frontfocus

The A6500 uses the same body as the ($500) A6000. They keep boosting the specs but no change in body (hence perhaps the overheating, tiny body wasn't designed for so much power - as the A7RII)

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Sony_Alpha_A6500/
 
 

Nah, it wasnt ground breaking like the bmcc or anything. But you missed my point completely.
My point was, how is what it could have been relevant (especially in a6500 thread) and how could you have any clue of the specs of something that never existed?
As of now 10-bit and Ice Cream are roughly equally likely in the NX2.
BTW, Almost bought my third NX1 yesterday. Last time I payed for the body and got the S zoom and all the sub 50mm primes for free. This time it only includes the S zoom, 60mm Macro and the 30mm. Not sure its worth the 1h drive though.
Back on topic:
The price of the a6500 is to thigh imo. Just like the a7sii. On a low budget camera I can accept som bugs and quirks. But not at these prices. It must operate flawlessly. The other brands do it.

They're trying to stimulate grey import, or what?

Guess its time to prepare for disappointment.

Yes, they are. Only the pre-production models had a firmware where this feature was disabled. The production firmware 1.0 does have the possibility to set the highlight and shadow tone attributes. I'm just waiting for the firmware upgrade which enables internal F-Log. ;-)
And yes, the difference is smaller than what I remembered. And I really need to calibrate my monitor. When I grabbed the stills in resolve they came out brighter and I saw more detail. The two items I was looking into were the second pillow and the basketwork of the left flower pot. And by pushing the shadows I saw more artefacts and less detail in CC than in NS. The differences at a more usable level are smaller.
I think that some film simulations are great in some scenes whereas they don't work at all in other scenes. Shooting stills this isn't a problem, because I can choose the film simulation after the fact due to the internal raw converter. But if I shoot video, I have to know it in advance. That's why I like the idea of using a more neutral film simulation and choose the look in Resolve. I am still testing different lighting conditions and different backgrounds. For instance, I also like Provia, but if you are on a green meadow, the green is just too intense and you wish you dialed in CC before.
All in all, if you don't want to spend a lot of time in your preferred color grading tool, CC is the simulation to go with, in my opinion.

The overhype machine is churning at full speed. Prepare to be letdown. 10-bit 4:2:2 and IBIS in a $1500 body ain't happening. That's a $3000 camera, if not a $5000 camera.  
Prepare for 5d4 levels of disappointment.

DPreview is just a communal front porch leading to Amazon. Anything driving traffic away is probably viewed a threat, though for their own sake (i.e. maintaining the illusion of editorial integrity) you'd think they'd leave it up.
Dumb move by DPreview.

I am just a guy with an independent voice in the world of camera reviews without hundreds of cozy ties to people from the manufacturers, without ads splattered all over the screen, without sponsors on my every video, yet still I find EOSHD mired in a world of cut throat rivalry. Only very occasionally like in the beginning with DPReview have I been given a leg up in this industry and even then it only takes one person like Barney to massacre that relationship too. The other blogs like NoFilmSchool, Cinema5D and NewsShooter spend 10's maybe even 100's of thousands of dollars trying to punt my homebrew EOSHD site into oblivion and I just find the whole thing utterly distasteful. Rather than offering a new talent an opportunity they instead I am treated like just another commercial rival to be beaten.
In the end it is up to you guys to choose. The managed platform of platitudes and advertorial, or the honest opinions and educational books of an artist/filmmaker.
May the best guy win.

Depth of field doesn't change with sensor size, nor does lowlight. You only recalculate the focal length so the person you talk to will understand the distance he/she needs to fill a frame. A crop is a crop, nothing else.
Any who....

Yes but with an equivalent lens the A7 is bigger than a Nikon D750.

The classic chrome looks amazing

Probably the best skintones I've seen on a compressed 8-bit camera.

It seems that they are making an effort to keep artifacts and banding in check.
Here is a saturation map of XT2 compared to a clip buy fuzzynormal from the original files thread of the GX85. I could not fine the same amount of contrast/punch tho, so comparison is a little stretched.
To make a saturation map you shift hue by 180*(0.5 in fusion) with the color corrector node, then combine with difference node to the original. You then desaturate the result to grayscale. I gained it by 2 here to make it more visible.
The XT2 clip appears to be dithered and a bit smoother compared to the GX85 which is showing a bit more blocks. It is not without blocks as something have to go when compressing. But how these artifacts behave and how much effort goes in to handle them determines how much the file can be pushed around before it breaks up. This is also why flat profiles are not always a good thing.
btw saturation map works great as a mask for things.

Fuji's stills is the main reason for why I've become interested in this camera and what makes me more interested is the fact that Fuji does not abondon its cameras in two months after their release. I am sure that we will see important enhancements for videographers via firmware and perhaps a new "x-videographer/filmaker" scheme.

Nope, I work as a producer. I don't even own anything digital from Fuji, I do however have about 100rolls of Fujicolor and 1000 feet of 16mm Fuji at all times.
But I have shot with Fuji's in the past and really enjoy them. 
Here on this forum I'm just having a conversation. That does not mean that I work for the company I'm currently discussing. Specially since I said I was likely NOT to get it at this point. People are always free to ignore my posts or suck an egg if they don't like them
Kinda like Canon. My theory is that they are holding back a little because releasing overheating cameras and dodgy Log is bad business. Either do it right or not at all.

Think he's just a realist.

If you also shoot a lot of stills its a no brainer and super cheap. If you shoot 50/50 its a good deal. Only if you are 100% video is it questionable imo. But then, why buy a stills camera at all.
What's currently holding me back is that I'm back to exclusively shooting film for stills. So not sure if I would use the Fuji for stills. And then there is no point in not getting a real videocamera.

We have to remember that every single camera to date always look very "video" on promos. Thats because we are a little minority and the camera companies would never make "filmic" demos. They would loose customers.
Regarding the film simulatuons I like them. Just like a LUT they are a great starting point. But more accurate to the cameras colors and saves you time in post. After the lift, gamma, gain is set you are already 80% there. LUTs always needs lots of tweaking.
 

Even X-T2 is using H264 codec for 4K！Time to say goodbye  to 1DXM2 and 5D4！

what a great announcement~!
color looks very promising. additionally these girls look like actual living breathing humans far more than what im used to [from shitty video cameras]
 

Better is relative to the user! I think the film simulations are cool, well, I know they're cool because I have the Xpro2, and yes, cool! Personally, I think for video, the Panasonic GH5 would be the better camera, however, I don't think the GH5 can beat Fuji's color science, and, I don't think any camera manufacturer beats Panasonic's reliablility, they seem to never have issues with their cameras!!

Owned the NX1, outside of the S zooms, the rest are mediocre, the pancakes are especially dreadful if you want to MF, no BB AF either - a basic staple of just about any decent camera including the most basic Canon Rebel from 2003. Fuji's lens selection is vastly superior - and its what attracts many shooters to the X-mount. Samsung's are a joke in comparison.
Nobody shopping Fuji cares about a dead system with a limited lens selection. Fuji's ergos, exposure controls on the body, the MF clutch mechanism and actual aperture rings are miles better than the NX1.
Let it go, its a Fuji discussion, nobody cares about your precious NX1.