kye

3 hours ago, IronFilm said:

Sure, there are those who value extreme shallow depth of field above all else, this was especially popular in the early days after the 5Dmk2 as it was such an extremely unique look for many indies back then. But I'd hope we've moved on since those olden days. And are not simply striving to shoot with the most extremist minimalistic depth of field that we can physically achieve! 

Rather we are thoughtfully choosing the right depth of field for the shoot/story/crew/production. 

In my investigations I've noted that DoF isn't exactly what trends to be relevant in the frame - it's more a case of how blurry the defocused areas in front and behind the subject are.  Ie, if you're shooting a person at a given focal length and F-stop inside, where the background is relatively close to the subject, then that background will be a lot clearer than if you shoot the same settings outside where the background is a lot further away.  It also changes when you move the camera closer to the subject.

I came to the conclusion that if there was no other 'cost' (ie, lighting or ISO changes) you'd probably dial in a custom f-stop for each camera setup.  I'm lucky in the sense that I just want separation and depth so it's less of a worry for me.

1 hour ago, Shirozina said:

But not every situation demands you push the cameras ISO to it's limits - within base or near base ISO there are no practical differences in noise that would make you choose one snesor size over the other

It depends on who you ask.

It's a pity that the film industry hasn't adopted any standards for measuring colour shifts or noise, as these would be very useful for rating cameras.  Instead, what we get is people saying that a camera is "usable" to a certain ISO - I've heard people give figures that are usable from 6400 to 20000 for the same camera!

What we'd also find is that casual shooters have a much greater tolerance for noise and might not even notice subtle colour shifts, pros shooting for online or small-screen distribution would care more about noise but probably not be super picky about colour, and those shooting high-end stuff for the big screen are really concerned even with quite subtle shifts in colour.  Those shooting in RAW (where grain isn't mangled by compression algorithms) will have different tolerances again - my 700D looks abysmal at 6400 compressed but RAW with ML 6400 the grain has a nice quality to it.

If you hang out with some high-end cinematographers or professional colourists for a while you'll find that they're able to notice colour shift changes with ISO changes almost right down to the base ISO of a camera.

30 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

Nope, I feel like you're still missing my point. 

Think specifically about DoF and how you'd light a scene once you've picked that DoF, and how that changes as change sensor size. 
(you've almost figured that out... you realize you'll use a four times slower f stop: f2 to f4 as you move from MFT to FF to maintain the same working DoF in practice. What impact does this now have on your lighting team and your production? If as you suggest, you want to keep shutter angle and ISO  the same, what needs to be done by you and your gaffer to keep the same exposure?)

Ok, got it.  Thanks

The part that I did understand was that to maintain identical DoF you have to adjust aperture with crop factor.. (m43 F2 = FF F4 = given DoF). The part that I didn't understand is that exposure doesn't behave in the same way.

This would then be another advantage for m43, no?  Get the same look with less lighting?

1 hour ago, Jonesy Jones said:

Forget N-log or Z-log, I'm waiting for one of these cameras to implement Captains log. 

Isn't that what C-Log is short for?  ???

@IronFilm @webrunner5 this is why these things are hard to discuss, there are so many variables.

Consider this..  Lenses gather light.  For a given design, the bigger the lens diameter, the more light goes in.  This is why people have telescopes with really large diameters - they want to gather more light.

Lenses then focus that light into an image circle of a given size.  This is why m43 lenses won't cover a FF sensor - the image circle isn't big enough.

Sensors detect that light.

So when people say that "a FF gathers more light" it's only true if there's a FF lens on the front.  If we put a Super35 lens on the front, put in a focal expander to spread the light out a bit more, the FF sensor will see less light because there is less light coming in from the lens.

The problem with people changing sensor sizes is that they don't change everything else in their camera.  I suspect this is what happened with the vista vision sensor - they probably didn't buy all new lenses.

If two people go out to buy a camera setup, one buys a FF camera and 50mm F4.0 lens and the other buys a m43 camera and a 25mm F2.0 lens and they then meet and point their cameras at the same object with the cameras right next to each other, then with the same settings (ISO, SS, aperture) and their lenses wide open they will get the same exposure, and they will get identical angle of view and depth of field.  When we're talking about the camera industry this is the comparison we're talking about, not changing from one setup to another.

Does that make sense or did I mess something up?

6 minutes ago, Tone1k said:

FS700 Raw output does not have a crop when shooting 2K @240fps despite it having a 4K sensor.

 

Column / line skipping perhaps?

If so, the moire should confirm it pretty easily..

10 hours ago, jhnkng said:

I know there are people who mount GoPros on their cameras to get a wide while shooting run and gun (mostly freelance news or fast moving doc crews), and I wonder if this would be an even better solution to having a second wide angle to fall back on in case you miss something while shooting longer. Assuming the footage can be cut in to each other, I think this could be a really good option when shooting docs or really fast moving scenes where getting the shot is more important than it being beautiful.

I've tried this type of rig and there are a few issues.  The first issue is that the wide angle of the GoPro makes it difficult to mount so that it can't see the lens or the shotgun mic that are also sticking out the front, let alone your hand playing with the zoom / focus rings.  The second issue is that a second angle is most useful to cut to when something bad happens to the first angle, but if they're mounted together and someone bumps the camera (or some other movement issue) then footage from both cameras are bad at that point.  If you don't need continuity editing and only need a second focal length then it might be ok.

It would depend on the particular setup.  If I was shooting with a tripod then I'd be tempted to mount the GoPro either quite a lot higher up than the main camera (for events perhaps) or maybe 30cm or so to the side, so they'd still be sharing a single tripod.  This would mean that when you cut between them the angle is a bit different and it doesn't just look like a jump cut with a bit of a crop thrown in to try and cover it up.

Wow, lots of discussion!

@IronFilm Yes, I realise that low light is more than sensor size..  Your comment about a larger sensor requiring more light seems confusing, and I suspect that it's one of those situations that doesn't make sense because "all else isn't equal".  

My rationale is this - if you have a camera that is a certain physical size and has a number of photo sites on the sensor then each photo site will get a certain number of photons per second.  If you were to take that camera (camera body, sensor, lens, etc) and make an identical but smaller copy, you would have a lens that was gathering less light (because it casts a smaller shadow on the wall behind it so less light goes into the lens) but it has the same number of photo sites, therefore each of these photo sites gets less photons per second.  

This exercise of scaling everything down to the same proportion isn't how cameras are actually implemented, which is where I think the vista vision sensor discussion was coming from.

@jonpais I get that not a lot of videographers are feeling the gap that the FF F2.8 zoom lenses that pro photographers swear by, but did you also see that basically every FF prime from F1.4 and faster is not available on the m43.  FF F1.8 = m43 F0.7 and FF F1.4 = m43 F0.6.

And yes, we could suggest that super35 is our reference, making m43 only one stop behind, but also putting FF one stop in front.  It still won't change the fact that the most exotic lenses on m43 have the same amount of DoF as my $100 canon nifty fifty, which is hardly an exotic lens in FF circles.

@BTM_Pix No worries - I thought perhaps my tone was coming across a bit too directly

Your summary of my position isn't quite right and is potentially due to my wording..  Let me have a go at clarifying and choosing my words a bit more carefully, feel free to reply or not as you choose

I think the sensor size is a weakness if you scale the physical size of the lenses to match (as it would have to spread less light over the same pixels), but this doesn't apply if speed boosters are used, and even if they aren't used this can be overcome through high ISO performance, which as @IronFilm points out, they're doing a great job at.  I think that in every other way, the sensor size is an advantage, for reasons I already mentioned.  In this sense I think the format has no fundamental limitations, just the odd engineering challenge here or there.  The current lack of available lenses I think is a barrier to some potential users from adopting the system, but this is also something that can (will?) be overcome in time.

In a sense much of this thread is about where m43 has come from and where it's going in the next 6 months, but I'm trying to look at the bigger picture.  In the longer term everything that's difficult technically gets done if there's demand for it, and standards can last an incredibly long time in the tech space.

Damn it's hard to talk about complex and nuanced topics online..  ???

@webrunner5 We could show you photos to prove that we're correct, but you'd just blame photoshop and stick to your story!! ???

4 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

I'm not sure why they would be any less "PRO" when they might well have extremely high quality Canon mount lenses attached to them?

The adapters are such an integral part of the process for people using these cameras that they are permanently attached to the camera and so can be more or less considered the de facto lens mount. 

Changing the lens means just changing the lens as if it were a native Canon mount at that point.

This is also true for cameras like the Sony FS5 and FS7 where a large number of them that are used in professional environments every day permanently use an EF adapter.

I'm not sure where I've suggested MFT cameras are in common use on large budget TV shows and feature films by the way?

Even if that was the suggestion, there are numerous reasons why they wouldn't get used in that environment that would take precedence over the lens choice, native or otherwise.

I have a RED Epic and a set of PL primes and my Panasonic GX80 can mount all of them and use them in exactly the same way so if those lenses are not limiting the RED then they can't be limiting the Panasonic surely?

Absolutely everything else about it would be of course but not the lenses

I'm not trying to have an argument with you for the sake of it by the way - as I think the native offerings could be cheaper as well for one thing - but I do disagree about the lens choice being the limitation when it is adaptable to so many different lenses.

For what its worth, I think MFT as an imaging format in terms of cameras from Panasonic and Olympus is probably in a bit of an awkward place right now but its more to do with the internals than the lens options. MFT as a mount with cameras such as LS300 and probably the BM4K behind it is a different situation but, again, the E mount is catching and probably overtaking it in terms of utility.

Is this an argument? I thought it was a debate   I'm definitely learning things and am open to the idea I could be wrong..  I'm wrong about things all the time!  If someone isn't then they need to get out of their rut a bit more ?

I was assuming that adapting lenses was something that the pros weren't that into, but maybe that's not the case.  I know that the photography youtubers all went to Sony and adapted their Canon glass and then abandoned it, and I thought the GH5 adoptees also adapted and then abandoned them too, but these might all be AF related.

I know you didn't bring up m43 on large budget productions - I did.  I think that m43 has no fundamental limitations to its potential, and personally I would like it to succeed.  Having a lens mount that is supported by more than one manufacturer is great - everyone wins - imagine that the Motion Picture Experts Group didn't exist and all we had was platform specific formats, what a mess that would be.  

The only fundamental thing that m43 has against it is that a smaller sensor gathers less light, assuming no speed boosters, which means that it is at a disadvantage with noise performance.  I can't think of anything else that is fundamentally worse (maybe I'm missing something though) but there are huge potential benefits.  Cameras can be made smaller which is useful for some applications.  Cameras that are made the same size (eg, for ergonomics and screen size) will have more room internally for IBIS, cooling, more processing.  In really fast digital circuits the length of a track on a circuit board can be a problem and shorter paths are better and support faster data transfers.  All else being equal these support faster readouts and less rolling shutter.

Even if you have all the money in the world, a larger heavier camera might require a robot arm instead of a gimbal, this reduces setup times, cost and weight of the setup, etc.  If you halve the size of something (scale to 50% size) it becomes 8 times lighter and occupies 8 times less volume.  This means less trucks and fuel and people to lug equipment around, etc.

All this at the cost of making a sensor that is two stops better in ISO noise performance, which cinema cameras aren't market leaders in anyway, and having equivalent lenses.

I'm not saying that the lens lineup stops the current users from using it, I'm saying it's a limitation of the format taking over the entire industry.  Aim big right?

1 hour ago, Robert Collins said:

I always think that when M43 users see the need for extremely fast, large, heavy and expensive lenses, they are missing the point. BTW, the Zuiko 35-100 f2 weighs 1.65kg which is more than the Sony 70-200 2.8 GM. You see what you are really asking for is a bigger sensor....

https://camerasize.com/compact/#482.460,777.639,ha,t

Actually, I'm taking a style of film-making and working out what equipment is required to get that end result, and then looking at which camera systems are able to give me the functionality I need.  In a way I'm saying that tools should fit the requirements of the customer, and you're saying that the tools don't meet the customers needs and the customer should go somewhere else.  That's fine if you don't want to gain those customers, but why wouldn't you?

3 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

Imagine the GH5 screen. Exactly the same when folded flat against the body, but a bit taller.

Except it unfolds and is now double the width, and OLED.

Ah, yes, now I'm starting to see a benefit...  

Of course, the vloggers wouldn't be pleased because it's not a selfie screen anymore!! 

4 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:

Natively perhaps, if actually less so now than it used to be, but the mount itself will take just about anything except E mount lenses.

If you use the smart versions of the Metabones speed booster for EF lenses then you can have a lot of very fast glass (made faster) complete with AF and aperture control from the camera.

The Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 becomes an 11.5-22.4mm f1.2 lens when used with the Metabones XL 0.64 for example, which makes it equate to a 22-45mm f2.4 if it were on a full frame.

The biggest drawback comes in the wider areas generally but even then something like the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 in EF mount using the Metabones XL is going to be like having a 14-20.5mm f3.6 on a full frame, which few people would feel would be a limitation.

Having big chunks of lens like those and using an adapter doesn't really jive with the whole compact camera philosophy of course but fast glass on full frame isn't particularly compact either so if people want that sort of performance then it comes with the territory.

With the f1.4 manual focus prime lenses from Samyang in EF mount then mounting them on the Metabones will get you the equivalent of f2 full frame primes without breaking the bank or your back.

Yes, but adapters are perhaps even less pro than the native F5.6 equivalent "PRO" zoom lenses.

My take on it is that m43 has boomed with the same kind of spirit as the DSLR revolution, people who are willing to sacrifice usability, features (and sometimes quality) for an extreme reduction in price and size, in comparison to the previously available ILC cinema cameras.

I am aware that the higher-end industry pros dip into the smaller sensor cameras now and then for specific purposes like dangerous / destructive situations like car crashes and explosions and for tiny hand-held setups like @John Brawley has shared with us, but my impression was that this happens a lot more often than that tier of users would consider using speed boosters or other adapters.

Maybe I'm wrong, but the whole thing just doesn't seem to vibe with the "we're on the clock / I need it to be reliable and stay out of my way" requirements of the higher-tier pros.  I get that many people are paying off their home-loans from these setups, but if you're talking about m43 being as common as Super35 on large budget TV shows and feature films then I think the native lens selection is a real limiting factor.

Maybe it's just a matter of time for more lenses to be released, and perhaps higher-tier industry use will grow over time as it all matures.

8 minutes ago, jonpais said:

ETC - extra teleconverter. hehe

Ah, ok.  Yes, you're right that cropping in doesn't effect the DoF.

So if you put a 50mm 1.8 on a Canon APSC it is the same as an 80mm 1.8.  The problem is that if you buy a 27mm F1.8 and put it on a Canon APSC it will have the same angle of view as a 50mm on FF, but the DoF will not be the same as a 50mm F1.8 on FF.  This is the part that confuses people.

53 minutes ago, jonpais said:

Still, focal length has a greater impact than aperture, no? Which is why I usually reach for longer lenses like the Oly 75mm f/1.8 or Veydra 85mm T2.2 if I need some separation. 

ETC has no effect on DOF as far as I’m aware.

If you're talking about DoF then many things factor in, but all else being equal I think my above post stands.

What do you mean by ETC?  I feel like I should remember what it stands for, but I can't

40 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

I agree, you are allowed to step back further and use a longer lens. Now if you are standing on the top of a telephone pole, well yeah your screwed one way or the other! ?

 

It depends on the situation.  If you're shooting in a confined space then often you can't step back.

I'm not sure if this is true but I think stepping back and zooming in might negate any DoF impacts because the ratio of distance from the camera to the subject to the distance from the subject to the background also changes.

Taking a step back and putting on a longer focal length also has other effects.  I'm sure we're all familiar with these:

Basically, two lenses are equivalent if I mount them each to a camera, stand in the same spot, point the cameras in the same direction, and see the same angle of view and DoF.  

1 minute ago, seanzzxx said:

From what I understand technically raw can be prepared in any way you like, however the vast vast vast majority of people will load the raw into a standard NLE which will use the manufacturer's recommendations on how the image will be displayed. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

My understanding was that the RAW settings that could be taken from the camera was around things like ISO, WB, etc.  I'd be stunned if something like Resolve would do anything other than the minimums to construct an image from the RAW data, and I can't see why sharpening would be required for that.

In a sense, shooting in RAW is desirable precisely because it removes all the decisions that other people make for you in the other modes, so that you can make them yourself.

So a smartphone will be the first camera with a screen large enough to manually focus without AF assist features, but because of the sensor size the DoF won't be shallow enough to need it..  what a crazy upside-down world!!

I'm not really sure how this will impact ILC photography though - most cameras aren't that much larger than the size of the screen plus some buttons.  Unless we start making cameras that are like a foldable iPad mini with a lens mount on the back?  Ergonomics be damned!!

5 hours ago, jhnkng said:

Just curious — how many cameras with reliable AF has a really crap codec? You could argue that the C100mk2 has a rubbish codec on paper yet it looks nice and is plenty gradable as long as you get you exposure right. 

I would say the measure of a codec is how it looks.  If something looks great and has a lower bit-rate then I would say that is a BETTER codec than one that takes more bitrate to look as good.

Of course, no-one is suggesting that a sub-40Mbps codec is going to grade like RAW..

4 hours ago, Cinegain said:

I'm calling FAKE NEWS!1!! He only got one so he has content for his next video: 'Why I'm returning the A7III and getting another Canon!'. ?

So you're saying that if he returns it after making another clickbait video then the purchase will have ceased to exist?  We should use fake news to severely re-write history....  imagine all the people we could save from natural disasters, genocide, etc..

Slightly more seriously, I didn't see anything where he says he's switching, and I do remember him saying he's not definitely switching, so even if he returns it I'm pretty sure no promises will have been broken.  Unless brand loyalty means you can't even look at a different manufacturer when an interesting model walks past you in the shopping centre and you turn your head to look without thinking and then get evil stares from your other half.  Umm..  what were we talking about again?

I have the bigger brother to the UP2718Q - the UP3216Q.  I chose it because I was tempted by the wider gamut, but it's been a complete bust for me.

I tried googling how to set it up for the higher gamut modes, and I tried to calibrate it with my Datacolour Spyder Pro 4 but when I set the Dell and Spyder to extended colour modes the Spyder never recognised the Dell as extended colour.  I googled for hours but eventually gave up, and so I just use it in the normal mode because although the wide gamut mode looks nicer I can't calibrate it (it calibrates fine in sRGB mode).

If someone can tell me what I'm doing wrong then I'd be very happy to hear it.  It's still a nice monitor though.

Oh, and I should also mention that I'm using a USB-C/Thunderbolt to Mini DisplayPort cable, which throws another variable into the mix.  IIRC to get a decent refresh rate in UHD you needed to run multiple HDMI cables and buy a converter box that cost an arm and a leg at the time.  The MBP automagically turns a USB port into a DisplayPort when you plug a monitor in which is nice, so it's hot-swappable, and the cable was <$100

Wouldn't any digital sharpening, noise reduction and compression effects be N/A when recording in RAW?

I understand that the OLPF and other optical aspects would of course still apply.

5 hours ago, Shirozina said:

I find the M43 sensor size too limiting for general video use in that it severely restricts DOF options without adding exotic ultra fast glass ( primes only mainly) 

3 hours ago, sanveer said:

Various Panasonic (and Olympus?) Cameras do have ETC kind of zoom too, which are similar in function. Obviously with lesser megapixels, there is lesser megapixels to zoom in from.

I think it's the lenses on MFT that are the biggest limitation.

When we consult a tool like mmCalc which calculates equivalent lenses on different sensor sizes:

• An F5.6 lens on FF gives the same DoF as a ~F3.7 lens for APSC and F2.8 for m43
• An F4.0 lens on FF gives the same DoF as a ~F2.7 lens for APSC and F2.0 for m43
• An F2.8 lens on FF gives the same DoF as a ~F1.8 lens for APSC and F1.4 for m43
• An F2.0 lens on FF gives the same DoF as a ~F1.3 lens for APSC and F1.0 for m43

(The APSC numbers are a bit funny as crop factor varies by manufacturer but they're approximately correct for my purposes)

FF is drowning in F1.8 - 2.0 primes (and even lots faster are common but let's set these aside for the moment), and these are standard lenses.  Equivalents are available on APSC at F1.4, and there are a rare few F0.95 or F0.85 on M43.  The range for ~F1.8 equivalent lenses on m43 is severely limited, but it's a start, however you're out of luck if you want a FF F1.4 equivalent (it would need to be F0.7), and you're dreaming if you want a FF F1.2 equivalent lens.

FF is drowning in F2.8 zooms, and these are the standard pro lenses.  Think how many 24-70 and 70-200 F2.8 zooms have been made over the decades.  
Only the Sigma F1.8 zooms match it on APSC, and are no F1.4 zooms on M43.  This is the one that I think is strange because the fastest zooms on m43 aren't even one stop slower at F2, they are two stops slower at F2.8, which is the FF equivalent of a fixed F5.6 zoom!  

Most (all?) variable aperture kit zoom lens on FF bodies are faster across most of their zoom ranges than the fastest PRO zooms on m43, including extremely expensive offerings.

Please someone tell me I made a mistake......

John Hess just posted a cracker of a video about why 24fps is here to stay.  Highly recommended

Matti Haapoja has been tempted for a second time...

He obviously read my post about DR in the Nikon thread! ???

Does anyone make a ILC with a 1" sensor?  I can't think of any, but I'm not a database

18 minutes ago, BrunoLandMedia said:

Yes, the quick turn around is important at my day job. You might not believe how much video one could shoot for a private PK-8 School in the DC area, but I have the hard drives full to prove it. HA. Yes, the XC's have been on the radar, but I feel like they miss the boat with the fixed lenses. 

Yes, workflow is a big deal for people who publish frequently, I find that lots of the people on here are down on Canon because they value image quality over having an easier workflow, but if your job is to pump out videos then workflow is more important than image quality.  Plus, for the average person, if it's HD, has nice colours, and has a bit of background blur then it will look amazing

I agree about the XC10.  I'm a fan and own one as my main camera, but I'm looking at upgrading because of the limitations of the lens.  Apart from that it's a great camera.  In a way it's a real lost opportunity.

23 minutes ago, BrunoLandMedia said:

I actually do use 60p and it's slow mo ability in post all the time. I know it's not 120 + but I my set up and Broll is a huge part of the videos I make. The performance videos might not use 60p at all, but that's also where I really need the No Time Limit, and peaking, and zoom while recording, and all the serious video features my DSLR's don't have. XLR's are huge although my Rode shotgun mic's have been pretty good. 

At this current budget and set up, It seems that if I do get an MK1 for performances, I really will only be pulling it out for those events, interviews when I do them, and when I know I'm not using 60p. I'll be traveling around with the 80d much more often it seems. 

Maybe I need to save more. This is all coming out of my pocket even though I"ll be using it my full time job as well as more private jobs. Cheers

I guess if you use 60p all the time then it does matter.

In terms of 120p vs 60p, I think 60p is potentially more useful in many situations.  I don't know how you use it, but I find that 60p makes things look nice, smooth, and kind of gentle in a way, but it doesn't look like a special effect.  120 looks like a special effect to me.  I would imagine that kids smiling and running and things like that would have a nice aesthetic in 60p - I've used it in a couple of my home videos and it's a nice look.  

I notice that really nicely shot TV shows use 60p quite often (probably slowed down to 24p, which is a bigger slow-down than you're doing) and they kind of use it for emotional scenes, like when showing footage but putting music over the top.  The only times that I can think of frequent uses for 120 or slower is food or hair-care commercials!

The future is an amazing place filled with next-level stuff.  When I was growing up the future was about 3-10 years away, but now it's only 6 months or a year away at best.  It's taking its time but one day it might be here!!!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity

???

3 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

This is his cost statement.

"BUDGET: Top of my budget is around $1800ish and that would get me a c100, or if I sold my 80d, could be a stretch to get the mk2, but I feel 1 extra job will pay for the rest."

He is not going to bring Anything new to the table from what he already has with a C100, no matter the model. In this day and age a C100 is an antique.

And with 1800 bucks he Ain't buying no (FS5/FS7/LS300/UMP/etc).

His need for quick turn-arounds in the edit suite, and existing Canon lens catalog are pushing him towards Canon, and his budget and need for longer recording times are pushing him to a cinema camera, and the only overlap between those criteria are the C100 models.  I'll also mention to the XC10 / XC15 cameras, just in case the OP isn't aware they exist, but they're probably not a good choice as they have fixed lenses that aren't that fast, and the OP looks like they prefer faster glass.

If he was looking to replace all his cameras then that might open up other systems but right now he's in Canon lock-in mode, just where Canon wants him.  If anyone wants the definitive answer for why Canon is doing so well commercially, this example is the one they should reflect on.

Assuming that we didn't all miss a major difference between the C100 Mk1 and Mk2, the main difference seems to be the 60p.  If so, I think the OP should think about what situations slow-motion actually makes it into their final edits (no point shooting stuff you won't use) and if the C100 would be suitable in that situation.  Eg, if slow-motion is always shot on a gimbal then it's not a good match, but if they are shooting on the monopod with their 'best' camera and are switching back and forth between 30 and 60p then the Mk2 makes sense.  Buying a Mk1 and then have to carry around the 80D and Mk1 because the Mk1 doesn't do something the 80D does is what we're trying to avoid here.