kye

Canon rumors released some specs on the new G7X III and M5 II. I'm most excited to see what they do with the M5. The M5 is supposed to be a higher end camera from the M50...but the M50 is so so good IMO. If they have 4k with DPAF and no crop...now we're talking. That new sensor paired with the Digic 8 might allow that to happen. My thoughts are maybe at VidCon Canon will release the G7X Mark III. It's the perfect "vlogger" camera and would be a nice splash in the market coming off the trails of the Sony RX100 6.
We are going to VidCon next week so I will let you know if anything happens there. 
 
Here are the specs from Canon Rumors:
EC804 – Canon PowerShot G7 X Mark III
4.2x Zoom
1″ sensor
DPAF
4k Video (no DPAF)
GPS
This camera features a new Canon 1″ sensor
EC811 Canon EOS M5 Mark II
28.3MP APS-C mirorless camera
4K@30fps video and DPAF.
This camera features a new Canon APS-C sensor
http://www.canonrumors.com/are-these-the-next-canon-cameras-to-be-announced-cr1/

I had an Apple Newton and I'm not sure what was the bigger death knell for it fashion wise - me buying it or Steven Segal using it as a recipe book in Under Siege 2.
My patronage also saw off Windows CE, the PalmPilot and the Compaq Ipaq so Light will be encouraged by the fact that I haven't bought an L16 
 

The Light L16 is probably the Apple Newton (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Newton) of photography. Too many cameras/lenses and not enough processing. But it is probably showing the way ahead, when good small sensors cost a tiny fraction of the price of good large sensors.

It seems like the main message here is "If you learn the real skills of cinematography then the quality of your images will far eclipse all the high tech features, megapixels, and technical specs of the modern digital video age."  And it's true - great craft and artistry will win out over tech specs.
But I also think this is message overlooks some obvious realities about the nature of amateur and hobbyist videography - that tech specs often do increase image quality at relatively low cost.  Sure I could spend many months and even years learning great portrait lighting techniques so I can light a interior people shot really well, or I could buy a 50mm f/1.4 lens, slap it on my high-ISO/low-noise full-frame 4K camera, do a basic rule-of-thirds framing with existing ambient lighting, press the touchscreen focus with face detect and boom, I now have a fairly professional looking shot with creamy bokeh and sharp eyes in focus.
So sure it could be a much better image if I go much deeper into learning cinematography, beyond basic and overused techniques like point-of-focus shots.  But the shortcuts and some of the tech specs that enable them can be very high bang-for-buck for us hobbyists and amateurs.  Even more so if you're a vlogger or hobbyist that shoots run-and-gun or only with natural/available light under uncontrolled situations and you don't have the opportunity to do lighting setups or carefully framed shots.
I think Boyle's message is still correct and can even inspire us shortcut-happy hobbyists (I am firmly in this category) to go deeper.  But it does miss the point for a huge chunk of the videography audience, since few of us have the time or commitment to achieve the level of artistry he's calling for.  Technology has enabled us to generate images that make us and our fans/friends happy, often with an investment that matches our commitment or resources.  All of us are trying to maximize our return on investment, whether that's in time, money, or stress/difficulty spent learning a technique or tool, and technology has definitely escalated the return on investment ratio.

I'd imagine that the Xume would attach to a magnet pretty well, so if you were to attach a couple of magnets somewhere then you could pull the filter off the lens and stick it on the magnets and install the second one pretty quickly.  Of you could just have a kind of holster on a belt or strap somewhere handy.  They're very simple to operate, if a little pricey as @Phil A correctly mentioned.

Just shoot 4K RAW on the H6D-100C.  Completely silent, very wide, large sensor for a nice cinematic look, and 8MP RAW stills are fine.
 

I wasn't being entirely serious, of course.
But yes, I have seen various ones that can move without looking like they've had an accident.
Surely our problems would be solved by them being exactly like us but without our problems.
Which is exactly what my wife says about me by the way
They can analyse data that builds a model of what it is we like about something though, which is all that pleasure from a certain aesthetic translates to.
Give anyone/anything enough data and enough time and they could transform what we'd currently call "je ne s'ais quoi" into "Not only do I know exactly what that certain what is Monsieur but here its is as a preset for your Panasonic BrainInterface20000 camera".
Its no different to current practices of EXIF mining and cross checking it with Likes/Retweets on social media to find out what sort of image capture components drive the most interest and affection. It may be cruder now but its the same principle that given enough processing power and time can be extrapolated out to a more granular level that will provide a fair idea of what sort of images ping the pleasure sensors of most people.
The Lytro got a lot of hate - much of it justified - but if you ever played with one for a little while then the glimpse was there of where we'll end up going. Take that concept on two or three generations (which may or may not happen now Google own it) and with enough data mined about what works then I can easily envisage a camera system that slaps an instant and satisfying enough auto-aestethetic on it complete with not only colour and dynamic range adjustments but focus point, depth of field and re-composition as well.
And then they'll cripple it by putting a slow lens on it and no microphone input obviously.

Actually, there are lots of excellent robotic solutions to the problem of mobility.
This from 2006 (or earlier):
Which evolved into a prototype that could wrap around things and then climb vertically, and then also evolved to have multiple legs etc.
https://techcrunch.com/2017/07/06/how-carnegie-mellons-snake-robot-became-the-multi-legged-snake-monster/
this from 2010 - a robot that balances on a ball:
and other approaches too:
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/01/new-space-robot-would-hop-not-drive-across-other-worlds
but this is the problem - we don't want robots to solve our problems, we want them to be like us, to be familiar.
Which is why it's difficult to program them to do human things, like simulate a larger aperture in recorded video from multiple cameras, which is optimising an aesthetic experience that they never have and won't ever have unless we program them to have it.

Just shoot 4K RAW on the H6D-100C.  Completely silent, very wide, large sensor for a nice cinematic look, and 8MP RAW stills are fine.
 

In case anyone is interested, here's a good argument for and against Canon making an amazing mirrorless camera..
As usual there's lots of facts included.

OMG.. please no!
CAN does not mean SHOULD!!!!

You're right about thinking at a human level.  Robots building robots is definitely going to be a thing, and just like any other exponential process it's going to take far more time making basically zero progress than we think, and then bang - out of nowhere it will take off.
Another problem is that robots are so different that getting smarter doesn't mean anything to us if they get smart in ways we don't appreciate or like.
You might have heard about the Facebook AI robots inventing their own language.  They did that because the programmers didn't incentivise them to speak proper English, so they went off the reservation.  That is a pretty straight-forward example, but what separates computers inventing their own shorthand (which we don't like) and teenagers doing the same thing (which is inherently human), let alone how we would respond to an AI that made no sense because it was speaking to teenagers!
There's a great quote from the snopes article about that language thing:
Link: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/facebook-ai-developed-own-language/
It's an interesting article talking about lots of general stuff to do with AI etc, but the quote is interesting because we have stupidly high standards about doing things that are useful to humans.
In a sense, if AIs were training humans they might say something like:  I don't understand these humans, they can't accurately remember a f*cking thing, can't even add a thousand numbers a second (which any $0.02 chip can do!), but they manage to self-repair, resist rust, and develop virus counter-measures without even trying!!
They will be capable of amazing things, but if you ask a robot to help enhance the photographs you took you're more likely to get back an image that has been optimised so that every n-th pixel has its colour values rounded to the n-th prime number, or simply made to be all black because it's easier to store.  The idea they would simulate a wider aperture in an optical system in a 3D environment is far more alien to them than the other examples I mention because they don't have these things, or if they did, then they'd optimise them to have a deep depth-of-field because that's better for object recognition algorithms and accurate recording and cataloging of the world is more valuable than walking around half-blind or recording huge amounts of data to then throw away a lot of it afterwards.

This is probably a bit low brow on populist for most of you  but anyway....
So I went to see Jurassic World in 4DX the other night.
Not a great film but definitely a great experience.
I don't really know what I was expecting, maybe just a bit of motion rumbling in the seat and a few gimmicks of the odd tiny blast of air and a bit of water but it was way beyond that.
Of course, its not going to work with every film type but with something like Jurassic World you've already left any pretence of high brow at the door anyway so if you're going to go for it then you might as well really go for it.
The range of movement in the chair was way beyond what I was expecting both in distance and velocity which made every crash or shock point really shake you but I was also surprised at the subtlety that really put you inside the aerial shots and also when the camera was tilting up to reveal something.
The air jets coming from the front were obviously good for weather stuff but the ones in the head rest were very effective for bullet fly bys but the big surprise where the ones behind your calfs which they used to simulate little creatures running around your ankles.
And honestly, the rain effects with the water spray were fantastic !
As an old cynic, I shouldn't really be getting excited by this stuff but I had an absolute whale of a time as did everyone else in there. Its a long time since I've left the cinema and people have seemed as euphoric as that. 
And that is with what is a decidedly iffy film as well.
Also, as I've said before on here, we really all did give up on 3D too soon.
I would love for Spielberg to do a version of Saving Private Ryan for 4DX as it would lend itself very well to the inclusive immersion aspects.
Flame away

I don't think that it's crazy. 
What would be crazy, I think, would be to release less than optimal footage for everyone to squabble over while the sensor is possibly still being tweaked. Their cameras improve and evolve with each product and firmware release, so there's no reason to expect anything different with a camera they've been developing for so long. Obviously the countless people that pre-ordered within hours are confident that this will be the next gen, small camera that they've been anticipating.
But of course it makes sense for anyone, who wants to see footage, to wait until the camera is out in the field and being shot, tested and reviewed, as most people do.
Personally, I had no issue pre-ordering a pair at the end of the press event, without seeing advance footage.
 

It comes down to what you perceive as acceptable/ beneficial. There is no universal arbiter of this stuff - just opinions.
With that in mind, a number of the more accomplished shooters here abouts regularly have VNDs on their lenses.
VNDs are professional in the sense that professionals shoot with them all the time. In the most important sense of getting a great shot versus not getting it - they're invaluable for a number of situations.
Example: I'm producing a commericial next weekend at a dairy for a new product launch. Because it will be very sunny, buggy, live critters and real time action for much of the B-roll. In this scenario changing lenses becomes problematic so I'll have two cameras with zooms. Having VNDs on them means I know that both FL and ideal exposure can be dialed in on the fly. In a situation like this it's hard to calculate how many more solid shots that will come from it - but a lot more than primes and fixed NDs.
When we go back the next day for the setups w/ actors I'll use fixed ProNDs on the cameras because of the control.
That said, shot well, there isn't anyone who'll view the work, broadcast or web, that will see the difference between the two.

I read that as "the best mirrorless camera is in your hand" and then got very excited, but was disappointed when I discovered it wasn't a fantastic camera in disguise, but was just as it appeared - a donut.
All else being equal, those controls are spectacular.  I've bitched about mentioned it before, but being able to see exactly what your settings are and to specify any combination of them is just fantastic.  The fact that I can't set aperture, shutter speed and auto-ISO on my XC10 is basically against the Geneva Convention.

I read that as "the best mirrorless camera is in your hand" and then got very excited, but was disappointed when I discovered it wasn't a fantastic camera in disguise, but was just as it appeared - a donut.
All else being equal, those controls are spectacular.  I've bitched about mentioned it before, but being able to see exactly what your settings are and to specify any combination of them is just fantastic.  The fact that I can't set aperture, shutter speed and auto-ISO on my XC10 is basically against the Geneva Convention.

I read that as "the best mirrorless camera is in your hand" and then got very excited, but was disappointed when I discovered it wasn't a fantastic camera in disguise, but was just as it appeared - a donut.
All else being equal, those controls are spectacular.  I've bitched about mentioned it before, but being able to see exactly what your settings are and to specify any combination of them is just fantastic.  The fact that I can't set aperture, shutter speed and auto-ISO on my XC10 is basically against the Geneva Convention.

I read that as "the best mirrorless camera is in your hand" and then got very excited, but was disappointed when I discovered it wasn't a fantastic camera in disguise, but was just as it appeared - a donut.
All else being equal, those controls are spectacular.  I've bitched about mentioned it before, but being able to see exactly what your settings are and to specify any combination of them is just fantastic.  The fact that I can't set aperture, shutter speed and auto-ISO on my XC10 is basically against the Geneva Convention.

You are right the Sony line up is pretty confusing. They have a sort of 'legacy' 'A' mount (both FF and APSC) which is effectively a cross between DSLR and mirrorless and an 'E' mount both FF and APSC which is fully mirrorless. 'A' mount lenses can be used on 'E' mount with an 'adapter' but 'A' mount lenses do not adapt particularly well to 'E' mount. So if you are looking at using Sigma lenses on an 'E' mount camera you are better off adapting Sigma 'Canon' lenses with the MC11 adapter.
To make matters even more confusing, Sigma recently announced a set of 'art' lenses for the 'E' mount (all primes). These dont need an adapter. They are new (so we dont know much). I think there is a suspicion that as they havent been designed specifically for 'mirrorless' (apart from the mount) the autofocus might not match existing Sony (full frame) 'E' mount lenses (on the basis they dont have step motors like the recently announced Tamron 28-75 2.8.)

I'd suggest that as this isn't a critical application you consider an all-in-one like the Sony RX100 series.  Not because it's well suited (although it may be), but because once you've rejected it you'll know exactly what your needs and wants are (and which is which).
Starting with simplicity and work your way up based on real requirements will ensure you don't overcomplicate it 

Is the dark side Sony or Sigma??

Thanks @jonpais for mentioning the Sigma lenses, I hadn't spotted them yet in my Sony research.  The 24-105 F4 and 70-200 F2.8 are quite a bit cheaper than the Sony offerings!!
 

Reliable AF-C is what put me off the GH5, and also takes the Pocket 2 off the list for me as well.  
If you're into hand-held stuff, then it's difficult because you need low RS, good stabilisation, reliable AF-C, and if you also do fast-paced stuff in difficult conditions like I do then you also need good high ISO performance, high DR, and flexible lenses.  That combination is like finding gold at the end of the rainbow unfortunately!

Getting zero on the test is only one element in a much larger picture.
To get 'perfect colour' as @jonpais is talking about, you must be able to:
see subtle shades of colour (which the test confirms) understand what you are looking at (eg, which hues are appropriate for skin tones, recognise an orange/teal grade) understand what you want (eg, if you like the 'Canon colours', or if you like a reduced contrast look, or less saturation, etc) know how to operate your equipment in order to get the look you want It's like poetry, you have to be able to hear/read, to speak the language, and to appreciate the art of poetry.  Having only the first one is insufficient.

Good link - thanks for sharing.  I got zero - perfect score.
If you're really up for colour matching madness, there's a free iOS / Android game called Blendoku which is like that colour test, but much much more complicated and torturous!!
http://www.blendoku.com