gt3rs

I have the 24-105 F4 and IMO is an average lens plus on the 100 II is not even that wide. I'm sure that with the introduction of the new one 24-105 II they will become even cheaper on the used market so is not really a super investment for 500$. I think I used only once for video on the 1Dx II, it is not particularly wide nor sharp nor fast. On full frame is a convenient range and with IS but this is it. There are tons of people that use it with the C100/C300 because is convenient but just don't expect magic out of it. On a 80D is even less wide.

I have a 1Dx (for still 100% same as the 1Dc) since the introduction and I have taken more than 160'000 pictures with it. Until the 1Dx II it was simple the best sports/action camera on the market. 1Dx II has better dynamic range at < ISO 400 and a bit better AF and 2 more fps but you would have an hard time distinguish the photos between the two. I use both at the same time at the same events. I had also a 70D and is the 1Dx is in another league. AF, High Iso quality you cannot even compare with the 80D or the GH4. The only disadvantage that is big and heavy.

In a couple of years you will not even think about the size of these files. Today a 8 TB HDD cost around 250 usd for the same price in two years you will get 16+ TB, a 2 TB SDD cost 600 usd today. So why bother transcoding in something else, the time and the risk that you lose something in transcoding is not worth the effort in my opinion. Btw editing 4k h264 files is more resource intensive than edit 4k MJPEG at least in Resolve on windows. In fact I edit directly from the MJPEG. CFast card are so fast that you can even edit out of the card directly so in case you have a long take that has only 5 min of content that you want to keep you could edit from CFast card and render out even in MJPEG the 5 min that you want to keep and save space.

If you plan to use a C100 on it just forget any type of pistol grip.

For gopro I use the official gopro suction cup accessory. I mounted on a rally car racing on ice with no issue at all. I prefer it because it is small and lightweight with less risks of damaging the car or even worst some people around. For heavier stuff I use this one: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/67896-REG/Avenger_F1000_F1000_Pump_Cup_with.html But you need to always check the "pump" level, it is a very powerful suction cup so it could damage the panel if not used correctly.

I use a lot the Ronin M with a 1Dx II. With the extension rod I got a good balance of the 1Dx II so that when I switch lens I only need to adjust the dove tail that takes between 30 sec and 2 minutes (16-35 2.8, 50 1.2, 24 1.4). A full camera rebalance like moving from a C100 to a GH4 it is much more time consuming. My first balance took me like 40 minutes. The Ronin M works really well but be aware that it gets heavy quickly and you always need to carry around the support to rest the ronin during takes if not you will be dead after 15 minutes or soo…. I wish there was a way to put the ronin m down without this stupid tripod. IMO is almost impossible to use it without and external LCD because you tend to use the gimbal at waist level so you cannot really see well the on camera lcd. The ronin m supports a upside-down mode and there the camera tends to be at eye level but you need a camera that supports live image rotation because the camera will be hanging top down. The 1dx II supports this feature (although the overlay info are still upside-down). It is still hard to see the lcd but for an emergency is doable. I power the external lcd from the ronin m to save some battery weight and having a single button to turn on screen and gimbal is a plus for me. You will need to research a bit on the C100 II on the ronin m because I belive it has a bit of a problem with the C100 viewfinder but not sure the current status when using the extension rods. I think a pistol grip style is already too hard for a GH4 + lens weight and is for sure a no go for a C100, it is already hard with two hands…

Full manual control? It has a fix aperture so you have only ISO and Shutter the same manual control that you have on the P4 and on the Mavic. To note that the manual settings on gopro works only for video and not in photo mode (I never ever understood why is like this).... On DJI it works also in photo mode. Linear mode that looks great? It is limited to 2.7k and is software based de-fishing that is never as good as a rectilinear lens. Better wide angle for landscaper? Since when a fisheye is a great landscape lens. Don't get me wrong I use a lot gopro in my filming but is still a crappy 1/2.3 sensor with fixed aperture fisheye lens.... nothing magic here. So can you show me a real comparison between a Mavic footage in DLog scaled down to 2.7k to match the resolution of Gopro 5 in linear mode and show the vastly superiority of gpro? In my opinion all these sony/ambarella 1/2.3 cameras are really similar and not such great quality. The big advantage that are very small and lightweight. If you want real quality an Inspire with X5 Raw or a M600 / ALTA with a real camera with all the associated problem and challages. So far I didn't see any video that proves that either the P4, Mavic or Gopro is vastly superior to the others.

Correct any CFast card will be formatted to exfat thus crating a single file. I can confirm that with a 64 and 256 CFast cards is like this.

Personally I’m not sure is worth the work to transcode because storage is getting cheaper and cheaper plus the advantage of MJPEG that you will be able to read it even in the future view that is a super simple codec. On Windows PC most people use Avid codecs DNxHR and are basically equivalents of Prores. Here the spec: http://avid.force.com/pkb/articles/en_US/White_Paper/DNxHR-Codec-Bandwidth-Specifications As you can see that the only one that will save you more space compared to MJPEG is DNxHR LB (low bandwidth) that at 4k DCI 8bit 4:2:2 @60p is 45 MB/s = 360 mbits (vs. 800 mbtis of MJPEG). There is no magic, if you want to keep the original quality you will end up with large files. I output my master always in DNxHR HQ (SQ would probably be sufficient) and a second copy for web or consumer distribution in h.264 at 50 mbits.

A camera comparison here: It seems that the Mavic files are less cooked, less sharpening and less noise reduction and it is a good thing assuming that this is a valid test (same settings, etc...)

You see you proved my point that you need to compare it yourself or from somebody that know how you do camera comparisons and not jump to conclusion based on a single source of guy that the sole interest is to have views and is not removing or posting a corrected version....As a early reviewer the minimum that he should have done was to contact DJI and ask for an explanation... I think DJI will learn the lesson not to handout test device to those vloggers that test everything from fridges to hotel rooms:-) without any supervision....

Camera comparison Mavic, P4, Inspire X3: https://***URL not allowed***/dji-mavic-pro-review-quality-compared-phantom-4-inspire-1/

This test seems to show that the Mav is more stable in wind compared to the P4: In my opinion Mavic platform was meant to be the new Phantom series and planned for 2017 ca. 1 year after P4 then Karma came a long and they decided to bring it earlier and for not pissing off the ones that just brought the P4 they continue to sell them.... once Mavic ships in quantity I bet we will see big discounts on P series or a new P with the X5 that would be a key differentiation with the Mav. I really see no reason to have a P4 instead of a Mavic from what I saw... but you could simply wait for the first batches reaching the marked and the bugs to be ironed out to be sure... Camera quality seems quite similar between the two, but best would be a controlled test by somebody that really knows how to compare camera... like sharpening settings, in D-Log and not, etc... I prefer the less sharpened version of the Mavic but without knowing the exact settings I refrain to judge. Anyway if you want real camera quality is either an Inspire with X5 Raw (X5 quality is crippled by the low 60 mbits bitrate) or a Freely ALTA or DJI M600 with a real camera but the price, complexity and risks are from another planet.

Here you can find the original MP4 file so you can rule out the YouTube compressions..... https://www.dropbox.com/s/k62sd0cqrjauyfc/DJI_0028.MP4?dl=0

It also seems that the Mavic camera has some sort of autofocus based on the spec: P4: FOV 94° 20 mm (35 mm format equivalent) f/2.8, focus at ∞ Mavic: FOV 78.8° 28 mm (35 mm format equivalent) f/2.2 Distortion < 1.5% Focus from 0.5 m to ∞ This can also cause some difference when comparing the two. Before a real judgment I would wait from a more in depth review by somebody that knows how to compare cameras and understand all the variable in this process

Are we sure that they have the same settings? Same sharpness applied? They both look bad IMO but I have the impression that one is heavily sharpened and the mavic not. A quick try in PS (small contrast boost and heavy sharpening) and they look similar (no details and tons of artifacts). Naturally sharpening a screen grab from a youtube video is not the best idea because you end up sharpening the compression artifacts too. For a real comparison we would need both video with 0 sharpening applied and then we could tell more.

DJI X3 has a flat profile called D-Log and I expect to be the same on Mavic. Mavic bitrate is 60 Mbits the same as the X3 (phantom 4) and Gopro 4 and 5. This tells nothing about the final quality but the specs are similar. Mavic camera spec: Camera Sensor1/2.3” (CMOS), Effective pixels:12.35 M (Total pixels:12.71M) LensFOV 78.8° 28 mm (35 mm format equivalent) f/2.2 Distortion < 1.5% Focus from 0.5 m to ∞ ISO Range100-3200 (video) 100-1600 (photo) Shutter Speed8s -1/8000s Image Max Size4000×3000 Still Photography ModesSingle shot Burst shooting: 3/5/7 frames Auto Exposure Bracketing (AEB): 3/5 bracketed frames at 0.7 EV Bias Interval Video Recording ModesC4K: 4096×2160 24p 4K: 3840×2160 24/25/30p 2.7K: 2704×1520 24/25/30p FHD: 1920×1080 24/25/30/48/50/60/96p HD: 1280×720 24/25/30/48/50/60/120 Max Video Bitrate60 Mbps Supported File FormatsFAT32 ( ≤ 32 GB ); exFAT ( > 32 GB ) PhotoJPEG, DNG VideoMP4, MOV (MPEG-4 AVC/H.264) Supported SD Card TypesMicro SD™ Max capacity: 64 GB. Class 10 or UHS-1 rating required

From the specs I would say it is very similar, it seems like the same sensor, different lens 28mm 2.2 vs 20 2.8 of the x3 and "only" 96 fps at 1080p instead of 120fps. Sensor size, mpix, datarate, gimbal specs seems the same or comparable as the phantom 4. Of course only a direct real world comparison will tell the reality but on paper it seems very comparable with the X3...

Not true 4k in 1DC, 1Dx II and 5D IV is not down sampled but 1:1 pixel readout. 1080p I agree is not great...

Thx. For reference the compatible list: https://www.usa.canon.com/CUSA/assets/app/images/cameras/eos/DAF/compatible_lens_chart.pdf

Why should v1 not be supported by DPAF? Can you point out where did you read it. I have lens much older than the v1 (introduced December 2000) that works perfectly fine like the 85 1.8 (July 1991) with DPAF. I have and use regularly the 16-35 II for 4k video (1.3crop) and is quite good, for photos or 1080p the corners are ok but not great, the new one seems better. It is a good point to consider also the 16-35 F4 IS, personally I would prefer to have the 24 1.4 II + 16-35 F4 than only the new 16-35 III (about the same cost). I have the 16-35 II and the 24 1.4. In Switzarland you can find many on the local ebay at around 800-900 usd, I would never pay 850 for the I version. As soon as there are III on the market the II will drop even further in price.

Not sure why it should not work well with the 501 monitor... I use, especially on a gimbal, a el cheapo Lilliput monitor and it works great, it works at every framerate either with the camera recording FullHD or 4k... Zebra, Histogram, Peaking works too.... The 501 being a much more professional monitor should work even better. The wifi is really good for a second operator for setting the focus via touch or to control the camera while mounted in a non accessible location like cablecam or jib.... The lag is noticeable and also the frame rate is lower... not sure I would use it as a primary monitor, as a remote monitor it works well enough and is much cheaper compared to a more pro solution like teradek + monitor

Yes, and there are two modes, one with only the external lcd active where you can get the full information exactly how it is showed on the internal one. Naturally you can use the joystick to move the autofocus point... The second mode you have both lcds enabled and there you see the camera info only on the embedded lcd and the external get a clean hdmi output, in this mode you can use both the touch on the embedded lcd or the joystick to move the focus. Personally I wish there was the possibility to have the camera info on both lcds at the same time especially for gimbal usage...

Canon has announced the C700 using a very similar (I would bet internally exactly the same) Codex recorder doing 4k 120fps RAW at the same time as Panasonic (actually a few days before) .... Basically both cameras use the same recorder from Codex. So no special amazing tech here from Panasonic

If the specs are true it is a 80D in a mirrorless dress. So you can deduct already the performance and features 1. No, due to the European video camera tax 2. Yes, 80D has it, why they would remove? (you never know with Canon) 3. Yes, and if the battery power is enough it should have the same speed and functionality has the 80D in LiveView = very good. 4. No, the 80D doesn't have a clean HDMI out. Again it could be totally different but view that Canon is quite predictable I bet this is right. Price would probably be in the 80D zone too...