Yurolov

Well if this camera is going to be an option for major productions perhaps a flip screen and PDAF are not needed. After-all, if one is spending several million dollars on a production it's a given that they would have external wireless monitors and dedicated focus pullers. But for a small operation / one man band, well, a flip screen and PDAF could go a long way to make life easier. Perhaps I misunderstood who this camera is targeting? I'll let Michael Bay know at once.

That image is a fake. 

So they've added 6k photo mode that shoots at a slower 24 fps; rebranded it as a new video mode and added $2400 to the price?

So basically Huawei is the leader in 5g but without american components that tech just can't be used. How is this not a good thing for the americans? 5g is the future of tech. I don't think the short-term loss for these chip makers matters compared to the advantages of being no 1 in 5g. And if you think the americans aren't playing fair then the same can be said about the chinese. Just consider how they got to this point. 

So basically Huawei is the leader in 5g but without american components that tech just can't be used. How is this not a good thing for the americans? 5g is the future of tech. I don't think the short-term loss for these chip makers matters compared to the advantages of being no 1 in 5g. And if you think the americans aren't playing fair then the same can be said about the chinese. Just consider how they got to this point. 

It isn't just about the trade war; it is about the stealing of intellectual property for the purpose of out-competing american companies. In the short term Intel may suffer but in the long term it will be beneficial for them to have a level playing field. Huawei is state-sponsored. Its technology piggy-backs off american innovation. The americans invested in the tech at considerable expense. It is easy for the chinese to offer items cheaper when you don't have to pay for the r&d. 
To say that Foxconn would close its books is unrealistic. For one, it would take a massive hit to its revenue; it would have to sack an untold number of people; and other international companies would also pull out for fear of the same thing happening to them. In fact, China has little leverage because it is so reliant on the american consumer to purchase its goods and to provide its citizens with employment in manufacturing. 
The biggest detriment to tech innovation is IP theft. If their has to be some short term pain then it is warranted if the playing field is leveled; the americans can withstand it much better than the chinese. You see it time and again with innovative american startups going bankrupt because there is a cheaper chinese alternative that copies their tech. So yea, I would say that a stand needs to be taken. 

It isn't just about the trade war; it is about the stealing of intellectual property for the purpose of out-competing american companies. In the short term Intel may suffer but in the long term it will be beneficial for them to have a level playing field. Huawei is state-sponsored. Its technology piggy-backs off american innovation. The americans invested in the tech at considerable expense. It is easy for the chinese to offer items cheaper when you don't have to pay for the r&d. 
To say that Foxconn would close its books is unrealistic. For one, it would take a massive hit to its revenue; it would have to sack an untold number of people; and other international companies would also pull out for fear of the same thing happening to them. In fact, China has little leverage because it is so reliant on the american consumer to purchase its goods and to provide its citizens with employment in manufacturing. 
The biggest detriment to tech innovation is IP theft. If their has to be some short term pain then it is warranted if the playing field is leveled; the americans can withstand it much better than the chinese. You see it time and again with innovative american startups going bankrupt because there is a cheaper chinese alternative that copies their tech. So yea, I would say that a stand needs to be taken. 

It isn't just about the trade war; it is about the stealing of intellectual property for the purpose of out-competing american companies. In the short term Intel may suffer but in the long term it will be beneficial for them to have a level playing field. Huawei is state-sponsored. Its technology piggy-backs off american innovation. The americans invested in the tech at considerable expense. It is easy for the chinese to offer items cheaper when you don't have to pay for the r&d. 
To say that Foxconn would close its books is unrealistic. For one, it would take a massive hit to its revenue; it would have to sack an untold number of people; and other international companies would also pull out for fear of the same thing happening to them. In fact, China has little leverage because it is so reliant on the american consumer to purchase its goods and to provide its citizens with employment in manufacturing. 
The biggest detriment to tech innovation is IP theft. If their has to be some short term pain then it is warranted if the playing field is leveled; the americans can withstand it much better than the chinese. You see it time and again with innovative american startups going bankrupt because there is a cheaper chinese alternative that copies their tech. So yea, I would say that a stand needs to be taken. 

It isn't just about the trade war; it is about the stealing of intellectual property for the purpose of out-competing american companies. In the short term Intel may suffer but in the long term it will be beneficial for them to have a level playing field. Huawei is state-sponsored. Its technology piggy-backs off american innovation. The americans invested in the tech at considerable expense. It is easy for the chinese to offer items cheaper when you don't have to pay for the r&d. 
To say that Foxconn would close its books is unrealistic. For one, it would take a massive hit to its revenue; it would have to sack an untold number of people; and other international companies would also pull out for fear of the same thing happening to them. In fact, China has little leverage because it is so reliant on the american consumer to purchase its goods and to provide its citizens with employment in manufacturing. 
The biggest detriment to tech innovation is IP theft. If their has to be some short term pain then it is warranted if the playing field is leveled; the americans can withstand it much better than the chinese. You see it time and again with innovative american startups going bankrupt because there is a cheaper chinese alternative that copies their tech. So yea, I would say that a stand needs to be taken. 

It isn't just about the trade war; it is about the stealing of intellectual property for the purpose of out-competing american companies. In the short term Intel may suffer but in the long term it will be beneficial for them to have a level playing field. Huawei is state-sponsored. Its technology piggy-backs off american innovation. The americans invested in the tech at considerable expense. It is easy for the chinese to offer items cheaper when you don't have to pay for the r&d. 
To say that Foxconn would close its books is unrealistic. For one, it would take a massive hit to its revenue; it would have to sack an untold number of people; and other international companies would also pull out for fear of the same thing happening to them. In fact, China has little leverage because it is so reliant on the american consumer to purchase its goods and to provide its citizens with employment in manufacturing. 
The biggest detriment to tech innovation is IP theft. If their has to be some short term pain then it is warranted if the playing field is leveled; the americans can withstand it much better than the chinese. You see it time and again with innovative american startups going bankrupt because there is a cheaper chinese alternative that copies their tech. So yea, I would say that a stand needs to be taken. 

Huawei puts backdoors in their phones. It's a poor choice to trust such a device with any valuable account information. I won't miss them. And frankly I'm glad to see that the government took action to protect consumers and security.

Ha ha the camera is a massive flop. Clearly Sony have learned nothing about ergonomics and how people actually use their cameras. 

Forward progress in terms of aesthetics is relative. It is why people still use the nearly decade old alexa and pay a premium for early CCD s16 cameras. Sony may have the tech but the images are lackluster. Not sure why Canon would give up the very thing that makes their image unique and special.  

Forward progress in terms of aesthetics is relative. It is why people still use the nearly decade old alexa and pay a premium for early CCD s16 cameras. Sony may have the tech but the images are lackluster. Not sure why Canon would give up the very thing that makes their image unique and special.  

Forward progress in terms of aesthetics is relative. It is why people still use the nearly decade old alexa and pay a premium for early CCD s16 cameras. Sony may have the tech but the images are lackluster. Not sure why Canon would give up the very thing that makes their image unique and special.  

60p is only external. So if you're Sony user, you better wait for A7S3. 

I strongly agree and believe this system wont sell very well with its overall price point.

I find it funny how people on here think the average consumer could care less about RS but for some reason they care so much about 4k, which codec they can't even edit on their laptops. For the average person the m50 is a much better option: the price is more appealing, has a proper screen, more aesthetically pleasing, better brand name recognition, and ergonomically a treat with that nice touch screen interface.  
Most people watch youtube (I'd hazard a guess at around 80%) on their phone, for which 480p is good enough. I used to own a a6300 and sold it. That thing was so sharp you could see every pore and blemish on your face. I put it on 1080p and - ah - so much better for my appearance haha. 
I don't see vloggers spending the extra money over a m50 - it would be a stupid decision. 
 

Ha ha the camera is a massive flop. Clearly Sony have learned nothing about ergonomics and how people actually use their cameras. 

Ha ha the camera is a massive flop. Clearly Sony have learned nothing about ergonomics and how people actually use their cameras. 

Ha ha the camera is a massive flop. Clearly Sony have learned nothing about ergonomics and how people actually use their cameras. 

Great question...I am thinking of getting one of those USB-C to 3.5mm and USB ports that enable you to use the headphone jack AND still charge it. Would be an interesting test....however, two hours of battery life is pretty dang good and haven't ever had a problem with it dying on us on a shoot.
 
Yes I can share some footage. If more people want to see it I can do a dropbox link

I use Lee pro-glass cine IRND 4x4. I also have tiffen grad nds which have a color cast to them at higher stops. I would not recommend tiffen personally. The Lee filters dont have any perceivable color shift as far as I can tell in my grades, so I would recommend those.   

Like I said before, and most people disagreed with me, the future of m43 is a gimbleless future. If they can give us perfectly stabilised footage straight out of camera that alone makes it unique among the competition and saves a lot in time and the extra cost of a gimbal. I don't know what 7.5 stops will mean practically once they do their crop but I would imagine we are getting pretty close. 

That's the thing. People will complain about the size difference of DSLRs to mirrorless, but once you put something on a gimbal it is moot. You can't film anywhere without, like you said, sticking out like a sore thumb. I can deal with the camera being a little bit bigger if we don't need the gimbal. I think a combination of hardware and software stabilisation would get the job done. Plus bigger body means better heat dissipation and better codecs.