SR

I hope he uses it to make Canon release C-log on their DSLRs and Samsung to resume the NX line.

10bit raw video in the Canon M5. That would be amazing.

We really should spread the thread into several thread. Perhaps one dedicated just for software hack discussion and updates, another for hardware add-ons. 

I enjoyed the guys delivery and attitude! As nice as the piece and idea is, the title's a bit misleading in a way. It isn't a comparison of 8-bit and 10-bit abstractly, it's just a comparison of two Sonys.
Take some 10-bit ProRes out of an Arri Amira for example, I've run that up against 16-bit Red Raw from an MX sensor and the Arri is better and grades far more nicely in real-world situation (IE not purposefully smashing it to get banding).
Or indeed 8-bit AVCHD from a C100 vs 8-bit anything else! The C100 has an amazing compression pipeline. But dip-depth is just one piece of the puzzle. There's bitrate and chroma subsampling too. Plus the sensor, AD conversion, gain stages, colour response and profiles, gamuts.... blah blah...
I like that he talks about not transcoding 8-bit stuff. I've been saying it a lot, people waste masses of hard disk, thinking that transcoding 8-bit stuff to huge files is worth it.
For my two cents, I also I grade things non stop as part of my living, and I hate most Slog and Sony cam colour with a passion. I wish I didn't though, as the cameras are cheap and high-spec.

NX cameras have the only 28mgpxls BSI APS-C sensor, two years ago; plus DIS (Canon makes it really a big deal on the latest M, just saying), the right form factor for serious use, amazing battery life for a mirrorless, the best UI and OS (of course this is subjective), a right collection of lenses for some of us, the right codec(H265) for some of us (and for all, pretty soon), no heat problems, a breath of new life fror the second best mod/hack scene in the industry, 15fps, some cool AF tricks, best connectivity options in industry (used too, I do not know if there is anything better now), best touch screens (others catching up here too), and a few other things.
What's not to like? Oh, yes, they have exited the market for good..and no RAW video.

Goddamn these NX1 freaks and their irresistibly fabulous cameras!

As above, enjoy in moderation. All camera movements are designed to evoke an emotional response - gliding should never be used to reflect grit (unless being pretentiously stylised) any more than over the shoulder shake should be used for a tender moment between a bride and groom (unless being pretentiously stylised). I saw a terrible wedding showreel the other week that was three minutes of zooming and sliders. It made me ill.

The only thing that would make me consider a new camera over NX1 would be in camera 10bit recording at 4:2:2. And, for now, only GH5 seems to have this feature. But GH5 has small sensor, so not so good for stills. Summing up, NX1 will stay with me for years to come, I guess

NX1 continues to astound me.

Try lowering the contrast too, but at -10 I can't see any USM sharpening on the 4K/UHD
don't judge it on the camera screen, nor on your monitor unless you are looking at it full size on a 4K monitor.
Zoom to 100% and then check if it's too sharp, as resizing of the preview will make impossible to pass judgement on that.
If you are using Premiere for export to lower resolution, make sure you check the option that makes high-quality resize.

i use Filmcovert. you can add softness (i do about 20%) and also some film grain (30%). looks beautiful.
 

I found the early days of sitting-in-front-of-the-camera vlogging style rather painful to watch. It was only after I saw Casey's work that I started enjoying vlogging (he's an exception for me even now). Here's a video that tries to make a case for him.
 
 
 

I don't generally watch vlogs, but the above video makes a pretty good case for them.
I think if you go back to Bazin or even look at some of Lévi-Strauss and Sanders Peirce's ideas on semiotics that inform him and the Cahiers, you begin to reexamine what film is uniquely good at and why it became such a popular medium in the first place–and its strengths lie in its ability to record a convincing record of life, a recording of something that actually happened that feels real. Film shares this with audio recording and photography, but film takes it to another level. Unlike literature or painting or animation, it's not a symbol or a drawing, it's a record of something that actually happened in front of a camera. So way before you even worry about lighting or blocking or editing or even storytelling, what film does that's unique and remarkable is that it provides a lifelike and moving record of an event. Modern blockbusters move away from this tendency because they rely so heavily on CGI and animation and compositing that it begins to feel like a video game (which they're imitating; they share a common audience). I think you feel that modern blockbusters are different, and I definitely prefer action movies from before CGI became so commonplace because they feel more physical to me. Mad Max got a good reception because it was a bit more physical. Maybe part of the increasing appeal of MMA fighting (and historically the appeal of sports) is the you get back to that physicality.
Now we're at that stage where the eight year old girl (or whatever Coppola said) finally has the resources to tell a story affordably with film. We'e got dSLRs and iPhones and we're making movies instead of just watching them. And I think two tendencies are emerging from that. One is to imitate what we're watching in theaters, and the other is sort of to break off from it. This website is definitely more for imitators, trying to get something that looks expensive for cheap. And I don't find any of the work I've seen posted on this website to be any more interesting than what it's imitating. Some is more technically adept than the rest, but mostly it's a bunch of music videos and montages meant to showcase a new lens or something and it's basically a bunch of camera tests. Which is cool, that's a cool hobby, and it's fun to engage with and it's good to know what gear is out there so you can do your thing–make art, money whatever with it, once you get bored with camera tests. So the work doesn't interest me, but it's still a worthy topic.
Neither does vlogging interest me, and in fact it interests me less, but I still think it deserves respect because it's doing something new and unique and compelling. Hence the enormous emerging audience... Vlogging goes in the exact opposite direction, back toward cinema verité and away from blockbusters. And verité, unlike direct cinema, acknowledges the camera, which I think is sort of the film step in presenting "reality." Which, if you'd ask Bazin, is the point. Vlogging brings that to the next level. And yeah it's obnoxious like Michael Moore is obnoxious because the filmmaker becomes his own protagonist and you might not like him. But it's cool to watch stuff people are doing and imagine you're doing it. It's even cooler to imagine you're also the filmmaker recording it. And vlogs let you engage with content on both of those levels. Even something like Rocket Jump (which is more in the "imitating mainstream media" category than vloggers are) makes the entire process from funding to production to distribution transparent to the viewer and encourages the viewer to do it, too. So you're watching their content but separate from that you're relating to it as a potential filmmaker. To me, this is really cool. Most kickstarter campaigns are dumb money grabs, but with something like Rocket Jump it becomes an alternative form of financing that's communicating directly with the audience and that's cool. All the BTS elements there are cool. (The photography tutorials and stuff that pollute YouTube aren't–because 99% of them are just promoting horrible information and lowest common denominator aesthetics.) The BTS elements of vlogging remind me of a film nerd sneaking on set and reading Fangoria or American Cinematographer or watching the dvd deleted scenes... except it's going even way further than that. 
YouTube kind of fulfills the promise of verité, and to some extent realizes the potential of cinema itself on a very very basic level–even if the content is generally not my thing and I'd argue usually pretty awful. Snapchat and Vine do, too. More than that, they allow you to be the consumer and the producer, so you get a real community. But most people are boring. And most content is boring. If it's democratized, more of it will be boring. Painting wasn't great during the renaissance because it was cheap, you know? Painting got worse when it was democratized. So while I think your Snapchat or YouTube channel can be really banal and millennial and shitty and most of them are... that's the content, not the medium. The medium itself is really cool and there are some YouTube channels and Vimeo channels I enjoy and to trash the medium because most of it is garbage would make me a hypocrite because I really love some of it.
I think if we feel alienated by these media it's a pretty boring response to just imitate an outdated one instead unless you really commit and say–okay, I'm holding myself to the standard of my heroes. I'm not content shooting with a camera that maybe they used or has the same resolution of one they used, I don't really care about that at all. I'm going to challenge myself to do with my resources better than they could do with them, or if not better than more personal to my vision. And that's the approach successful vloggers are taking. Like it or not, the cutting edge of documentary is YouTube and Snapchat. I'm not going to say vlogging is a better pursuit than shooting a documentary for the festival scene. I will say I think how you evaluate each has more to do with how you feel about its audience than anything else, and at that point it's a social issue, not a technical or theoretical or aesthetic one.
Edit: I think this website produces some good camera tests, however. The "feel" of the image is more than its specs and going out and shooting with a given camera or set of LUTs gives you an interesting window into their potential that specs alone can't.

I'm not saying any of these are great content but it's definitely not a person sitting in one spot talking into a camera. Now a lot of them start off with a person speaking into the camera but that's to setup what they will do that day.
 

Couldn't disagree more strongly. Features like image stabilization, miniaturized ergonomics, low light ability, autofocus, and ability to shoot under mixed and poor light are far more important to a blogger than to someone on a controlled set where they have a gaffer, AC, etc. to take care of it. 
I haven't used the M5, but the feature set sounds good for vloggers.

It's a terrible mistake to have A-mount on there, the could easily keep the same A77 / NX1 style form factor with a mirrorless E-mount.
Mirrorless does not have to mean small!
Also can't see what it offers over an A7R II for video?

New menus, 4K without overheating, Dual SD Card slots, articulated screen and some more dope Sony tech!
Everything E-mount users have been waiting in an A9 camera, but in an A-mount camera! hahahahaha...
Sony has sense of humor, I give them that!

Said in 2004.
Said in 2016
Said in 2025.
 
Good job SanDisk keep up the good work.

Love it.  FT4 rating...  That's like changing your relationship status on FB, so you know it's legit.  No crop in 4K.  
 
http://www.43rumors.com/ft4-first-panasonic-gh5-spec-4k-422-10-bits-internal-recording/

1984.

So my spare base plate arrived and it fits my DS1 perfectly! But now I have a new problem, it doesn't start at all. Pressing the button does nothing. No lights, no nothing. Just a terrible experience.

Compressed raw, Sony's sensor and Pentax's price. Of course, none of it will happen.

The Alexa is still king as the Alev III sensor is still the best tech available (designed by Cypress semiconductor, now part of On Semiconductor). It's heavily patented, thus not easy to compete via 'low hanging fruit' (e.g dual voltage sensor read out for high DR low noise). We considered the Amira and Mini, however Canon's PDAF is very useful for our kind of work, and frankly ProRes is ancient tech compared to the latest H.264 codecs (ALL-I and IPB). It's very useful for long-format live shoots to have lower bitrates with very high quality, which H.264 can provide and ProRes cannot. ARRI hardware is very, very power hungry, using custom FPGAs and perhaps not having Sony, Canon, and Panasonic's more advanced VLSI ASICs tech/fabs to reduce power requirements. This means when no AC is available, many large and expensive batteries are required. ARRI is kind of like Ferrari- top of the line, but with significant support costs to operate (don't ask what a brake job costs on a Ferrari with carbon-ceramic brakes (rotors & pads: $30K)).
It's interesting to note that most external recorders don't support the Pro H.264 codecs (10-12 bit, ALL-I and IPB). Video Devices just added H.264 support: http://www.videodevices.com/products/portable-video-recorders/pix-e5 . This is a welcome addition, however the bitrate is very low (10Mbps, probably 420 8-bit). So cameras like the C300 II with PDAF are currently in a sweet spot: near ARRI color and DR, but with PDAF, much lower energy/support costs, and super-high quality 50Mbps 422 10-bit 1080p. The FS7 is also pretty good with color vs. ARRI, has small H.264 files, but no PDAF (the next Sony will likely have this feature).
For low light shoots, the A7S II is currently an unmatched value (the Varicam/LT is probably the best pro-level low-light camera for the money right now).

With comedy, anything by Stephen Chow: Kungfu Hustle, Shaolin Soccer.

For old school, Yuen Woo-ping's done this great gem, Iron Monkey. (Woo-ping choreographed the fight scenes in The Matrix.)