Trek of Joy

If you want to access your American Netflix account overseas, use a VPN originating from the States.  At the moment all these services use ip addresses to determine customer "location."  So, tell them you're in NewYork when you're actually in New Deli.

A little secret tip for the very frugally minded: if even an Aputure Deity is outside your price range, then grab yourself an Audio-Technica AT4073a from eBay. (Or maybe even the Audio-Technica AT4071a if you can handle the extra bulk of its longer lengrh)
As this was a very popular mic, an "industry standard" even. And a ***tonne*** of these were used by broadcasters for the Olympics (as AT was the Olympic sponsor) which ended up flooding the secondhand market and driving down prices. And unlike the other "industry standard" Sennheiser 416, the Audio-Technica AT4073a is nowhere near as famous, which has helped keep prices down even lower.
http://www.dslrfilmnoob.com/2012/03/27/gear-watch-audio-technica-at4073a-shotgun-mic/
 
I'd disagree with DSLRfilmnoob here, as if you're paying over two hundred bucks then you failed! As with patience it can be found even cheaper ;-)
 
I have one myself arriving in a few days, which I picked up for a mere song.

What "it" are you referring to? I couldn't access a lot of "it" when I was in India for the entire month of March. All of the Netflix shows I watch were "not available in your region." Same goes for Amazon Prime Video, despite being a paying customer from the U.S. And still none of it is available in China which is a far bigger deal.
Population has nothing to do with individual's purchasing power. China has a much, much larger middle class than India - therefore its a much, much more important market. For example, last year almost 29 million vehicles were sold in China. By comparison India was just over 3.6 million, which is a slight increase over 2012 numbers - sales of cars have been flat in India for years because there is little expansion of the middle class. Meanwhile China has gone from 9 million vehicles sold in 2008 to well over 28 million last year. More of everything will be sold in China, regardless of how many people there are in India - especially since the Chinese middle class continues to expand at a breakneck pace. China has more than 700 million mobile phones in use, India around 300 million. I could go on...

If there is any company that will have a massive standoff amongst its users about adding anything video related (even an optional larger grip for more battery life and XLRs etc which you wouldn't be obliged to buy) its Fuji.
The poor man's/smart man's Leica purist vibe is strong in that community!
If they produced what I think they should (basically a video oriented mini RED) there would be skinny latte spat out over beards in Starbucks the world over when the news broke.

Why is it then that none of the major networks (tv and cable) broadcast in 4k? And the majority of DCPs are 2k, even when the source material is 4k and above?
Sure there are 4k tvs everywhere (as there were 3d ones everywhere a few years ago), but in terms of content creators and distributors, it's really only Netflix and YouTube Red that care about 4k. For everyone else it's a buzzword. Sure there are 4k tvs, it's planned obsolesce and marketing. But how much 4k content are people watching on those tvs in 4k is a good question...
Netflix's 4k streams look imo worse than a good blu ray. More high frequency detail but worse tonality, with more mosquito noise and compression. YouTube 4k looks worse.
For network and cable tv and for normal wide theatrical release, 4k doesn't matter. For IMAX it matters, but only maybe 20-30 features get IMAX releases a year. For YouTube and Netflix it matters, but not for image quality so much as marketing (again, a good 1080p blu ray looks better 90% of the time).
Almost anywhere else? Not really a factor. I can see 4k mattering more for Vimeo than for theatrical release, since laptops have high res screens and you hold them close to your eyes. But most staff pick are still 1080p and resolution doesn't seem to drive how they're chosen... so I'm still confused by why you place so much value on a fairly insignificant feature.
I do understand the need for 4k. For the occasional vfx background plate or stock footage that might get punched in on, absolutely. On a GoPro you need all the resolution you can get for stabilization and de-fisheying. 4k on GoPros is great. I just don't understand the wider need for 4k on production cameras outside IMAX features, and YouTube Red and Netflix shows, where I would still argue it's mostly a buzzword. And that's such a narrow target where next to nothing is sourced on consumer-grade cameras anyway (Netflix's cheapest acceptable 4k camera is the BM 4.6k). So the purpose of 4k on consumer cameras to me is and always has been marketing. 
I dunno. I don't see the appeal. Diminishing returns in image quality for a massive increase in time spent in post. 

Most don't care about 4k because there's almost nothing being produced in 4k, globally there are very few 1080p broadcasts, much less in 4k. Why would anyone buy a 4k set only to have virtually nothing to watch in 4k? As others mentioned 4k is being pushed by Sony and Panasonic because they have 4k TV's to sell, not because of overwhelming consumer demand.
Most don't care about 4k, because a vast majority of TV owners don't own a 4k set (the number of HD LED/LCD/Plasma sets sold in the last 15 years globally is many, many times higher than UHD) and have no plans to upgrade when it does nothing but drain your bank account since there's virtually no 4k content to watch.
Most don't care about 4k because a vast majority of people shoot photos and videos and never do any editing or anything beyond sharing and filling up phones and hard drives. 1080p looks great on their 1080p TV.
And finally most don't care because a majority of web video content is being viewed on portable devices - phones and tablets - 4k really doesn't do much on a 5" screen.
Its not BS - TV sales tell you everything, HD still accounts for two-thirds of all TV's sold despite the fact that 4k prices have plummeted - people are still buying similarly priced 1080p sets in far greater numbers - and TV sales have flatlined after the flat-panel boom in the mid-2000's. Canon's camera sales, that people here continually bitch about, tell you everything. 4k is great for content producers and I personally love it to death, but for the rest of the world - which makes up a vast majority of camera purchases - 1080p is good enough.
And I'm pretty sure Canon's market research goes a little deeper than "they're too dumb to know 1080p sucks, no 4k for the 6d2"
SMH

Most don't care about 4k because there's almost nothing being produced in 4k, globally there are very few 1080p broadcasts, much less in 4k. Why would anyone buy a 4k set only to have virtually nothing to watch in 4k? As others mentioned 4k is being pushed by Sony and Panasonic because they have 4k TV's to sell, not because of overwhelming consumer demand.
Most don't care about 4k, because a vast majority of TV owners don't own a 4k set (the number of HD LED/LCD/Plasma sets sold in the last 15 years globally is many, many times higher than UHD) and have no plans to upgrade when it does nothing but drain your bank account since there's virtually no 4k content to watch.
Most don't care about 4k because a vast majority of people shoot photos and videos and never do any editing or anything beyond sharing and filling up phones and hard drives. 1080p looks great on their 1080p TV.
And finally most don't care because a majority of web video content is being viewed on portable devices - phones and tablets - 4k really doesn't do much on a 5" screen.
Its not BS - TV sales tell you everything, HD still accounts for two-thirds of all TV's sold despite the fact that 4k prices have plummeted - people are still buying similarly priced 1080p sets in far greater numbers - and TV sales have flatlined after the flat-panel boom in the mid-2000's. Canon's camera sales, that people here continually bitch about, tell you everything. 4k is great for content producers and I personally love it to death, but for the rest of the world - which makes up a vast majority of camera purchases - 1080p is good enough.
And I'm pretty sure Canon's market research goes a little deeper than "they're too dumb to know 1080p sucks, no 4k for the 6d2"
SMH

If you remove Nikon, Canon's market share completely outpaces all others combined, and with Nikon its still not far off. What's different is people are buying Canon's in much greater quantities than the rest. 4k obviously has very little to do with that, or Canon wouldn't be so dominant. People on forums like this want 4k - but there are millions of camera buyers that don't care about 4k, DR, rolling shutter and so on - the vast majority of the buying public wants a nice image and doesn't care about all the technical aspects because most never do anything more than shoot in auto mode with a cheap kit zoom, and post stuff online, email or print at places like Walmart. Amazon's sales rankings are a pretty good indicator and the top of the list are a bunch of cameras that can't shoot 4k. Right now 4k is not a driving force in the camera or cell phone market. I doubt it will ever be a 'must have' feature for a casual shooter that never edits anything. Most of the world isn't even at 1080p yet, much less 4k. 
I went to an 8k demo in Tokyo from NHK Broadcasting, while awesome and a preview of the 2020 Olympic broadcasts - other camera geeks were the only people in awe. Nobody else really cared.

Twenty years ago when I first picked up a guitar I got one of those, could multi-track on a cassette. It was a revelation. Then a few years later I discovered Cool Edit Pro and went completely digital. I gave the Tascam to a friend for free as it was just collecting dust in a closet. Like all my old cameras and the white Les Paul Custom that had aged to a yellowish tint and weighed more than any other LP I've picked up (11 lbs, it was a tone monster) - I wish I had it back.
Anyway, small cameras, like small recorders allow you to just hit record and capture something without all the extras and calling the roadies. I got the 5d2 shortly after it was released and I haven't wanted a "traditional" camcorder since. 
When those were announced, I was  absolutely going to get one. Sad they never saw the light of day, entry cameras start you on a path to upgrade-itis that is never cured.

Work tools are boring. I've always found mirrorless cameras way more fun to actually shoot with.
In his day job John Brawley has an Alexa. Why on earth would he shoot 'for fun' creatively, with an Olympus E-M1 II? But he does.
There are a lot of talented DPs who shoot with DSLRs and mirrorless cameras once they down their RED and Arri cameras at the end of the day.
Yet I find in the mid-range market for video pros (wedding videographers for example) there's an aspirational value attached to the higher-end pro cameras, that is stupid and pointless. Aspirations should be creative.
Owning a Sony FS5 or Canon C500 doesn't make you more creative, it makes you more efficient at work by a slight bit, and you appear more professional because of the big nobs and bells & whistles. Sadly, it doesn't necessarily make for "better" work because I have yet to see a clear distinction between work shot on mirrorless cameras and on stuff like the C300.
In fact often the small camera stuff looks better and more inspired. The legendary Anthony Dod Mantle is known for his rough and ready work with digital, but when he went Canon C-series on Oliver Stone's recent series of Putin interviews, the look they achieved was slap dash and lazy to my eye... Could have been so much better. He used DSLRs as well on this shoot (between 2015-2017) and those shots actually came out more interesting!
Too many pro videographers seem to dream of cameras like an Alexa and RED, why shows to me how important the professional label and look is to people, but creatively, they are no better and actually worse than the small cameras.
I hated shooting with my Sony FS5. A fiddly pain in the ass, for my music video work in Berlin, it needed an OIS lens and rig for handheld - limiting the choice of looks from the lens. With a GH5 you can put any lens on there and it is instantly stable for handheld work, with a tiny form factor that gets out of the way.
The FS5's image was worse than an A7S II but double the price. Aside from high frame rates it didn't offer anything creatively over a DSLR or mirrorless camera and now I have 120fps full frame on two of my small cameras along with 240fps 1080p on the pocket RX100 IV - So why bother getting a more expensive camera if it doesn't power you along creatively as much as the cheaper stuff!?
These pro cameras aren't cheap... Sometimes I got lucky and I bought a Canon C500 for a very good price used, but do you know how many times I have felt compelled to take it out and use it for artistic work? Zero times.
Kendy Ty is another example of a pro who downs his workhorse RED and shoots with a DSLR... The camera gets out of the way to such an extent he can shoot short films in public and direct the actors at the same time as being the main cinematographer. His work sticks in the mind as some of the most creative and spontaneous I've seen and there's not a C200 in sight... zero need for one!
I think pros have by-and-large completely forgotten and lost the spirit of the DSLR movement back from 2010-2012 as they sought efficiency. XLRs, built in NDs, yadda yadda. Blackmagic as well, when they ditched the small cameras and went all-out URSA on us. Canon too... Oh wait, they never got it in the first place, and they invented it!
Cameras should not just be about making money. That's how an art-form gets boring. That's how it dies.
They are not just about doing a job.
They're about creatively enabling artists and they're about democratising the art form so that price doesn't act as a road block to new talent.
Of course Canon only care about profit, they are not interested in that.
The Olympus E-M1 II's stabilisation isn't seen on any of the pro cinema cameras. It's unique. It offers something creatively to the result that a bigger, more complex shooting rig simply does not.
On the audio side, so important creatively, small mirrorless cameras used to have limitations and some still do - but with XLR boxes with phantom power that fit in a hot-shoe, you can't really complain. Audio is not a big limiting factor on the Panasonic GH5.
I still know that pros have their professional reasons for going Cinema EOS or Sony FS or RED or even Arri... Workflows, codecs, ergonomics, power, performance, looking-the-part... I'm not denying their reasons for one second, it would be so naive to suggest they drop the workhorse cameras and use a mirrorless camera for paid work.
But the creative side of the small cameras is what matters to me and I think it is being overlooked as specs in the $6000-$10,000 pro market hot up.
Sure, you can shoot all day on a big battery to a small broadcast ready codec with the C200, very practical... But can you put a 1970's Super 16 lens on there? Can you increase the character of your images by a factor of 10? Does it have an anamorphic mode? Nope.
If I ever buy a C200... Shoot me. It's over.

I shot two channels to the A7SII today. Worked great. The A7SII can optionally power the receiver as well. (Though you'll want to run a battery grip for that since it sucks more juice.)

Weird @Ebrahim Saadawi hasn't chimed in yet. He knows some stuff in this area

I haven't needed it on the A7SII yet, but I shot this a couple months ago with the A99II, the dual-channel receiver and two transmitters. (The interview portion, not the intro.)
 

Andrew must have an exceptional copy of the 35G or he likes the wide open softness this lens exhibits.
I shot the original A99 for awhile and it was the worst A-mount lens I tried out of all the G and Zeiss lenses. Every copy I tried was soft at apertures wider than f/4 - for me the IQ was just to poor, even at heavily discounted used prices. The 24-70 was clearly sharper at the same apertures, so that's what I shot with most of the time. In fact my copy of the 24-70 was so good it almost never left my camera in the 3 months I owned it. With the A99II bump to 42mp and actual 4k/1080p resolution in video its flaws will be more obvious. Its smaller and lighter than other 35/1.4's because its was released in 1998 and its optical design is not competitive with modern designs in terms of sharpness and aberrations, the E-mount 35/1.4 is a modern optic and far superior in every measurable metric - thus the lens is larger.
The overheating bugs me too. Sony has a beast with the A99II, but it needs a few refinements and a few lens refreshes to make it viable for me. Some discount the AF issue, but for one-man-band, run-and-gun stuff, AF is a valuable tool. The workarounds are silly, Sony can fix all the issues. I just don't think the A-mount sells enough to dedicate significant resources to make the needed improvements when compared to the E-mount - which is clearly driving the robust imaging sales we've seen over the last couple years. Disabling the aperture is not a viable workaround if you want to use the lens at more than one aperture without having to take it apart every time.
Are you getting two channels of audio directly into the camera on the A7sII as well? If so, that pretty convenient. I'm thinking about switching back to Sony from Fuji and this would be another reason to make a move for me. Thanks.

Analogies like this make no sense. Gopro essentially makes one thing. Kodak essentially made two - film and cheap cameras. Competition and market shifts killed both.
Canon's other divisions generate more revenue than cameras, even if they lose market share (which hasn't happened, Sony's gains are replacing the other's losses) they still have other divisions that continue to be revenue drivers. As much as people keep wanting to call Canon the next Kodak, its simply not true. SMH.

I think its a big deal too, outside of the 5d4 and 1dx2 you have the XC15 and .....
And all of those have shortcomings that aren't as appealing to me, the 5d4's crop and no EF-s lenses (unlike E-mount that can use FF or APS-c lenses), the 1dx2 is a lot to carry for one stretches, the obnoxious file sizes of the mjpeg 4k are a few things that stick out in comparison to Sony.
If you're looking to shoot stills and video from the B-cam, something like the A7r2 makes for a much better B-cam IMO. Plus you have a63/500 and the RX1005 among others as B/C cams. Or you could use the A7s2 rigged up as your main video camera, the r2 as the B-cam and the RX1005 for cutaways, slo-mo and so on. Many more possibilities with Sony for sure.
Personally I like the C200 and will rent one when it comes out to test for a couple docs I want to shoot, but I shoot a lot of stills (easily 25k a year or more) and its hard to go back to a Canon sensor after Sony's DR. Now if the 80d's replacement has 4k, and the next Eos M has 4k it'd be a different story as we'd have great B-cam options, but that's just not the case. 
For C100 shooters looking for 4k, the C200 is a no brainer. For hybrid shooters (like me) and those looking to keep a smaller kit, its a tough sell compared to Sony.
Cheers
Chris

I think its a big deal too, outside of the 5d4 and 1dx2 you have the XC15 and .....
And all of those have shortcomings that aren't as appealing to me, the 5d4's crop and no EF-s lenses (unlike E-mount that can use FF or APS-c lenses), the 1dx2 is a lot to carry for one stretches, the obnoxious file sizes of the mjpeg 4k are a few things that stick out in comparison to Sony.
If you're looking to shoot stills and video from the B-cam, something like the A7r2 makes for a much better B-cam IMO. Plus you have a63/500 and the RX1005 among others as B/C cams. Or you could use the A7s2 rigged up as your main video camera, the r2 as the B-cam and the RX1005 for cutaways, slo-mo and so on. Many more possibilities with Sony for sure.
Personally I like the C200 and will rent one when it comes out to test for a couple docs I want to shoot, but I shoot a lot of stills (easily 25k a year or more) and its hard to go back to a Canon sensor after Sony's DR. Now if the 80d's replacement has 4k, and the next Eos M has 4k it'd be a different story as we'd have great B-cam options, but that's just not the case. 
For C100 shooters looking for 4k, the C200 is a no brainer. For hybrid shooters (like me) and those looking to keep a smaller kit, its a tough sell compared to Sony.
Cheers
Chris

I've always adored the Canon image - preferring my wife's stills on her 700D compared to my A6500. 
I'm pretty much ignoring camera announcements / gear stuff right now - however the C200 has peaked my interest as an A-camera. 
The DPAF, higher frame rates, Canon image and the option of internal RAW are all reasons to be attracted to the camera.
I have an FS5 with RAW upgrade - 4k 100fps, CDNG, 10bit ProRes etc. Hard to beat, but looks a bit weaker against some of the C200's main assets. 
The C200 does have a big problem - the vacancy of the middle codec. Hopefully fixable in 2018. But there's another one.
It's a professional camera, used for professional jobs that pay well. (or it's an expensive hobby camera!)
For this purpose, you then have to start thinking about smaller B and C cameras - and this is where the prospect falls. 
Sony has an A7S II, A7R II, RX10, RX100, A6500, A99II, A9.... many options in different sizes and purposes for an easy multi-camera workflow. 
Canon has..... erm, Canon 5d mk IV? XC10/15? Both great at some things but limited compared to Sony. 
I'd love to go Canon and I've thought about it many times, but the compromised features of their smaller cameras make it very difficult to consider, when multiple cameras are being used or you need a backup. 
I see no financial or professional reason to switch from Sony, I'm just curious about the C200 because I love working with canon images. It's an emotional thing really. 
Overall, how much of an issue do you think this is? 

Does that also have a 5k monitor, 1tb PCIe SSD and run FCPx? If not, not interested. The new price of my machine was $3299 and at $2999, I still would have passed. I waited until it hit my price point and bought it, with most of a 3-year warranty remaining. They're all over places like Craigslist and Ebay. Running windows is not an attractive option for me as I prefer the Mac integration across all my devices. I don't use HDD's anymore either, too slow.
Cheers

I didn't go refurb, I got mine from a private seller on ebay and verified it had the AppleCare. Took a few tries before I finally won at $2k. I wanted the i7/4gb vram/1tb ssd setup because I made the permanent move to 4k and started stitching large raw panos on the stills side - until last week's announcement that was the most powerful iMac config you could get. I added the 32gb ram as well, so my total cost is another $300. Tough for me to say what the difference between a i5 and i7 will be when working, someone with more knowledge will have to chime in. But I will say I am traveling the world and editing 4k over the next year with FCPx on a tiny 1.2ghz core M5 processor, 1.5gb on board video ram and just 8gb ram - the 12" MacBook is basically an iPad Pro with a keyboard. Again, I don't use proxies because its time consuming to generate them. I just take my time cutting and let it export when I'm doing something else.
Cheers
chris

This is a cool hack, kudos to BTM for the work. 

Hey guys and gals, not sure how many people are filming abroad, but I thought that this might help when you need to keep the gear light!
 
 

It's not like this is the first ever raw camera.... Not really sure what the debate is here. You either work with raw like you would film (as we have with blackmagic, Canon ML etc)... you choose the 8 bit codec which will be great for most things (firmware version) or you use something like Atomos/Odyssey to capture raw to Prores 10bit.
Can't help but think that if it were Panasonic that had launched a camera with raw, this article would have a different tone.
 
 

+1
I'm thinking the same thing, this camera covers all the bases nice. And as we know from the c100, not all 8-bit footage is created equal. 
Really wish Canon used the same codecs in the 5d4 so we'd have a viable stills/4k b-cam option in the Canon ecosystem. Maybe the 90d gets 4k? The 70d got DPAF first IIRC, so there's an ever so slim chance. I'm looking to shoot a couple docs in the next year, this one ticks more boxes than any other camera in the price range.

+1
I'm thinking the same thing, this camera covers all the bases nice. And as we know from the c100, not all 8-bit footage is created equal. 
Really wish Canon used the same codecs in the 5d4 so we'd have a viable stills/4k b-cam option in the Canon ecosystem. Maybe the 90d gets 4k? The 70d got DPAF first IIRC, so there's an ever so slim chance. I'm looking to shoot a couple docs in the next year, this one ticks more boxes than any other camera in the price range.