Tiago Rosa-Rosso

Or maybe 5dc.

Or maybe 5dc.

I think Ehbrahim Saadawi and Ed David are the same person, like in fight club. 

I think Ehbrahim Saadawi and Ed David are the same person, like in fight club. 

I think Ehbrahim Saadawi and Ed David are the same person, like in fight club. 

I think Ehbrahim Saadawi and Ed David are the same person, like in fight club. 

I think Ehbrahim Saadawi and Ed David are the same person, like in fight club. 

Funny.. I just bought a 5DIII (there are crazy good deals on it right now) although mainly for stills and as B-cam to my recently acquired C100 DPAF. I just love the L glass.. and Canon skin tones. Ergonomics, doesn't get much better then EOS Cxx. A7S2 is seriously good but for it's price i've got a problem with the consumer-y body, horrible menu/ergonomics and battery life. and yeah S-log3 at 8-bit doesn't really cut it in post.. I'd wait a month or two until 5D4 gets announced if you wanna remain DSLR.. especially if you're invested in Canon glass..

Both A7sii and RX100iv jammed, froze and needed battery pulled almost daily. Never happened on Canikon or Panasonic.

http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Canon/EOS-1D-X-Mark-II
That's a pretty good sensor improvement... I know some Sony/Nikon guys will have a little chuckle, but regardless, 13.5 stops is a beautiful range to work with and Canon tend to have a nice DR range across the ISOs.
Let's hope Canon release a 1DC ii that can record the full tonal range, or that the 5D iv has a similar sensor and gets a little ML lovin! Imagine that sensor with raw video.

"The Canon performs exceptionally well. Not only does it have a wider useful dynamic range at base and low ISOs than the Nikon, it’s not far behind the Sony, and that small difference won’t be noticed in use. The Canon sensor continues to offer a wide dynamic range at every ISO setting, improving on the Sony from ISO800 onwards, and falling only slightly behind the Nikon’s strong performance from ISO6400 onwards. Indeed, the difference at most is around +0.6EV. Canon cameras are known for high ISO noise performance, and the Mark II surpasses both the Nikon and Sony by nearly +0.5EV"

I have a tiny personal anecdote about the importance of 4K. I do a lot of food cinematography for a company that does video recipes, cookbooks etc. Their output is mainly online, on social media and the home pages of food companies.
We've been shooting 90% on BMCC in prores 1080p. On one production we had to knock out a large amount of videos in a short time, so I rigged an RX10 MK2 to the ceiling of the studio to get us an overhead look of the process, giving me two angles simultaneously. I suggested the producer I'd shoot in 4k to give him room to crop the image in post. He laughed and told me even 1080p gives plenty leeway for what they do - they delivered in 720p, and in the case of instagram, 640xsomething.
I've yet to have a client ask for 4K. I figure it'll be at least a few years before it'll be the norm or a requirement.
And if you're talking about a fixed price point, the choice often comes between 4K or other attributes like raw/Dynamic range. I'll take the raw and DR over 4K anytime.

4K is not worth giving up a stellar 1080p image for at this point in time (imo).

Agreed. my wife is a film editor and much prefers working with filmmakers who go out and shoot exactly what they want, rather than gathering a bunch of material to be sorted out later. One of the first features she cut, the director asked "why didn't you use the close up here?"  my wife's answer was, "you didn't shoot one."  and the director's replied, "then punch in on the 2 shot."
now she has a scene with these reframed close-ups and every now and then the other actor's nose creeps into frame. she did the best she could but it's still awkwardly composed. I realize for Sekhar covering an event is one thing, because he has no second takes. But shooting narrative benefits from specificity. unless you *are* on the level of david fincher and all the post resources he has available to him, this approach will start to undermine the experience of the movie. similar to deciding you wanted to slow a shot down in post back when all we had available to us was "frame blending" to smooth it out. few things signaled "digital video" louder. optical flow brings us much closer, but it's still better to do it in camera. and to have the vision to know that you need it that way.

So true. I share the exact same opinion. the race for resolution is somehow a non-sense. For cinema most of the times we deliver in 2k dci standard (flat or scope). So 4k maybe it's good for reframing, digital pans and tilts, but not much more.  I rather  have a camera with good motion color science dynamic range, etc than this resolution race. 
 

So true. I share the exact same opinion. the race for resolution is somehow a non-sense. For cinema most of the times we deliver in 2k dci standard (flat or scope). So 4k maybe it's good for reframing, digital pans and tilts, but not much more.  I rather  have a camera with good motion color science dynamic range, etc than this resolution race. 
 

So true. I share the exact same opinion. the race for resolution is somehow a non-sense. For cinema most of the times we deliver in 2k dci standard (flat or scope). So 4k maybe it's good for reframing, digital pans and tilts, but not much more.  I rather  have a camera with good motion color science dynamic range, etc than this resolution race. 
 

For me resolution is nowhere near the top of the list of what makes a good image.
When I compared the 4K NX1 and RX100iv to the 5Ds HD Raw, the Canon won.
The BMPCC or Bolex runs circles around GH4s and Sonys, imo.
Same thing happens with still cameras.
Plus I don't know how many times I've done blind tests and not even the biggest 4K evangelists of this and other forums can tell the difference.
Now, if we have HD vs 4K and all else is equal, both shooting Raw, wide DR, nice color science, etc.. Then 4K might come in handy. But its not needed for any of the work I do personally. Not until its a standard, and thats years from now.
So with that said, I still buy HD cameras and have gone back and forth from 4K many times.

You don't seem to understand, I found the proof for something that was puzzling me, and I find it hilarious how people can't see the difference and act up all smart, that's the reason I don't share the proof. It's a sadistic way of humor, I know.
Enjoy some more snapseed blur.
 

it comes close in terms of speed and accuracy but very far away in terms of usability. At least for video.

At Cinegear, I asked a Panasonic salesman about the HDMI output of both the GX85 and the G7, and he insisted that both gave 8 bit, 4:2:0 video out of HDMI.
 
 
Later, I went to the Atomos booth, and asked a rep if any of their recorders could sense the bit depth and chroma sub-sample of a camera signal (to test the outputs of the G7 and GX85).  He said no, but after taking a swig from his beer, he boasted that he knew the output specs on every camera and that the G7 was definitely 8 bit, 4:2:2.  After I offered a US$5 wager that the G7 wasn't 8 bit, 4:2:2, we went to the Panasonic booth to find out the answer.
 
 
With the tipsy Atomos rep at my side, suddenly the Panasonic salesman was not so sure as before.  He admitted that the output of some cameras haven't been tested, but that the corporate office instructed the sales reps to say 8 bit, 4:2:0 for most cameras.  However, he was definitely sure that the G7 output 8 bit, 4:2:0.
 
 
So, I don't know what to tell you.  Hopefully, someone will connect the GX85 to a capable monitor/recorder/analyzer and post the answer here.

Wholly color gamut Batman! Whenever someone complains about 8 bit color, point them to 01:45-02:40 of this video.
Only Canon can make 8 bit color look more rich and accurate than 12 bit color from competing cameras. Bravo to the filmmaker as well as the engineers behind this camera.

Thanks.  I have a a lot more of the macro stuff to come.  I just wanted to put something together quickly, as I knew some people were eager to see what this camera was capable of underwater.
Thank you.  Color underwater is so important...I have been using a 5dII for the last 5 years.  Been waiting for canon to get with it and get a reasonably priced 4K dslr...which I would still like a 5d4...size and price is more appealing...but didn't think it would have 60p.  Canons color for underwater is unrivaled.  Their custom wb blows everyone away.

I'd take the mirror out.