Michal Gajdoš

Personally, I think the SOOC colors look better than that color grade

No definitely not, however this blog was praised for being honest. Giving ideas & tips about how to shoot amazing videos with low budget ILCS and vintage lenses. Not to mention many technical posts.
Now having read this weird kinky shit about super expensive ancient zero innovation dinosaur of camera that produces flaterring color compared to another is just meh, because u feel that way, yeH that is just "meh"
Had you been praising canon all along i guess we'd be all still shotting with clumsy dlsrs and sony would still try to compete with their a mount line...

The good things first :
1.finally an article about a camera comparison with a video, haven't seen that in a while here.
2. Seems like a good combo (good stills camera with decent video, however lacking resolution.) thought for the price it should be, and that's about it with good points.
the bad :
1. PRICE, for real ? are we seriously even considering to compare a 6000+ camera to a 2400 one ? the price is just astronomical (people buy cars for their families for this price)
2. easy pleasant COLOR - :D this made me laugh. So you are saying that this camera gives you awesome color straight out of the box, no need to edit, yeah perfect, the thing is I dont know any pc (under another 5000)  that would even be able to edit that mjpeg 500mbps shit. AND this is a subjective matter. Andrew you forgot to mention that Chris and Jordan specifically said that many many times over in the view that this is purely subjective. Moreover they are testing sub 2000 cameras with some being much less. Honestly i disliked the color in that video, oversaturated, punchy, crushed blacks, frankly this video is far from pleasing on account of colors and DR. bleh but that is just me. some may love unnatural red over saturated punchy color. 
3. DR - do you honestly think that this footage with the edit you did has better DR than a7s ... suddenly it's no issue ? the footage looks like it's from a 7d.
4. Crop factor 1.3 IS NOT full frame. Everyone being disappointed  by 1.6-1.7 on 5d IV and 1.3 on a 6000 body is okay ? please.
The awful:
5. That thing is enormous. good luck stabilizing that. (another rise in costs)
6. No articulating screen
7. No focus peaking on a body for 6000 ? lol
8. 8bit for 6000 ? lol
9. Codec
I mean, if anyone is doing sports photography and can justify the price, go for it sure, for video ? you'll be back to ILCS or real 10bit cameras in few weeks after using this dinosaur 
oh and i forgot , the ugly :
10. EF mount
Cheers, meant no offense thanks for taking time to review, keep them coming !!! 
mickey

The good things first :
1.finally an article about a camera comparison with a video, haven't seen that in a while here.
2. Seems like a good combo (good stills camera with decent video, however lacking resolution.) thought for the price it should be, and that's about it with good points.
the bad :
1. PRICE, for real ? are we seriously even considering to compare a 6000+ camera to a 2400 one ? the price is just astronomical (people buy cars for their families for this price)
2. easy pleasant COLOR - :D this made me laugh. So you are saying that this camera gives you awesome color straight out of the box, no need to edit, yeah perfect, the thing is I dont know any pc (under another 5000)  that would even be able to edit that mjpeg 500mbps shit. AND this is a subjective matter. Andrew you forgot to mention that Chris and Jordan specifically said that many many times over in the view that this is purely subjective. Moreover they are testing sub 2000 cameras with some being much less. Honestly i disliked the color in that video, oversaturated, punchy, crushed blacks, frankly this video is far from pleasing on account of colors and DR. bleh but that is just me. some may love unnatural red over saturated punchy color. 
3. DR - do you honestly think that this footage with the edit you did has better DR than a7s ... suddenly it's no issue ? the footage looks like it's from a 7d.
4. Crop factor 1.3 IS NOT full frame. Everyone being disappointed  by 1.6-1.7 on 5d IV and 1.3 on a 6000 body is okay ? please.
The awful:
5. That thing is enormous. good luck stabilizing that. (another rise in costs)
6. No articulating screen
7. No focus peaking on a body for 6000 ? lol
8. 8bit for 6000 ? lol
9. Codec
I mean, if anyone is doing sports photography and can justify the price, go for it sure, for video ? you'll be back to ILCS or real 10bit cameras in few weeks after using this dinosaur 
oh and i forgot , the ugly :
10. EF mount
Cheers, meant no offense thanks for taking time to review, keep them coming !!! 
mickey

The good things first :
1.finally an article about a camera comparison with a video, haven't seen that in a while here.
2. Seems like a good combo (good stills camera with decent video, however lacking resolution.) thought for the price it should be, and that's about it with good points.
the bad :
1. PRICE, for real ? are we seriously even considering to compare a 6000+ camera to a 2400 one ? the price is just astronomical (people buy cars for their families for this price)
2. easy pleasant COLOR - :D this made me laugh. So you are saying that this camera gives you awesome color straight out of the box, no need to edit, yeah perfect, the thing is I dont know any pc (under another 5000)  that would even be able to edit that mjpeg 500mbps shit. AND this is a subjective matter. Andrew you forgot to mention that Chris and Jordan specifically said that many many times over in the view that this is purely subjective. Moreover they are testing sub 2000 cameras with some being much less. Honestly i disliked the color in that video, oversaturated, punchy, crushed blacks, frankly this video is far from pleasing on account of colors and DR. bleh but that is just me. some may love unnatural red over saturated punchy color. 
3. DR - do you honestly think that this footage with the edit you did has better DR than a7s ... suddenly it's no issue ? the footage looks like it's from a 7d.
4. Crop factor 1.3 IS NOT full frame. Everyone being disappointed  by 1.6-1.7 on 5d IV and 1.3 on a 6000 body is okay ? please.
The awful:
5. That thing is enormous. good luck stabilizing that. (another rise in costs)
6. No articulating screen
7. No focus peaking on a body for 6000 ? lol
8. 8bit for 6000 ? lol
9. Codec
I mean, if anyone is doing sports photography and can justify the price, go for it sure, for video ? you'll be back to ILCS or real 10bit cameras in few weeks after using this dinosaur 
oh and i forgot , the ugly :
10. EF mount
Cheers, meant no offense thanks for taking time to review, keep them coming !!! 
mickey

The good things first :
1.finally an article about a camera comparison with a video, haven't seen that in a while here.
2. Seems like a good combo (good stills camera with decent video, however lacking resolution.) thought for the price it should be, and that's about it with good points.
the bad :
1. PRICE, for real ? are we seriously even considering to compare a 6000+ camera to a 2400 one ? the price is just astronomical (people buy cars for their families for this price)
2. easy pleasant COLOR - :D this made me laugh. So you are saying that this camera gives you awesome color straight out of the box, no need to edit, yeah perfect, the thing is I dont know any pc (under another 5000)  that would even be able to edit that mjpeg 500mbps shit. AND this is a subjective matter. Andrew you forgot to mention that Chris and Jordan specifically said that many many times over in the view that this is purely subjective. Moreover they are testing sub 2000 cameras with some being much less. Honestly i disliked the color in that video, oversaturated, punchy, crushed blacks, frankly this video is far from pleasing on account of colors and DR. bleh but that is just me. some may love unnatural red over saturated punchy color. 
3. DR - do you honestly think that this footage with the edit you did has better DR than a7s ... suddenly it's no issue ? the footage looks like it's from a 7d.
4. Crop factor 1.3 IS NOT full frame. Everyone being disappointed  by 1.6-1.7 on 5d IV and 1.3 on a 6000 body is okay ? please.
The awful:
5. That thing is enormous. good luck stabilizing that. (another rise in costs)
6. No articulating screen
7. No focus peaking on a body for 6000 ? lol
8. 8bit for 6000 ? lol
9. Codec
I mean, if anyone is doing sports photography and can justify the price, go for it sure, for video ? you'll be back to ILCS or real 10bit cameras in few weeks after using this dinosaur 
oh and i forgot , the ugly :
10. EF mount
Cheers, meant no offense thanks for taking time to review, keep them coming !!! 
mickey

"Likewise when I invested – key word invested – in the A6300, had I known Sony would roll out the A6500 a few months later I would never have spent money on it. One should rarely wait to buy the tool you need, because there’s forever something newer round the corner, but it seems like every 6 months Sony make your last purchase a complete waste of money."

1) Oh COME ON. For two years you were yelling at Canon for not innovating. Now that they finally update your yelling at Sony for innovating to much with fast refresh cycles?
2) Cameras are not an investment in terms of resale value, camera's are in an investment into your art/business.

I've grown very tired of base Canon profiles ( C-log is excellent however). They are excessively warm, not true to life at all. Which is great if your shooting weddings all the time, but not all subjects are served with that type of color.

I find your comparison completely false. The Canon is using your custom profile GRADED and the Sony is using Standard, ungraded, and obviously underexposed!

But most of all, no mention of the IBIS and excellent viewfinders on the High-end Sony camera's?? I could never go back to only using the rear LCD, a non-tilting one at that!

The picture comparison made me laugh! For your home scrap book, the canon is fine, its a complete mess, but fine. However, if you showed them to a client...they'd tell you to throw away the Canon shot & boost the saturation on the Sony.
If you do a comparison between 2 cameras, then you really need to level the playing field (use standard profiles on both cams, as was said above). I'm with you on Canon colour, but between the 2 pics, i'd go for the Sony (with some tweeking) or just take another go at the Canon one, so it looked better. The other problem, is that at the moment people are edging towards that neutral look (as in the Sony pic) - doesn't make it right, but if you want to make a living.....

Andrew, do you film professionally? It's just that you speak authoritatively but I don't think I've seen anything other than what you post here. To me the skin tones (especially on the train trip) look pretty awful. No client I have would ever approve that. The blacks are crushed to death and faces are red and over-saturated.

I kinda agree with DPC, that comparison is really weird. I agree that canon has great colors, but that profile with crushed blacks is pretty extreme. I mean, it's ok as a 'look' I guess, but not really something you can deliver to every client.
 
I'm also pretty curious about work or a reel, this site (especially the forum) is a great resource, but your opinions can be quite harsh and I don't see the actual knowledge and creative skills to back it up, except for a few music vids from a long time ago. This is not meant as a bash or to bully you, but I think it's too much spec talk and not enough filming.

I agree with DPC and Gerbert Floor. There is no commercial potential in this footage, as it is.

The good things first :
1.finally an article about a camera comparison with a video, haven't seen that in a while here.
2. Seems like a good combo (good stills camera with decent video, however lacking resolution.) thought for the price it should be, and that's about it with good points.
the bad :
1. PRICE, for real ? are we seriously even considering to compare a 6000+ camera to a 2400 one ? the price is just astronomical (people buy cars for their families for this price)
2. easy pleasant COLOR - :D this made me laugh. So you are saying that this camera gives you awesome color straight out of the box, no need to edit, yeah perfect, the thing is I dont know any pc (under another 5000)  that would even be able to edit that mjpeg 500mbps shit. AND this is a subjective matter. Andrew you forgot to mention that Chris and Jordan specifically said that many many times over in the view that this is purely subjective. Moreover they are testing sub 2000 cameras with some being much less. Honestly i disliked the color in that video, oversaturated, punchy, crushed blacks, frankly this video is far from pleasing on account of colors and DR. bleh but that is just me. some may love unnatural red over saturated punchy color. 
3. DR - do you honestly think that this footage with the edit you did has better DR than a7s ... suddenly it's no issue ? the footage looks like it's from a 7d.
4. Crop factor 1.3 IS NOT full frame. Everyone being disappointed  by 1.6-1.7 on 5d IV and 1.3 on a 6000 body is okay ? please.
The awful:
5. That thing is enormous. good luck stabilizing that. (another rise in costs)
6. No articulating screen
7. No focus peaking on a body for 6000 ? lol
8. 8bit for 6000 ? lol
9. Codec
I mean, if anyone is doing sports photography and can justify the price, go for it sure, for video ? you'll be back to ILCS or real 10bit cameras in few weeks after using this dinosaur 
oh and i forgot , the ugly :
10. EF mount
Cheers, meant no offense thanks for taking time to review, keep them coming !!! 
mickey

Rolling shutter, although not a dealbreaker to many

Hi JazzBox, i have the first version of zhongyii speedbooster E mount - FD canon, and E mount - M42 . What i can say i achieve great resutls with Nex5r  even with pics ( 
not video only. However, blue spot occurs if you point it in the sun, or you don't use a hood. That might be solved with the second generation. I do hope so. They cost however as little as 100 Euros. on the video it is less of the issue.  
. however i do think metaboens would do a better job, the only question is : "is it worth that amount of money ?" why not rather get a full frame ? cheers 

Agree on your medium format image observations, the look is truly special and different to full frame.
The 4K from 50MP isn't impossible.
Remember the A7R II for $3k does pixel binned 4K from 42MP. And it actually looks pretty ok, with less rolling shutter than the native 4K Super 35mm crop.

Germany, Swedish, Europe, all the same thing these days really

Owned the a7rII since the day it was released, my cam still looks like new and no issues at all. I've had the a5100 for almost two years now, it's with me everywhere, it's always in my bag/car/carry-on, and even though it's all plastic it's still a 9 or better. 

whahahaha :D this post made me smile ! thanks Andrew.

Actually the Terra has ignored me.
I'd love to try one out in Berlin at some point, I can't buy absolutely everything just to review it.

American football :D

I would buy the C500 if only I didn't have to have the very expensive and rather large Odyssey on top. It's not a small camera once you add that. This is what stopped me getting FS700 and FS5. 
The Kinefinity Terra 5k/6k is out this year. It's much smaller and doesn't require a bulky recorder. It has interchangeable mounts. Switchable shutters. ProRes and Raw. It also has 5k 60fps and 2k 200fps. 

Great write-up Andrew! That was a lot of fun to read, I look forward to seeing what you get out of that monster. 

But the price of 2000 USD ! add another 500 and you have a7sii, or two a6300 / gh4. i don't know man, the video must have been miles ahead of others to even consider paying 2000 for non constant aperture, no raw photos hybrid one lens camera :| 
anyway, will you add video too Andrew ? 

No comparison images or videos?   I always knew the canon was better because of the image it put out not its specs.  The only thing that sours me to it is the lack of super wide angle option.  If you need another camera to do that then theres no reason to use that camera to do what the XC10 does as well.

I'd rank them as follows, but my judgement on the 1D X II is a bit second hand so far unlike the rest which I all own (well, the A7R II is sold now but I used it quite a bit)
1. FS5
2. RX100 IV
3. A7S II
4. 1D X II
5. A7R2
Don't forget the Canon C500... a used one is a bargain right now.
It does 4K 120fps half-RAW via dual 3G-SDI.
It does 4K 60fps full res RAW even.
It also does very crisp 10bit 2K at 120fps via dual 3G-SDI.
The 12bit RGB 444 2K mode goes to 60fps.
Above 60fps to 120fps are Slow & Quick modes not regular continuous recording.