artistic / cinematic side where a workflow is a labour of love that takes months and a shoot is Kubrick like with 100 takes until the magic is captured.
I have little-to-no interest in the functional side. I have my shot getters... FZ1000 for example. Don't need the XC10.
That's just my opinion though. Your post Eduardo is pretty bang on in describing the other side of the coin.
EOSHD as a blog is my opinion, it's only my perspective and others who are looking for the same tool.
The XC10 is a bit of a fob-off by Canon because they are aiming at enthusiasts not just journalists and implying enthusiasts will love it... ahem... most won't.

I respect different points of view regarding Canon's XC10.
It's unappealing for most pro creators with artistic qualities, like majority of people who read this site.
However, it seems like a good tool IF you practice journalism, where pixel quality comes only after taking the shot itself.
At least that's been my experience in journalism.
Sure there are great photographers and videographers around me who strive to combine both journalism and art,
but these are few and generally very skilled. The vast majority of their jobs assignments en up as "functional"--not artistic--material.
So yes, from a journalist's point of view the XC10 seems attractive because:
a) It offers the best ergonomics in the business as a run-and-gun instrument
b ) It's future-proofed with its 4K capability
c) It won't cost media outlets huge amounts of cash when bought in large quantities for the media desk
(less or just as expensive as a GH4 with a good lens, but with better ergonomics)
d) It's fixed-lens gives the journalist and media outlets themselves one less thing to worry about 
e) It's a serviceable tool built for functional results, not ultra high quality photographs and video 
I can see lots of reporters carrying this thing around as good solution for information-gathering.
Having said that, I would not pay the announced cost for a glorified bridge-cam.
Yet the Canon brand is the most attractive....