KnightsFan

@wolf33d I'm not saying Sony protects their cine line. I'm just refuting that Sony has been "ahead of the competition past 5 years" in specs (I'm not talking about sales). While Sony clearly dominates with sensors, their processors always seem to be behind. Maybe it's intentional crippling, but I think it's more likely that they simply have not invested in that area as much.
In 2014, the NX1 did a 28MP readout in 30ms. The A7S II, a year later, took the same amount of time to read out 12MP. The a6300 had even worse rolling shutter in 2016 -- almost 40ms! I'm not saying the NX1 is "better," but it's an example of how Sony's processors lag behind their sensors. Perhaps their weak codecs, past overheating issues, and continued lack of 10 bit are all the result of poor processors as well? Sony leads in some areas, but not all.
Panasonic has been outputting 10 bit HDMI for 4 years now. Fuji, Nikon, and even Canon have beaten Sony to 10 bit HDMI, with Fuji getting bonus points for having it internally with a modern codec. I'd say that Panasonic has really been the one leading for specs, with Sony getting a pass because they were the ONLY FF mirrorless.
I also expect the new Sony APS-C to be close to the XT3. 4k60-- probably. 10 bit-- probably externally, but I think it will still be 8 bit internal. H.265 and 20ms rolling shutter-- I highly doubt these.
But we'll see! I certainly hope Sony knock it out of the park. I'd switch to Sony if they deliver.

@wolf33d I'm not saying Sony protects their cine line. I'm just refuting that Sony has been "ahead of the competition past 5 years" in specs (I'm not talking about sales). While Sony clearly dominates with sensors, their processors always seem to be behind. Maybe it's intentional crippling, but I think it's more likely that they simply have not invested in that area as much.
In 2014, the NX1 did a 28MP readout in 30ms. The A7S II, a year later, took the same amount of time to read out 12MP. The a6300 had even worse rolling shutter in 2016 -- almost 40ms! I'm not saying the NX1 is "better," but it's an example of how Sony's processors lag behind their sensors. Perhaps their weak codecs, past overheating issues, and continued lack of 10 bit are all the result of poor processors as well? Sony leads in some areas, but not all.
Panasonic has been outputting 10 bit HDMI for 4 years now. Fuji, Nikon, and even Canon have beaten Sony to 10 bit HDMI, with Fuji getting bonus points for having it internally with a modern codec. I'd say that Panasonic has really been the one leading for specs, with Sony getting a pass because they were the ONLY FF mirrorless.
I also expect the new Sony APS-C to be close to the XT3. 4k60-- probably. 10 bit-- probably externally, but I think it will still be 8 bit internal. H.265 and 20ms rolling shutter-- I highly doubt these.
But we'll see! I certainly hope Sony knock it out of the park. I'd switch to Sony if they deliver.

@wolf33d I'm not saying Sony protects their cine line. I'm just refuting that Sony has been "ahead of the competition past 5 years" in specs (I'm not talking about sales). While Sony clearly dominates with sensors, their processors always seem to be behind. Maybe it's intentional crippling, but I think it's more likely that they simply have not invested in that area as much.
In 2014, the NX1 did a 28MP readout in 30ms. The A7S II, a year later, took the same amount of time to read out 12MP. The a6300 had even worse rolling shutter in 2016 -- almost 40ms! I'm not saying the NX1 is "better," but it's an example of how Sony's processors lag behind their sensors. Perhaps their weak codecs, past overheating issues, and continued lack of 10 bit are all the result of poor processors as well? Sony leads in some areas, but not all.
Panasonic has been outputting 10 bit HDMI for 4 years now. Fuji, Nikon, and even Canon have beaten Sony to 10 bit HDMI, with Fuji getting bonus points for having it internally with a modern codec. I'd say that Panasonic has really been the one leading for specs, with Sony getting a pass because they were the ONLY FF mirrorless.
I also expect the new Sony APS-C to be close to the XT3. 4k60-- probably. 10 bit-- probably externally, but I think it will still be 8 bit internal. H.265 and 20ms rolling shutter-- I highly doubt these.
But we'll see! I certainly hope Sony knock it out of the park. I'd switch to Sony if they deliver.

Blackmagic and AJA thought so, too!

Blackmagic and AJA thought so, too!

Global shutter is the future I want. It's always nice to see progress in that area.

No you do not get 1.8x in 60p either.
You will have to shoot full frame for 60p, and use the digital IS to crop-in to 1.2x and approx. 1.4x.
That latter mode may get your Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 into service in 60p but beware the softness and artefacts from DIS.
EF-S lens users are completely out of luck for 60p. As soon as one is detected, it locks the camera to 1.8x crop mode, 30p max. You cannot disable the 1.8x crop mode with one attached.
IN SUMMARY:
Full frame lens: FF 1080/60/50p and 1.6x crop stills. 1.8x crop 4K and 1080p up to 30p EF APS-C lens (Sigma): As above EF-S lens (Canon): 1.8x crop 1080/30p max and 4K/24/25/30p 1.8x crop In no mode can you actually record 1.6x crop video. The 1.6x crop mode is ONLY for 12MP stills. There is also a "Movie cropping mode" in the menus, but that is 1.8x as well.
It is either:
Full frame 1080p 60p / 1.2x crop DIS / 1.4x crop DIS+ 4K 1.8x crop 30p max 1080p 1.8x crop 30p max

Global shutter is the future I want. It's always nice to see progress in that area.

The question has a different meaning depending on what you already own. Personally, I'm completely satisfied with the 24p quality of my current camera. Do I need (insert any feature from @kye's list here)? Not at all! But if the primary features are covered by my current gear, it'll take an improvement in the secondary features for me to consider an upgrade.
So IBIS or AF are not required for the camera that I use in 2018, but they might be a requirement for the camera that I buy as an upgrade in 2018--if I feel the need to upgrade at all!

I agree with most of the above, but the thinking is wrong.
Is super slow-motion required in 2018?  Not if you're shooting a doco, but yes if you're shooting a hair or shampoo commercial.
Is IBIS required in 2018? Not if you have the time, space and permission to take a stabiliser of some kind and set it up, yes if you're shooting in situations where a tripod/monopod/shoulder-rig/gimbal/etc isn't allowed or isn't practical.
Is 4K required in 2018? Not if you're shooting for a client that doesn't mandate it, yes if they do (eg, Netflix).
Is RAW required in 2018?  Not if the requirements of your scene will be sufficiently captured in a more compressed coded, yes if you need the flexibility or resolution in post (eg, green screening)
Is AF required in 2018? Not if you have the ability to manually focus sufficiently on set to track the subject in your images, yes if you don't.
Is extreme high ISO performance required in 2018?  Not if you are shooting a bright enough subject, or have the ability to light them sufficiently, yes if neither of these is true.
Anyone can ask the question of ANY parameter within photography and find examples of both yes and no, depending on the project.
ANY DISCUSSION OF REQUIREMENTS BEGINS WITH THE CONTENT TO BE CREATED.  CAMERAS ARE TOOLS FOR A JOB.  EACH JOB IS DIFFERENT.
Anyone who thinks they can generalise is too stupid to understand that other people shoot different projects, using different techniques, in different circumstances.

I checked out Media Player Classic Home Cinema (MPC-HC). It's an improvement over VLC, but it does not match my other color-managed applications (yet!). Would you guys mind sharing your settings or any insights? Currently, I have found:
A) Davinci resolve, Krita, Rawtherapee, and GIMP all look identical, and all are manually set to use my calibrated icc profile. In the case of Resolve, this includes generating a 3D LUT from the icc profile using DisplayCAL, as per the tutorial here. (Though I am using sRGB instead of Rec709).
B) MPC-HC looks identical to the default Windows Picture and Photo Viewer, but appears to have slightly more contrast than the programs listed in A), or maybe just a slightly lower black level. I adjusted every setting I could find, but could only get worse results, not better. Reading through Wikipedia, I came across this:
AND I notice that in the color management section of MPC-HC, you can choose between Gamma 2.2, 2.35, and 2.4. So perhaps MPC-HC is actually using a single gamma value? That would explain why it looks just BARELY off from the A) programs.
C) VLC is on its own planet. Changing renderers will change the colors around, but they don't explain what is actually happening so it's anyone's guess which settings are most accurate.
 
I couldn't agree more. Every day, lots of people here on EOSHD discuss the color science of various cameras. I'm assuming they are all viewing on calibrated monitors? If so, I hope they will chime in and help us out!

I just calibrated my monitor again, but this time used DisplayCal as @KnightsFan suggested, instead of iProfiler. Same settings but totally different results. X-rite's app (iProfiler) gives a strange red shift. Many users have mentioned the same thing, so i can definitely confirm this.
As for After Effects, i forced the application to use my icc profile and the results where totally off. I tried the same thing with Premiere by exporting stills which i passed through a simple colorimetry process using Photoshop. I am sure i made a lot of mistakes and this was not a scientific test in any universe but i can say this with confidence: The color management in Adobe video apps on a mac doesn't work in harmony with Colorsync. Even if you force these apps to implement an icc profile you can't trust what you see.
KnightFan said that VLC's color is not accurate and i totally agree. But i was not expecting in any case that i would see the exact color management inside 2 widely used Adobe's apps.
I made a custom lut in Photoshop, then added that on an adjustment layer in AE and exported my files again. That was the quickest way to fix the color shift and it worked as a charm. I think...
Overall i think those are major issues and must be discussed more on the forums. It's funny cause we talk everyday about how disruptive a codec or a compression method could be and i just discovered that every single clip i have exported from AE has been rendered in a slightly shifted colorspace.

Keep in mind that the VCGT (video card gamma table) is universal, while the icc profile is not. So you should have the correct gamma everywhere already.
Assuming Quicktime uses the calibrated ICC profile, yes, that is correct. (As a Windows user, I have no experience with Quicktime).
If an application such as Quicktime is verifiably correct, then yes, you will probably have to use a LUT to make your other software match. I would try to confirm Quicktime's accuracy using image editors, as they usually have better icc profile support than video applications (after all, icc profiles are used calibrate printers for printing photos). If 4-5 different photo editors all use the calibrated icc profile and match each other and quicktime, you can be reasonably certain those are all correct.
However, gamma should be correct already (if my understanding is correct... I'm still figuring this out!) so my suspicion is that it's a problem with actual colors, or with video vs. data levels, rather than a gamma problem. I don't know how color management works in AE.
 
Which software to you use for calibration? I use DisplayCAL. It has a lot of nice tools, like generating a LUT from the icc profile. The forums there seem like a good place to ask questions.
Final note: VLC absolutely SUCKS for color. Afaik, there is no way to use an icc profile, and even a simple thing like specifying 16-235 vs. 0-255 levels is unreliable. You can be reasonably certain that VLC's color is not accurate.

It's only ~14% larger volume than the XT3. It's half the weight of the 1dx2. It's the same weight (and smaller volume!) compared to the GH5.
It's true the E2 is not a photo/video hybrid with DSLR ergonomics like the others, but it's certainly right in there in terms of cost and size.

hi pals
 
just wanted yall to know that i found a pretty good solution... so my short looks ok on youtube now
ive found that there is no way around some horrid banding on dark gradients when uploading 1080p, which is NOT converted to vp9 on upload... but SOME 1080p videos absolutely are vp9, ones with lots of views. so, i dont know how to get that to happen, but in lieu of that...
uploading in 4k more or less solves this problem. i mean, there's still issues, but its a dramatic improvement. i experimented with adding noise, and that didnt seem to help any
ALSO, i found that the gamma setting for my resolve timeline was screwing me up: under project settings, resolve had the timeline color space set to Rec.709 Gamma 2.4, i switched it to 2.2 and got a much more accurate interpretation by youtube 

Nah, I'm fairly sure the thread is about an Advertising Case Study. /spam

It's always valid to point out testing conditions that are not controlled. That said, most of us agree that equivalent dof is NOT important in this test, and are satisfied with the conclusions we can draw from watching it. Feel free to conduct your own, and focus on the comparison points you find most important.

but this isn't a sensor size comparison test, he's just doing a quick real world comparison between several cameras. I didn't even look at dof when judging, I only looked at skin tones, and it was clear to me which looked better. It was very good in that regard.
If anything, it also highlights the fact that you need prohibitively expensive glass to get equivalent dof on m43.

I think in being fair to the smaller sensor cameras, we must by default be equally unfair to the larger sensor cameras. 
A truly even test let’s the cameras stand on their own merit. To be certain... manufacturers have been short changing us on DOF in M43. The numbers sound the same, and so we forget they are in fact not equal to their FF equivalents of the same F stop designation. 
The truth is, to get the same performance, build quality, optical quality and speed, it is far more costly to pull off in a smaller package. A 12-35mm f2.8 M43 lens would need to be closer to F1.4 to match its FF counterparts. I suspect such a lens would retail for well in excess of $2k and perhaps as high as $3k. To my knowledge, nothing like this is currently available at any price.
In all honesty, I did not conduct this test with DOF in mind. Rather, I merely wanted to understand how close the cameras could match up to one another. And also understand the overall image quality of the various models.
I think FCPX made the 1DXMK2 look badly in the solo scene. But the side by sides are acutely representing its image. 
AF: This played out as I thought. The 1DXMK2 nails auto focus. I was rocking back and forth to highlight this point. 
The Panasonic does not have AF in video... so I could not test it.
At least that’s what the manual should say. Suggesting it’s not great would be kind. Once locked you just have to try to stay very still.
AF has tricks in the C200. It can hold focus until it Re-acquires you. It’s very good, though the edge goes to the 1DXMK2.
Fuji X-T3: it’s good. I changed position and it found me with little delay. And once found, it sticks pretty darn good. With the lens I was using I did notice some focus breathing. It can be distracting depending on the scene. But that’s the lens... and it’s on you to work around.
 

It's always valid to point out testing conditions that are not controlled. That said, most of us agree that equivalent dof is NOT important in this test, and are satisfied with the conclusions we can draw from watching it. Feel free to conduct your own, and focus on the comparison points you find most important.

No, I’d have a comparison based on how I would use the setup. If I had a C200 or 1DXii with the 24-70mm f/2.8, I’d use it wide open. If I had an X-T3 and 23mm f/2, I’d use it wide open and if I had a GH5s with the 12-35mm f/2.8, I’d use it wide open. Sensor size fairness is for kindergartners, I only care about how I would use the camera/lens in a real world scenario. 

Here is a quick shootout of the Fuji X-T3, Canon 1DXMk2, Canon C200 and Panasonic GH5S. Granted FCPX refused to not blowout some of the footage of camera B. It's displayed correctly in some of the head to head comparisons. I think it might have been caused by a software bug in FCPX. In any case all four cameras were filming in base ISO in controlled lighting. Opinions welcomed.
 

90% of my shots are 28mm on APS-C (42mm on FF). I think I'd use a 24mm more often if I had a good one--my zooms in that range have no character.
28mm is great for wide shots if you've got enough space, but really shines for medium shots and close ups. It's not exactly "flattering," but really makes a face jump out from the background in a way that a longer lens can't. I love the DOF at f4: your eye immediately knows what's in focus, but you can still tell what's behind the blur. It guides your eye, but maintains the scene's context.
Some years ago I read this article, and I still agree with it 100%.

90% of my shots are 28mm on APS-C (42mm on FF). I think I'd use a 24mm more often if I had a good one--my zooms in that range have no character.
28mm is great for wide shots if you've got enough space, but really shines for medium shots and close ups. It's not exactly "flattering," but really makes a face jump out from the background in a way that a longer lens can't. I love the DOF at f4: your eye immediately knows what's in focus, but you can still tell what's behind the blur. It guides your eye, but maintains the scene's context.
Some years ago I read this article, and I still agree with it 100%.

It's $500!