Yurolov

Goes to the broader discussion about what a full frame nikon camera means for the market, and what smaller sensors might need to compete. My thinking was that they might be best served for run and gun scenarios given the ibis and potential for upgraded af.
In run and gun circumstances, no one wants to carry around a gimbal if it is not necessary. The implications for documentary work would be immense given the compact and discreet nature of these cameras.  Which is why paired with a a decent autofocus system they would be an attractive proposition to many. 
Even more broadly, maybe some here would like to see what olympus has to offer before they decide to purchase a nikon. Just speculation prior to release.

I will shortly be attending a screening of 3 faces, a film by iranian auteur jafar panahi. You might have heard of him, perhaps not, but he is the chap that is banned from making movies in his native Iran. He has made movies since his ban, Taxi Tehran, winning the golden bear in berlin. And 3 faces premiered in cannes.
I am intrigued by his situation because not unlike most of us he has to make do with what he has - certainly, he has the added benefit of a well-known name and the added benefits that comes with that. 
However, by reason of circumstance, perhaps more so than budget, he has to make do with the tools he has at his disposal. This meant for Taxi Tehran using the blackmagic pocket cinema camera.
Most recently, for 3 faces, he uses the cameras and lenses referred to in the title.
I will have the added benefit of seeing what these cameras look like on the big screen which is nice, though on the trailer they don't look too good.
However, that is not my point, my post is simply made to inspire anyone out there feeling constrained but what they can or can't afford.   

For those of you forward thinking enough old lenses which are of good quality but lack IS, whether Nikon or canon, will me a lot more desirable if IBIS comes to their mirrorless options. For instance the ef 400 5.6 suddenly becomes a great modern lens and its price might rebound to reflect that.

For those of you forward thinking enough old lenses which are of good quality but lack IS, whether Nikon or canon, will me a lot more desirable if IBIS comes to their mirrorless options. For instance the ef 400 5.6 suddenly becomes a great modern lens and its price might rebound to reflect that.

I will shortly be attending a screening of 3 faces, a film by iranian auteur jafar panahi. You might have heard of him, perhaps not, but he is the chap that is banned from making movies in his native Iran. He has made movies since his ban, Taxi Tehran, winning the golden bear in berlin. And 3 faces premiered in cannes.
I am intrigued by his situation because not unlike most of us he has to make do with what he has - certainly, he has the added benefit of a well-known name and the added benefits that comes with that. 
However, by reason of circumstance, perhaps more so than budget, he has to make do with the tools he has at his disposal. This meant for Taxi Tehran using the blackmagic pocket cinema camera.
Most recently, for 3 faces, he uses the cameras and lenses referred to in the title.
I will have the added benefit of seeing what these cameras look like on the big screen which is nice, though on the trailer they don't look too good.
However, that is not my point, my post is simply made to inspire anyone out there feeling constrained but what they can or can't afford.   

If Canikon knock it out of the park I don't see why anyone would consider m4/3 anymore. The Gh5 and Em1 II are already large cameras and there isn't so much to be gained in terms of size unless you are talking about telephoto lenses. The new nikon mirrorless looks to be diminutive in size so I don't think it will be too much of a consideration for people. I think panisonic and olympus either go full frame or die a slow death. Especially with full frame cameras dropping in price. 
We are seeing the same problem with the fuji and the xh1, being in practical terms more expensive than the a7iii. The thing with fuji is that their lenses are quite expensive, especially considering they are apsc lenses. For example, their 100-400 is priced equivalently to canon's superior and pro level 100-400. Their range at the long end isn't good either.    
 
 

The latest development with ML and the EOSM is that one can shoot raw with the full height of the sensor -- and it looks fairly clean (minimal moire/aliasing).  The resolution is 1736x1120, and I think that the pixels are binned 3x3.
 
Here's @Alpicat's test at 14-bit lossless raw:
 
Here are the instructions on how to setup the EOSM in this new crop/resolution.

If Canikon knock it out of the park I don't see why anyone would consider m4/3 anymore. The Gh5 and Em1 II are already large cameras and there isn't so much to be gained in terms of size unless you are talking about telephoto lenses. The new nikon mirrorless looks to be diminutive in size so I don't think it will be too much of a consideration for people. I think panisonic and olympus either go full frame or die a slow death. Especially with full frame cameras dropping in price. 
We are seeing the same problem with the fuji and the xh1, being in practical terms more expensive than the a7iii. The thing with fuji is that their lenses are quite expensive, especially considering they are apsc lenses. For example, their 100-400 is priced equivalently to canon's superior and pro level 100-400. Their range at the long end isn't good either.    
 
 

As the OP, I concur. The ship will right itself once new information comes to hand, at which time the discussion will return once more to focus on the camera.

As the OP, I concur. The ship will right itself once new information comes to hand, at which time the discussion will return once more to focus on the camera.

The monitors were sold and I owned one. But mine was an exact replica of a feelworld monitor just rebranded. The owner is a fiery spaniard but I dont see why they couldn't pull it off. Just dont expect any kind of service if you do buy it. 

Look at what you said in your last sentence. That is the science of color. That is what I am talking about. The interplay of colors and their relation to each other. 
Effective use of this science yields results that have the effects that I mentioned previously: 1) subject isolation 2) dimensionality.
Like I said canon also renders all hues similar to skin tones in a similar fashion (e.g a persons eye bags are not so pronounced on a canon because the tones are recognized in camera and brought to uniformity with the rest of the skin) so that skin appears smooth and uniform (not blotchy and patchy like sony) which further reinforces point 1 and 2 above.
This last point is the one that most people don't seem to understand. You can see the blue eye bags with the sony image but that is corrected in the canon. It is a darker, more bluish skintone that is identified and corrected in the canon.    

I've had access to an A7III for over a month. My opinion stands.  
Same 8-bit 4:2:0 100mbps XAVC-S codec. Hot pixels. Motion issues. Even more convoluted menus. AA filter. strong NR at high ISO..etc
..so I'd disagree with "significantly better than their predecessors in every way possible".

I think the thing that astounds me is that for a standalone 5 inch daylight viewable external monitor from a company like SmallHD you are looking at a price not too dissimilar from the price of the entire camera! But along with including LUT previews, you also get the added benefit of baking in LUTS.
The OS of the blackmagics is second to none. The touchscreens are like what you would find on a smartphone.  The same cannot be said of Sony's or Fuji's top-end cameras which leave a lot to be desired. Canon and Panasonic get it right, though.
That's some kind of value. Really makes you think about what the profit margins are for companies like SmallHD and the bigger players in the industry.  

I think the thing that astounds me is that for a standalone 5 inch daylight viewable external monitor from a company like SmallHD you are looking at a price not too dissimilar from the price of the entire camera! But along with including LUT previews, you also get the added benefit of baking in LUTS.
The OS of the blackmagics is second to none. The touchscreens are like what you would find on a smartphone.  The same cannot be said of Sony's or Fuji's top-end cameras which leave a lot to be desired. Canon and Panasonic get it right, though.
That's some kind of value. Really makes you think about what the profit margins are for companies like SmallHD and the bigger players in the industry.  

Trust me, I have my hands on some ProRes and DNG materials from the camera (acquired from NAB), it's clean af up to about 6400. Noise pattern is very pleasant fine grain, due to lack of compression obviously. The sensor is confirmed to be IMX294CJK, it's the STARVIS line from Sony Semicon with BSI design, originally intended for low light surveillance.
ProRes screenshot:

I actually commend Sony for this. Their color science in the original fs5 was beyond terrible. The skin tones in this video, however, look fantastic. I know it is early yet but the skin tones appear to be superior to the EVA1 and the c200 and I am a Canon apologist. 
Externally, you have all the framerates you require, so if you don't mind removing the top handle and running an atomos, I think this thing could surpass most cameras in this price point in terms of IQ. The skin tones really do look gorgeous. 
I am surprised by Sony because they usually cater to the specs crowd, but this targets those of us who care about the image quality more than anything, which is a nice change of pace.  

I actually commend Sony for this. Their color science in the original fs5 was beyond terrible. The skin tones in this video, however, look fantastic. I know it is early yet but the skin tones appear to be superior to the EVA1 and the c200 and I am a Canon apologist. 
Externally, you have all the framerates you require, so if you don't mind removing the top handle and running an atomos, I think this thing could surpass most cameras in this price point in terms of IQ. The skin tones really do look gorgeous. 
I am surprised by Sony because they usually cater to the specs crowd, but this targets those of us who care about the image quality more than anything, which is a nice change of pace.  

Why not wait a day? I think it is ballsy of him to email Andrew directly if he didn't have at least something to show. Unless he is a downright lier. It might be that he just needs a bit more time perfecting the settings. Who knows. 

I am a canon guy and if you look above you will see that I have bashed both the fuji and the sony for various reasons. So I have no brand loyalty between these two manufacturers. But I have to say that the fuji footage looks 2x better IMO. I can see two things at play here:
1. Color science is much better in the fuji. The skin tones are a dead give away. Look at the very first scene with the sony and see how blotchy and unappealing his skin looks. Then compare that with the fuji. I feel like I can see every pore on his skin with the Sony. There are oil blotches everywhere. Funnily enough, this is related to color.   
Despite your grading, the color still looks off with the sony. Particularly look at his skin at 0:19 secs in to the sony material. That is very hard to fix.
Another thing people often fail to mention is color separation. If the skin tone is pronounced the subject is isolated from the background.
Go to 1:32 on the fuji and 2:24 on the sony material, pause it and look how much more he pops on the fuji material. The sony material looks flat as pancakes. 
2. I can see the codec is more robust. The image looks a lot smoother and sturdy. There is less of that digital sharpness that you get with the sony, which makes it look very videoy.  
Having said that, if someone is working purely as a videographer I would recommend a second hand c100 (mk I or II) any day of the week haha.
For hybrid,  the fuji wins for image alone. 

I am a canon guy and if you look above you will see that I have bashed both the fuji and the sony for various reasons. So I have no brand loyalty between these two manufacturers. But I have to say that the fuji footage looks 2x better IMO. I can see two things at play here:
1. Color science is much better in the fuji. The skin tones are a dead give away. Look at the very first scene with the sony and see how blotchy and unappealing his skin looks. Then compare that with the fuji. I feel like I can see every pore on his skin with the Sony. There are oil blotches everywhere. Funnily enough, this is related to color.   
Despite your grading, the color still looks off with the sony. Particularly look at his skin at 0:19 secs in to the sony material. That is very hard to fix.
Another thing people often fail to mention is color separation. If the skin tone is pronounced the subject is isolated from the background.
Go to 1:32 on the fuji and 2:24 on the sony material, pause it and look how much more he pops on the fuji material. The sony material looks flat as pancakes. 
2. I can see the codec is more robust. The image looks a lot smoother and sturdy. There is less of that digital sharpness that you get with the sony, which makes it look very videoy.  
Having said that, if someone is working purely as a videographer I would recommend a second hand c100 (mk I or II) any day of the week haha.
For hybrid,  the fuji wins for image alone. 

I am a canon guy and if you look above you will see that I have bashed both the fuji and the sony for various reasons. So I have no brand loyalty between these two manufacturers. But I have to say that the fuji footage looks 2x better IMO. I can see two things at play here:
1. Color science is much better in the fuji. The skin tones are a dead give away. Look at the very first scene with the sony and see how blotchy and unappealing his skin looks. Then compare that with the fuji. I feel like I can see every pore on his skin with the Sony. There are oil blotches everywhere. Funnily enough, this is related to color.   
Despite your grading, the color still looks off with the sony. Particularly look at his skin at 0:19 secs in to the sony material. That is very hard to fix.
Another thing people often fail to mention is color separation. If the skin tone is pronounced the subject is isolated from the background.
Go to 1:32 on the fuji and 2:24 on the sony material, pause it and look how much more he pops on the fuji material. The sony material looks flat as pancakes. 
2. I can see the codec is more robust. The image looks a lot smoother and sturdy. There is less of that digital sharpness that you get with the sony, which makes it look very videoy.  
Having said that, if someone is working purely as a videographer I would recommend a second hand c100 (mk I or II) any day of the week haha.
For hybrid,  the fuji wins for image alone. 

I am a canon guy and if you look above you will see that I have bashed both the fuji and the sony for various reasons. So I have no brand loyalty between these two manufacturers. But I have to say that the fuji footage looks 2x better IMO. I can see two things at play here:
1. Color science is much better in the fuji. The skin tones are a dead give away. Look at the very first scene with the sony and see how blotchy and unappealing his skin looks. Then compare that with the fuji. I feel like I can see every pore on his skin with the Sony. There are oil blotches everywhere. Funnily enough, this is related to color.   
Despite your grading, the color still looks off with the sony. Particularly look at his skin at 0:19 secs in to the sony material. That is very hard to fix.
Another thing people often fail to mention is color separation. If the skin tone is pronounced the subject is isolated from the background.
Go to 1:32 on the fuji and 2:24 on the sony material, pause it and look how much more he pops on the fuji material. The sony material looks flat as pancakes. 
2. I can see the codec is more robust. The image looks a lot smoother and sturdy. There is less of that digital sharpness that you get with the sony, which makes it look very videoy.  
Having said that, if someone is working purely as a videographer I would recommend a second hand c100 (mk I or II) any day of the week haha.
For hybrid,  the fuji wins for image alone. 

I am a canon guy and if you look above you will see that I have bashed both the fuji and the sony for various reasons. So I have no brand loyalty between these two manufacturers. But I have to say that the fuji footage looks 2x better IMO. I can see two things at play here:
1. Color science is much better in the fuji. The skin tones are a dead give away. Look at the very first scene with the sony and see how blotchy and unappealing his skin looks. Then compare that with the fuji. I feel like I can see every pore on his skin with the Sony. There are oil blotches everywhere. Funnily enough, this is related to color.   
Despite your grading, the color still looks off with the sony. Particularly look at his skin at 0:19 secs in to the sony material. That is very hard to fix.
Another thing people often fail to mention is color separation. If the skin tone is pronounced the subject is isolated from the background.
Go to 1:32 on the fuji and 2:24 on the sony material, pause it and look how much more he pops on the fuji material. The sony material looks flat as pancakes. 
2. I can see the codec is more robust. The image looks a lot smoother and sturdy. There is less of that digital sharpness that you get with the sony, which makes it look very videoy.  
Having said that, if someone is working purely as a videographer I would recommend a second hand c100 (mk I or II) any day of the week haha.
For hybrid,  the fuji wins for image alone. 

I think that was the lesson Arikham was trying to teach us all along. Verily, he is wise beyond his years.