kye

+1 for @webrunner5s post. I side some testing of different apertures vs depth and discovered that I only need F4 equivalent to get the look I'm going for. I also made a few videos at F2.8 equivalent and many shots were too blurred. I'd recommend to anyone that they test out different settings and see what works for them. On FF going to F4 from F2.8 means the lens is smaller, lighter, cheaper and if it's a zoom is probably longer and also has OIS.

The footage does look pretty good, and assuming the stabilisation is done before the compression it will help to get the most from the limited bitrate. Be aware that any official footage will be the absolute best possible, so ensure that you look at real-world examples too. It does look pretty tempting though. When is it shipping?

I know the question wasn't directed at me, but I'm getting great results from the kit 55-250mm zoom on my 700D. With the crop it goes to 400mm equivalent, it's small and light, and the IS is really good. The IS is so good in fact that it is usable even when I record video in crop mode in ML where it's a 1200mm equivalent FOV!

I'm not being serious... I'm waiting for a camera with a combination of features from different types of cameras, so I'm likely to be waiting a long time. It would be quicker if I was wait for 8K! I am waiting for a plane though. The most important thing is the stuff you put in front of the camera!

8K? ???

Completely OT but I was travelling through the US with a couple of friends in wheelchairs and when they got whisked off to a separate line for TSA I got accidentally left with their carry on bag which contained the disconnected hand controller for the electric wheelchair that they checked. Not only did it raise some eyebrows going through the scanner, but the all-metal clip in tray table also in the bag wouldn't have helped either. "Sir, is this your bag?" <choose words carefully > "Err, that one is with me...."

I'm not sure if the lack of adjustable screen is due to it being a 'cinema' camera where the world is expected to bend around the camera instead of the other way around, or if it was a size or cost measure, but the idea of it being a 'cinema' thing fits with the great attention and effort towards image specs and (relative) lack of effort towards ergonomics for hand-holding. I must say that as someone who shoots in whatever conditions I am given, a tilt screen is worth a huge amount to me, enabling up to a third or half of my shots, either with a low angle or a high angle to get over the heads of the other tourists in front of me! We're really seeing a merging of devices with cinema camera specs in an almost DSLR form-factor meeting DSLR and mirrorless cameras with video specs almost at cinema camera standards, but the two haven't merged yet. It'll only be when we get a camera that shoots RAW but also has IBIS and a half-decent grip that we'll have achieved unification. I'm waiting for that day eagerly!

+2 We'll see huge consolidation and what happens now will decide who will be the new Canon and who will be the new Pentax in 5 years. The reasons that I think the third category is small-screen and enthusiast content is that more and more people are producing video content for online and many of those will need multiple cameras for interviews, and even if you can use your phone for one of them you're probably not going to buy two other phones for the other two angles, although you might just use last year's and the year before that. Everyone wants a wedding video, an engagement video, there are now clandestine proposal videos being shot by photographers hiding in bushes nearby (I kid you not) and this trend will continue as the first world economies change from manufacturing to services economies. Social media and human vanity and sentimentality aren't going away. The other segment of this market is cashed-up enthusiasts. Every office building has a dozen or more people who own a 5D and 24-70 F4, not because it's got the FF look, not for the low light, but because they earn 100K a year, like photos and want "the best" or "what the pros use". It will take a long time for the answer to those criteria to be "use your phone". Don't forget that photography is an art that people think comes from the camera. "That's a lovely photo, you must have a great camera". This alone might be Canons entire profit margin - selling the same camera that took the lovely picture to the person that wants to buy the ability to take similar ones on holiday or at the park.

I see two major trends in this sector, convergence of stills and video, and computational photography. I don't see computational photography being ready for some time and there isn't really a market leader (Apple perhaps? Hardly a likely partner), leaving video as a potential direction. Olympus has deep stills experience so maybe they partner with a video only company, like Red or Arri. I have no idea how likely that is, probably almost zero, but it would make sense from a certain perspective. The cinema company would get a partner who does lenses, has deep stills history, and is in the consumer market. Olympus would get a partner who can give experience designing bodies built for huge data rates and image processing. The not-so-distant future of imaging belongs to the smartphone for mum and dad, the cinema camera for the big screen, and the hand-held run-and-gun setup for small-screen and cashed-up amateurs. Adding AI and computational photography to the mix would best be done by acquiring a third partner down the track once we've moved forward a bit.

What are you thinking of? IIRC it's a nice camera but had some significant flaws, RS comes to mind. A C100iii would be a fascinating thing to see. Of course the interesting part would be how crippled it was. Even if it was the same ILC / S35 form factor but matched the digital specs of the XC10 / XC15 that would be great. Including 4K60 and IBIS would make people pee themselves with excitement at the announcement event. The more that I think about it, the more I realise that a tiny cinema camera fits my needs better than a hybrid, but of course the lack of IBIS in "cinema" cameras is an ongoing issue. Maybe I should do another review of the ILC camcorder options again.

Cameras are a funny thing - it's one of the only things I know of where having more money wouldn't help me that much. If you want an ILC cinema camera with good 4K smaller than a C100 there are simply no options. That is, unless you're a billionaire, in which case you can probably ask one of the manufacturers to design you one! Edit: with great IS for handheld work. Otherwise the Pocket 2 is fine

Many people forget that other people are shooting in different conditions to them. I shoot home and travel videos for myself, but the conditions are generally the same: The event comes first, photography shouldn't get in the way, camera placement is often restricted No re-takes, either you shoot it when it happens or you missed it You may have some control over lighting, you may not, but anything you do can't get in the way of the events that are happening There are parts in low light = high ISO performance There are scenes with high contrast = good DR There are action scenes = ok RS, and slow motion You have to be mobile and move very quickly = monopod / gimbal / hand-held = good IS etc etc etc. I started my photography / videography journey with a <$100 Nikon point-and-shoot and every upgrade since then has been based upon the quality of the end result from me actually shooting what I shoot. I haven't gotten a setup that I really gel with but my current setup is close, however I have shot enough to know what my style is and so I am not trying to buy equipment to hit a moving target - I know how I work, where I work, and what I am trying to achieve. If someone has different feature desires it might be because they're shooting different films.

And we see absolute magic coming from people that wouldn't have been able to operate or afford to make anything on that old equipment. The old days aren't better, or worse, they are just different. Get over it. Anyone who has the privilege to be able to do something and is complaining that too many people also have that privilege is just showing fear of being inadequate. Master artists aren't campaigning for schools to stop giving students access to art supplies!

Excellent! Can you please share the technique for me to round $50k on my next family holiday down to zero? (Yes, I know....)

ML.. the app!!

I totally understand your point and mostly agree with you...... but if you're going to give an example of why we should stop nitpicking the video features of mirrorless cameras then don't use an example from a cinema camera that has many of the features we're talking about and costs double or triple or more!!!

Absolutely, my complaints about the XC10 are few and relatively trivial, and my situation is not the norm by any measure. If you're shooting with a bit of room then you can just get further from the background to get some defocusing and adjust lighting for more contrast. In a sense I am looking to create the polished and slightly dreamy impression that we have of memories. I make the footage a bit on the warm side, I use the nicest moments and angles I can, I add cheery music. It's just a slightly different aesthetic. There is lots of criticism of people wanting to buy more equipment or have more features, and sometimes that criticism is warranted, but when the desire for features comes from starting with the creative process and working backwards then it's mostly not warranted. I think it's like writing an essay in school, you can say anything you like as long as you can back it up. If you want new features and can back it up with real-life creative needs then go for it. No-one criticises Hollywood productions for shooting in 4k or RAW or on huge rigs, or people shooting hair commercials for wanting great slow motion because we understand that the equipment choices are relevant for the task at hand. That should be the only criteria.

What exactly does "super sampled" mean? 4K60 down sampled from 8K?? That would be absolutely stunning to see!

It's not dead if you're shooting for yourself. I'd say that you'd be pleased to know that my videos have no gimbal movement, no flashy transitions, and don't look anywhere as nice as the professional ones (which I'm working on) but it won't matter at all because they're not publicly available, like much of the work that I think people buy fancy cameras for I suspect that there's a huge market segment out there just shooting for themselves and we have no idea what they're doing or what they're making it with. When I work in a new office for my day job it only takes a few weeks for me to meet someone who has a 5D just to take pictures of their kids at the zoo.

@mercer yeah, the XC10 is a hard act to follow but when I watch the footage I just get disappointed with how flat it looks. It's totally possible to shoot a good film with a 1" sensor and get good 3D images if you control the locations and lighting, but that's just not how I shoot. I shot a few videos with the 700D and 18-35 1.8 and the separation was what I was wanting. The A7iii and 24-105mm F4 goes longer with APSC mode, and longer again with a bit of digital zoom. It's not the ideal form factor and I'd love a tiny cinema camera, but I'll see what there is once the dust has settled from the current frenzy of announcements. I'm in no rush, but a look with a bit more depth is calling.

If you're in the stills game then Canon are great and are pushing the price/performance in the upper echelons of pro-level cameras. Unfortunately for us we are playing video and the upper echelons are $100k+

By the time you account for crop factor, the f2.8 on a 1" sensor is more like f8.

I want shallower DoF than I can currently get with my XC10 fixed 24-240mm zoom but don't want to give up the flexibility of the large zoom range and IS. A 24-105mm F4 zoom on a camera that shoots 4K in full sensor and crop mode would do for me, and FF is the only system with a fast zoom. I'd happily use any sensor size, in fact the smaller the better, it's the lack of fast zooms in any other mount that is pushing me to FF.

I agree that some tests are far fetched and not useful. What is useful is seeing how many out of focus shots there are in real videos that aren't about the camera's AF. Kai Wong had regular occurrences of out of focus shots from his GH5 where he's obviously shot the video and only discovered the focus problem in editing when it's too late to re-shoot. I've seen him sitting in the middle of the frame talking to camera and it just focuses from him to the background and just stays there for 5 seconds or more completely happy with itself. I think it got better after the update but still wasn't perfect, and this is potentially the easiest composition in the world to focus on. It might be the technology of the future, but it's not the technology of the present unfortunately.

Thanks, that makes sense. The video I linked differentiated MF from FF more than still images seemed to and that explains why. That makes perfect sense considering that the lens essentially converts 3D to 2D and the sensor only captures the result. Combine that with flares and other effects that vary depending on the location of things in the frame, which is how our eyes work, and it's a really critical component of getting depth to an image. I haven't seen the Zacuto shoot-out, do you have a link? I agree. If you skip FF mirrorless for MF video then you'll be waiting a decent time period. Although, having said that, is it easier to make an 8K sensor FF or larger? If there are advantages to a larger sensor then maybe MF might be how some manufacturers do it? Although releasing yet another set of lens mounts for 8K would be beyond ridiculous, so chances are that they've factored in 8K into their FF mirrorless lens mounts already. Gear up people... Choose your 8K video manufacturer now when you buy FF mirrorless!!