Yurolov

On second thought I agree with this. But I'd be more inclined to wait for the canons because of color science.

Wait for next iteration of canon or get a a7iii or xh1 or gh5 as none of the cameras you listed meet your requirements.

I told you; it is laughable that their tech got worse when it was marketed as 4k face detect lol. Even if they do fix it it is a massive cock up. I don't trust companies like that because it is pretty much misleading and wouldn't be accepted in other markets, but for some reason fuji gets away with it (probably cause the image is so good).

Why? I'm not a photographer btw.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcU9L-lwqjI Say what you want about the person who shot it but that's what I've seen on several other shots, excluding the one referenced above.

Pretty much every video out there if there is some forward or backward motion you will see sudden jerks of the image to the left and right. It is all but unusable.

It is laughable that they made the autofocus worse using the same sensor. Even if they can improve it in a firmware update it just goes to show their own incompetency. I would not have said anything but for the fact that they advertised 4k face detect autofocus as a feature Not to mention the ibis is super jittery in video mode and all but unusable compared to the GH5. For what it is, a stills camera, it is very good. But I would be loath to use it for anything but that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OskvGAj9p1Q some more. looks very nice.

Let's be clear here, though. The inconvenience you get from switching from stills to video may be an issue for some. But it is only a x1.6 crop from the aps-c. You aren't suddenly zoomed in x2.4. x1.6 ought be manageable for the price point. If you are shooting video only, it shouldn't be an issue at all. You just need a wider lens. I shoot with a s16 cam and use a 9mm lens. No issues. I am not getting it cause there is no dpaf in 4k and the battery isn't very good, both of which are understandable owing to the price and size of the camera. The higher end models should be closer to the mark. What's funny to me is that the colors should compare favorably to the much touted $2500 GH5s.

Do you know how would I go with the image circle on s16 lenses?

Thank you. I am always willing to talk with people who treat each other and the argument with respect, with a view to reaching the truth. Test it and we will know!

Does the ibis do that weird jerky thing I seen in the videos? How is the video af with face detect? Thanks.

Is there any way I can use my pl mount s16 super speeds on the cam? Any recommendations?

I think you misunderstood friend. I said that the 10 bit of the GH5 is not as good as the EVA1. I linked that video above that compares the 10 bit of both cameras. Go check it out; it is done by a professional colorist. I never said the GH5 is a bad camera. I like it, in fact. It produces a nice image. Nice strawman argument. GH5 is a good camera. (see above) That wasn't my argument. To dismiss people without even viewing the videos makes me think you are just trolling and don't want to engage me in the topic. I put them as an example, not as an authority. Nor does Dave Dugdale do the comparison, which you would know if you cared to watch. So if you can explain to me why they are wrong then please let me know. I am happy to be proven wrong. We are all learning, even the most senior of us. But it is clear your curiosity is limited so there is no point for me to further engage with you.

The main video is the dave dugdale matty scott video - unless you are doing high paid client work, in which case you will be using an alexa/red - it really doesn't mean anything. Lighting, talent, sensor, etc will be a lot more important. 10 bit gh4 is no better for it. And the GH5 is not good because it has 10 bit.

To be honest I wasn't replying directly to you - it was just my musings on the topic. I will surmise my argument and then you can tell me which points you take issue with. Full disclosure - I do have a bias towards the look of canons as against consumer dslrs. My argument is a simple one. 8 bit and 10 bit are not equal among cameras, which makes it difficult to determine the actual perceived difference 10 bit has over 8 bit. I believe the camera's compression has more to do with the overall image/gradeability. I believe this because if all things are equal than 10 bit should perform equally among cameras, but it doesn't. So for instance 10 bit on a EVA1 is better than 10bit on a GH5. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAUEuw0PEPI Just as 8 bit on a Sony camera may be better for grading purposes than 8 bit on another manufacturers, and perhaps it is better than 10 bit on another manufacturers, or maybe it is equivalent. So that the difference between 8 and 10 bit doesn't even matter. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AekKwgvS5K0 The difference between raw and 10 bit that I have seen has to do not with color quality but with compression. So that Max Yurev believes that the 8 bit image on the canon c200 looks similar to the raw image: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-fW6vlHnYY This is my opinion; I never professed to be an expert, but I am certainly not illogical.

The question is vexed because not all 8 bit and 10 bit images are equal, which may have more to do with the manner in which the image is compressed than the bit depth. For instance if I shoot 10bit and raw on the same camera, the colors are the same. The only difference I notice is that the 4:2:2 10 bit compression degrades the image. The raw is also more malleable. But then again canons 8bit cinema line is pushable too. If anyone watched max yurevs review of the c200 you will know that his opinion is that there isn't much difference between the 8bit and raw files in terms of image or dr. This may be so. I haven't done the tests. But I think it is near to the truth in which case we should really be asking how effective is the compression rather than what's the bit depth. Obviously that's not something that can be marketed. That's why the term 10 bit is so ambiguous when it comes to image quality. For me you have to do your homework on one particular camera and then compare it with others and see for yourself if 10 bit actually makes a difference. It won't be the same across the board. For instance pit the c300 8bit vs the gh5 10 bit. C300 still comes out on top imo. End of the day it is which image you prefer. And 10 bit matters little if you get great colors soc which if you know what you are doing is easy enough. It only becomes a problem if you do client work and clients want to change shit. In that case only raw will do. So not sure about people's obsession with 10 bit.

I know people in the community who are interested in selling if you are genuinely interested, but the question is always price haha. I was lucky to find an eager seller and a good price. It really is a one of a kind camera, so unfortunately I would never part with it.

I was really into 90s indie and mumblecore and the freedom that s16 gave the community so I settled on an Ikonoskop A-cam which is as best a replication I can find out there. I picked it over some expensive newer cameras so it was a risky investment to say the least .I love the camera dearly for all its foibles because image to me is only second to content. In all great artwork the two are married inseparably. I miss my c100 though because it was simply a beast and gave me a good image for the price point, and certainly the most cinematic. I am an independent filmmaker so of necessity I like slow long takes, which luckily adheres to my viewing preferences. But if I am going out into a crowd shooting something I would like to have a small and compact camera to shoot quickly that has autofocus. I actually love the look of the raw files out of the canon eos m - they are so creamy and do remind me of s8 film. It would cut well with my a cam. But I really think we all want something from canon to fill that void that still needs to be filled. Hopefully, it will be coming shortly.

I think there is a common thread from people that have used canon and tried other companies. A camera is much more than its specs, and that's why I will never purchase a sony again. I used to own a C100 and not only could no other camera at that price point compete with the ergonomics but I would argue that still to this day no dslr comes close to getting as good an image, including the GH5. Canons are just much more cinematic and easy to use. Look at all the films shot on the c300 and the documentaries of the time. They are all still beautiful till this day, and that is with minimal post-processing. That's from a 8 bit camera. In fact, you look at some of the movies shot on the 5d Mark II and damn do they look cinematic. I have a cinema camera but I want a nice portable camera to do quick run and gun type work for which a dslr or mirroless is perfect. Canon is the only company that has the ability to provide something that could cater to all my needs - it doesn't need to be 10 bit. Sony is all specs and no substance. Their cameras aren't intuitive nor do they create a pleasing image imo. Eventually there will be a 4k aps-c dpaf canon camera with a decent codec, and that will be the end of this conversation I hope. Cause if I am honest nothing comes close to competing.

Yeah me 2. It is a shame as the images are really nice, but for a portable camera autofocus would be nice to have for quick run and gun type work. I am waiting on canon as I know only they can get it right from both an ergonomics and image standpoint. I think we just have to pray the ff mirrorless will give us what we have been asking for.

I read somewhere on canonrumours I think where one of their execs basically said this was their first push into what will be a renewed plan to enter into the mirrorless market. So I am expecting more to come, and when the later iterations do come, I think most people will be pleased. They have to cripple this one to distinguish it from their higher end models (if it isnt simply a matter of hardware limitations in a small body). Once canon get it right, they will be leaders yet again - not because they have the best specs like sony, but because they are able to execute a camera correctly. Ask yourself this question: which camera would you more readily recommend to a soccer mom - Canon M50 or a Sony a6300? I think any rational person would pick the canon. The a6300 is too complicated a camera for the average person to use between the menus and the ergonomics. I've heard it multiple times from people in museums complaining about how they don't know how to use the camera. If they don't know how to use it they will put it down.

Yes and what is that reason? Genuine question. The canon 1dc does 8 bit after all. I see the other thread everyone ranting and raving about its image quality.

What do you think the extra 2 bits will give you that you won't get out of the camera already? I appreciate the videso. Thank you. Good to see some log footage out there.

I dont like the luts pasted onto the log footage. Looks amateurish.