Mokara

Big price drops are unlikely considering it's build quality and the relative complexity of the design. As a camera it is fine, vastly better ergonomically than the original EOS-M versions for sure. The video quality of the camera is not going to be driving it's pricing IMO.

Don't confuse creativity with camera capability. You can still shoot interesting stuff with an obsolete system, but your options and discretion is so much greater with a newer system. Stills shooting is pretty mature at this point, new cameras offer fairly minimal technical improvement (as in 97% versus 98% for example, so why bother upgrading), but IMO video is still in its infancy and has a long way to go.

Transfer quality plays a role, and also because a lot of film is shot at lower resolution to start with, so does not benefit much from 4K BluRay outside of things like HDR. As a rule of thumb there generally is not any advantage when viewing movies older than a few years as a result (and even some newer ones are basically a con due to the limitations of the medium used to do the initial recording). If it is a modern movie (meaning shot in the last two years or so), chances are you will have a better image from the 4K BluRay option, but not always since some directors have regressive attitudes towards certain aspects of quality. They try to mimic the technology of a bygone age rather than what is current. Anything shot like that is probably not going to be worth having on a 4K BluRay, but they are still released that way as a marketing tool essentially to sucker viewers in to pay more. Unfortunately when acquiring discs they don't have "Bogus 4K" stamped on them, so you only find out when you actually view it, it is hit and miss in that respect. One genre that does not require 4K is animation. Regular HD BluRay is just fine for that.

Yes. I don't bother with HD any more if there is a choice.

Because I shoot video dynamically from photomode, and interchange between stills and video constantly. Stills are shot as RAW/JPEG, with the JPEG copy being used for preview purposes and the RAW for final edits. When I need to shoot video I record directly from there, not using movie preview mode, and doing any framing adjustments necessary while the camera is recording. The reason for this is that the tools available to you in stills mode generally are more powerful than what you get in movie mode. The result of that is normally your display is showing the reduced exposure from the compensation adjustment, but not the increased RGB channels. This results in a very dark screen/viewfinder, it only goes normal when you start recording and only at that point can you see if there is an exposure issue or anything of that nature. The consequence of all of that is it becomes a major PITA doing all of this the way that I shoot personally. That is not to say the method is not useful or doesn't work for you, but there limitations depending on one's personal shooting style that people need to be aware of.

I tried this briefly over the weekend, it seemed like pretty much a major PITA because the camera is not really set up to be used that way.

What can be done in Canon cameras is not necessarily what can be done in other cameras, since those older Canon models use simpler electronics running at much lower resolutions (which is the only reason why Magic Lantern could do what they did). Canon tends to take a crude approach to video as a result (in stills cameras at least), which is why they are always so far behind everyone else in that department. Video is generally handled differently due to the bandwidth required. Stills data is directed to the buffer, where it is directly addressed by the processor. You can't do that with video however due to the bandwidth involved, so the preprocessing is done in hardware by the chip between the sensor and processor. Unless the chip is set up to do otherwise, that will not be user changeable. That is what makes 4K feasible in those sorts of cameras. You only have access to live feed, which is uncompressed but already processed data. Firmware can't change that. All it can do is alter the input parameters to the pre-processing engine, but that won't output raw. In order to have RAW output, you need a camera that has the hardware to support it, otherwise you can't get it. The Sony consumer cameras have different hardware arrangements, and I suspect the same applies to the later Canon systems as well. Lol....all he said that it was possible to send RAW over HDMI as a general observation, not that the camera itself can actually do it. He was explaining why they didn't have that feature in the camera. I would be very surprised if they had the hardware set up to do it.

If you carried on reading to the bottom of the post, I said that What comes out of a camera's HDMI is a processed video signal however. No doubt there may be specialist cameras which do something different, but there are hardware implications for that. Things like most Sony consumer cameras have a chip between the sensor and processor that does most of the preprocessing of the video signal in hardware. Probably most consumer cameras do something similar. That would include things like debeyering, conversion to 4:2:0, bit size reduction, maybe noise reduction and so on. Compression is done later by the processor, the HDMI feed runs out what the inbetween chip generates. Any sort of firmware adjustment would only be able to affect what the processor does with that processed signal and possibly the pre-processing operating parameters, so things like RAW coming down the HDMI would be out of the question (IMO).

Doubt it. Panasonic's design decision making process would have been driven by the cost of storage and how that would play out with their likely customer base. It would be in their interests as a company trying to break into the market to have the highest performance possible within the cost constraints imposed by the market so that they could out-compete the opposition without bankrupting the division. For something like the GH series that would be the availability and price of best internal SD cards that the average user of a $1-2k camera would be willing to pay for, and that is what would be used for their system. BM and their products had nothing to do with it.

Unlikely to happen. HDMI on cameras outputs already debeyered video signal which is not RAW. So whatever comes out of HDMI is going to be processed already, the only thing different about it versus what goes onto an internal storage card is that it is not compressed. My guess is that outputting non-video through the HDMI port would require hardware changes as well, so a firmware update would not do it. Well, they make a recorder, it will record whatever happens to come down the HDMI port, video or not, so it is no big deal for them. Completely different for the equipment SENDING the signal however, it is not just firmware that is involved, there is a hardware aspect and what Atomos would like to see happen in order to sell their product simply may not be feasible with current cameras. If there is no compelling reason for the camera manufacturers to do it, then they won't, since it adds manufacturing cost for little or no return.

These basic cameras should not really cost much, essentially all they are is a sensor in a box, with a few interfaces and a really basic processor in them. Sensors are very mature tech at this point, so they should not cost much. Most of the cost in modern cameras likely comes from the processors (and associated development). Things like the BM cameras skirt all of that by offloading most of the processing to post, which allows them to use much more basic (and consequently cheaper) processors. So they come out with these really low cost models, but it is mistake to think that all cameras can be similarly priced. Most others on the market have much bigger investments in the processor and related electronic support (EVFs, screens, AF, etc), and consequently they will usually cost a lot more.

Well, I am a scientist, and the idea of using tools intended for home use in a professional environment and expecting them to perform like professional tools is ludicrous IMO. That is not to say that you can't use them, sometimes for the odd thing it might be convenient and cost effective, but if I am going to do something routinely where I need reliable performance I get the proper equipment for the job. Why cut corners and take chances with stuff that might not hold up or be completely effective because it was designed for a completely different occasional use in a home setting? When you are working time is money and you want your equipment to always work and always work properly. I have one of these Kitchenaid mixers at home, which is fine for the odd baking I do on occasion, but there is NO WAY that I would depend on it if I was running a commercial operation using it 8 hours a day. For that I would buy a proper commercial mixer, because the home mixer would probably last a few weeks before burning out. This is kind of how I see these arguments fretting about consumer cameras being "not good enough" for professional jobs. News flash, they were not designed for professional use, they were designed for home use. If you are shooting video professionally, then buy the professional tool for the job. IMO any "professional" who wants to use them as professional tools is probably not quite as professional as they might want to be. It does not mean that they are not doing good work, but clearly they have difficulty making a living doing their job if they have to scrimp like that to do work.

It has a Sony sensor. Well, it can shoot 4K at 120 fps, some might find that useful. Looks like it would be relatively simple to fit on a drone as well. Square box.

Unlikely. What pushed SD card development was SD card development, more specifically competition between manufacturers for the fastest cards. Camera manufacturers merely piggybacked on what was happening in the SD market. In analogy it is sort of saying that the arms race between women is driven by men, when men have very little to do with it even though ostensibly it is being done for their benefit. It is actually driven by competition between women and the impact of men's opinions count for very little in how all of that develops. FF will have relatively little appeal for general use applications since usually you want decent dof for that to avoid any focusing issues. So smaller sensors such as 3/4 are much more useful for video overall IMO, they are not going to go away. What is fine or even great for stills is not necessarily so for video due to the dynamic aspect of video. This is the main reason why the optimal hybrid has roughly an APS-C sensor. If you want a more stills orientated hybrid you will go larger in sensor size, while if you want a more video orientated hybrid you will go smaller. No, mastery looks more like this: http://bikeglam.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/MotoGP-Racing-Sport1.jpg

That is not really what happens. Using pre-orders as an indication of demand is used as a tool to raise financing necessary to produce a product. You have to convince the lender that you are a good risk using a viable business plan, and pre-orders is one way to do that. Lol, well, if he has clients and works on "serious projects", one assumes that he would not be using a consumer orientated camera in the first place. At least one hopes not

Most people who shoot video don't transcode however, nor do they use external recorders. Most editing when it comes to cameras in general is simple stitching together whatever comes out of the camera, which is why things like H.264 and such are important in cameras for general use. I am not saying that some people would not find this useful, but when it comes to general purpose cameras things like ProRes are not necessarily an advantage. So when you look at hybrid cameras like those from Canon, Sony or Panasonic, the choices they have made regarding codecs are the best for the likely user base. And that is not really going to change any time soon.

It is a good thing if you are shooting a lot of stuff with a quick turn around and you need a portable solution. What would this camera be used for? If you are shooting on a set piece there are better options, and if you need mobility there are better options. I think the market for something like this is very limited, likely mostly people at the margins of the profession with extremely thin budgets. Students and those sorts of people.

Can't shoot much stuff with a shell containing no electronics inside

And don't forget camera tests. If you go on YouTube and look for footage for any given camera model, 90% of what you see are random "tests". Apparently that is what most people use their cameras for Most VLogging is done off tripods, so there is no reason why this camera could not be used for that. But, pretty much any other camera could be used equally as well for that purpose, so I don't see that as a selling point.

The Codec isn't miles ahead of anything in consumer cameras, it is actually far less sophisticated. Basically what BM are doing is making up for lack of modern processors capable of handling high compression and offloading the task to post by generating huge data instead. That is the main reason they are able to offer the camera at a low cost. It is also the main reason why the camera is not appropriate for consumer use (which those cameras you are so dismissive of ARE). And that is not to mention other things like AF performance and in camera stabilization.

More likely the sensor that is in this thing: https://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/leaked-z-cam-e2-can-do-4k120fps-and-has-a-deep-learning-engine/, which is a Sony 4/3 sensor. Not sure that Panasonic would be farming out the latest sensor on their flagship product. Sony is different in that the company that makes the sensors is a separate company from the photography one, so they would have no problem selling to competitors.

You mean WE have learned not to be overly optimistic on delivery dates

Expected availability Sep 3, 2018. I imagine actual availability would be after that, and who knows what other products from mainstream manufacturers will be on the market by then. This seems to be another one of BM's announcements long before the camera is ready to ship, meaning that it is still in development, so it is anyone's guess when it will actually be available.

4K30p at 10 bits is 300MB/s without compression. Their cinemaDNG RAW is 270 MB/s, implying that there is some compression going on. Unless they are doing it at 8 bits of course, in which case they would need 240 MB/s

Looks like an interesting camera, but let us see if they can get past the old BM habit of late delivery with all sorts of odd teething issues. With a free full copy of resolve, the camera itself is much more of a bargain as well.