newfoundmass

I think there's a need for 8 and 12k, just not in these tiny mirrorless cameras and not for 98% of us. 
4K, in many ways, was overblown. There is a difference but not a significant difference between 1080p and 4K when watching on the most common TV size people own (55 inch), especially when it comes to streaming. The exception for me is when watching 4K Blu-ray discs. 
8K will be much the same. There will be benefits, but will 8K really look significantly better on a 55 inch television than 4K? Probably not. 
I have a client that was obsessed with everything being filmed, edited, and delivered in 4K. I'll upload his stuff for him and he used to marvel at how amazing the 4K was on his 4K TV. I just kinda brushed it off until one day he needed me to help him download an original file to his laptop to put on a thumbdrive for a presentation. Seeing how slow his connection was, I realized there was no way he was watching anything streaming in "4K". I had him play a video on his TV and then showed him that it was playing in 1080p. He had no idea. I told him even if it were playing in 4K he'd notice very little difference given the compression used. He stopped marveling after that, and I kinda felt bad about it for a bit. 
I still film and edit everything in 4K because there's really no reason not to. But I can't really think of any reason why I'd need 8K. I really don't need that much extra resolution to reframe (or really any extra at all... You can get away with it enough in a lot of instances in 4K) or anything. I don't think there's a ton of people really that need it who aren't in the film industry doing fx work or something. I'd much prefer camera companies push 4K to its limits while maintaining reliable functionality over this race for higher resolutions. 

I can't help but feel like we're moving backwards when overheating is an issue that keeps creeping back in.
Stop with the 6 or 8K resolution nonsense and just put out a camera that can do 4K 60p without overheating. It's not rocket science.

I think this is an aspect that gets overlooked by people that aren't out filming on their feet all day.
My own equivalent is that I have to be able to hold my camera in-hand for a whole day, only resting during breaks for food and bathrooms etc.  If it's not in my hand then it's not ready to film and so I miss shots and we all know that even barely usable footage is still better than the shot you didn't get.  This is one of the reasons I sold my Sigma 18-35, it was just too heavy.

Seems to be essentially what the R6 should've been from the start. Kudos to Canon for keeping the price the same, I guess. 

Seems to be essentially what the R6 should've been from the start. Kudos to Canon for keeping the price the same, I guess. 

One thing Canon does that irks me is how they remove important information once you hit record. What logical reason could there be for this? Surely it's not putting much strain on the processor to keep up the histogram while recording, right?! 

Seems to be essentially what the R6 should've been from the start. Kudos to Canon for keeping the price the same, I guess. 

From what I have seen of the FX30 and A7RV, they have tweaked a few bits again and it's just tipped the 'colour science' for me into the actually like it camp.
Yep, all of that and exactly that.
Unfortunately, I have to do something...
I'm grateful to have just been fully working again this year, but it's been 'painful'. Partly the sheer workload which has been insane, but mostly just fighting the tools to achieve the result. I really cannot...and do not, need to be going into another year doing that. So will not be.
Otherwise yes, I think it's more like they will being something out next year, but what and probably too late for me. I know some disagree and don't think companies need to inform us of their plans but as a business user, I disagree and have to make informed decisions based on fact/availability etc.

Your perspective comes from a much more controlled environment than what the majority of people out there are working on. That's not to say your perspective isn't welcomed, because it is an interesting one even if most of us on this forum will never work at that level, but sometimes I think you forget that.
@kye's question was whether 32 bit float gives you headroom in the event you need it, not whether 24 bit is sufficient when you're on a set with a dedicated sound guy. (The answer is yes, btw. You're only limited by your microphone, as there isn't anything on earth that is loud enough to distort 32 bit audio. As long as the sound isn't too loud for your microphone you're good to go.)
The Tascam X8 (or other low end 32 bit float recorders) won't give someone audio that's better than a professional sound guy with professional gear can achieve. But for low budget projects or hobbyists, where it's not incompetence but the inability to juggle everything at once that necessitates recording on 32 bit, it's a HUGE deal and gives them a fighting chance. And eventually even sound professionals will embrace it once they let go of their pride. 😉
Me? I'm just happy that I don't have to worry about the 300 pound pro-wrestlers clipping the audio when they're yelling and hollering because I'm nowhere near the recorder and even if I was it'd be a nightmare to adjust the sound while also filming something so chaotic and unpredictable. Now I can get the shot AND get good, clean audio. 😊

Thankfully I'm not in the film industry but in the video production industry. 😉
32 bit float has been liberating as a one (or two) person crew. Setting my levels once (I still choose to), and not having to worry if someone (or something) gets too loud is beautiful because I have the range to still pull it down if they clip. It's not perfect, sounds can still be too loud for the mic itself obviously, but I've yet to experience that. I've just experienced lovely audio so far. 
I've never had enough hands to properly mix or adjust audio live the way I wish I could. Before I'd have to set my levels lower to be safe because I wasn't in a position to adjust them on the fly. Now I'm able to record two wireless handheld mics, the soundboard, and a crowd mic all at once with no clipping and without the noise that comes with adding gain in post. 
Everything gets written off as marketing or a gimmick at first. And for a lot of people it is completely unnecessary. But it's a game changer for a lot of people. 

It wouldn't shock me at all. There will always be a market for monitors and recorders, but cameras are increasingly adding features and codecs that you needed recorders for in the past. The ability to record RAW was important short term, but it's only a matter of time before these companies develop their own flavor of RAW or implement ProRes RAW or BRAW directly, leaving Atomos out in the cold. It's hard to see where the camera industry will be in 5 years, let alone the monitor/recorder industry, but I imagine the former will be in better shape than the latter, especially with so many budget monitor options out there now and in the future.

One thing though that IS annoying me about Sony is that they're becoming more insular. That certain features are becoming dependent on using Sony lenses, Sony software, etc. feels like a move in the wrong direction. You can argue that it's necessary to achieve some of these features but, for example, I don't see a valid reason why they can't work with Sigma or Tamron to ensure their most popular lenses work with things like focus breathing compensation. It wasn't long ago that Sony relied on them to beef up their lens selection and a lot of people bought into it because of them. 

If I had to make a choice right now about what system to go all in on it'd be Sony. But I wouldn't be happy about it. Like @MrSMWit's not that I hate Sony, it's just I'm not inspired by them. I don't ENJOY using their cameras and I've never been a big fan of the images they produce. It's not that they're bad, it's just... They're Sony. 
The FX30 is nothing special, but the price? It's hard to beat. It'd be very easy to buy 2 or 3 of them for my work and be done with it. And the system's long term health is guaranteed. 
I'm thankful though that I'm not in a position where I need to make that choice, and can further see what everyone else does in the next year or two before deciding what direction I go in. I'm probably putting too much faith in Panasonic, but I do think they'll announce something big next year. I think they have to, their long term viability I think depends on it. 

Recently posted over on reddit what is the best prosumer wireless on a budget, which is the Sony UWP-D21, and why. Thought I'd reshare it here as well, should others here be interested as well:
---------------------------------------------------------
If someone can't afford pro level wireless (i.e. a receiver such as the Wisycom MCR54 / Lectrosonics DSR4 / Sony DWR-S03D / Sound Devices A20-RX / Shure ADX5D / etc plus the appropriate matching receivers) then going instead with the fourth generation Sony UWP-D is no brainer decision! (although, I'd recommend 2x UWP-D21 over 1x UWP-D27) This choice is so easy it isn't even close, as the 2nd best choice comes a long long way behind Sony.
Sony gives you:
True diversity receiver (no other prosumer UHF wireless has this) Has a digital compander (avoiding the issues that say for instance the Sennheisers have with their analogue compander, giving you better quality audio from the Sonys. Essentially, the Sony wireless transmission behave more comparably to how Lectrosonics Digital Hybrids do, using the same mix of digital + analogue for transmission) A slot receiver (again, no other prosumer wireless does this! Although, sadly not unislot, you'd need to get the Sony DWR-S03D instead. Hopefully Sony will bring out a UWP-D receiver one day in the future with unislot compatibility) An option of using the smart shoe on Sony cameras to feed it audio directly, skipping doing another D/A conversion, along with numerous other benefits such as being able to add more audio channels than otherwise or being able to go cableless with the receiver or not needing to do battery changes either for the receiver (these are all features entirely unique to the Sony wireless) Sony UTX-P40 Wireless Plug-On Transmitter supplies phantom power. (the Sennheiser EW100 G4 plug-on transmitter does not) Headphone output (but yet again, the standard Sennheiser G4 doesn't have this) An option for a dual receiver (again, the Sennheiser G4 doesn't have this) An option for getting it in the 941 to 960 MHz frequency range (again, the Sennheiser G4 doesn't have this, Usually only pro wireless offers products in this frequency range) Backwards compatible with all past UWP products.  
Just a few of these reasons would be enough to make a strongly compelling case to buy the Sony UWP-D21! (especially as Sony is priced similar to or cheaper than the Sennheiser competition) But add them all up together? Sony blows away all the competition.
There are literally hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of options for lav mics for the Sony wireless just merely listed on the one B&H website alone:
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/products/mini-microphones/ci/3779?filters=fct_compatible-with_744%3Asony%2Cfct_connector-type_745%3A3.5mm-mini-plug|3.5mm-mini-plug-locking 
There are zillions of accessories for the Sony UWP-D system, such as these (would you like for instance a battery pack for your Sony transmitter so that you can run it for over 24 hours? You can do that!!): https://www.hlaudio.de/sony-pro-audio/wireless-zubehoer/
Unfortunately when people hear "Sony" they think of "cameras", not audio. What most people don't realize is that Sony's name itself comes from the latin word for audio: "sonus"! Sony originally started out as purely an audio company, and has been making wireless since the 1950's.

Yeah, I've read about the mixed results, so I am not sure. I don't know if the original dcc17 can be connected to a powerbank, or if it can be connected only to a wall socket.

I picked up 3 of these when they were on sale for $175 last month and called it a day. https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1681499-REG/smallrig_3470_rc120d_cob_light_us.html
 
I'm very happy with them. They came with the V-mount adapters free, too, though I've yet to use them.

I picked up 3 of these when they were on sale for $175 last month and called it a day. https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1681499-REG/smallrig_3470_rc120d_cob_light_us.html
 
I'm very happy with them. They came with the V-mount adapters free, too, though I've yet to use them.

Not to turn this into a GH5 thread, but the reason I've kept my GH5 and why I planned on sticking with it was because it's still a very good camera, and if we're being honest for most of us there's not really anything out there that is so heads and shoulders better that we NEED to drop thousands of dollars on a new camera. The only reason it's not my a-cam right now is because I got a really great deal on an S5. But the GH5 is such a good camera, and I'd planned on using it for at least another 2 or 3 years. At this point I don't know that I'll ever buy a NEW camera again, because there really hasn't been that huge of a jump since the GH5 came out. I think I'll be perfectly content being a couple camera releases behind unless something big happens. If I'm still shooting Panasonic in a couple years I'll probably get a GH6. 
To me the M43 system had/has so much potential. In some ways I feel like it was a mistake to try and compete with larger sensor cameras, even though it resulted in incredible cameras like the GH series. Those cameras are what brought them to the dance, so to speak, but it was only a matter of time before everyone else would catch up, and in that period between when the GH5 was released and when a full frame equivalent that could match its capabilities was finally released, Panasonic had stopped innovating in the M43 space. 
When I got a GX85 I really kinda realized what the true potential for M43 was: small lenses and small bodies. I still take the GX85 and 35-100mm f2.8 into places that I could never bring an APS-C or full frame equivalent into and get beautiful, stable footage every time. It's such a small package that no one even gives it a second thought to. It's such a discreet, compact package. You'd have to use a bridge camera from Sony to get comparable footage, but it'd have a smaller sensor and worse stabilization. 
It's late, I'm rambling, but I do hate seeing people pronounce the death of M43 because I see so much potential in it, but I don't know that it'll ever reach it or if it's even viable to try. 

Not to turn this into a GH5 thread, but the reason I've kept my GH5 and why I planned on sticking with it was because it's still a very good camera, and if we're being honest for most of us there's not really anything out there that is so heads and shoulders better that we NEED to drop thousands of dollars on a new camera. The only reason it's not my a-cam right now is because I got a really great deal on an S5. But the GH5 is such a good camera, and I'd planned on using it for at least another 2 or 3 years. At this point I don't know that I'll ever buy a NEW camera again, because there really hasn't been that huge of a jump since the GH5 came out. I think I'll be perfectly content being a couple camera releases behind unless something big happens. If I'm still shooting Panasonic in a couple years I'll probably get a GH6. 
To me the M43 system had/has so much potential. In some ways I feel like it was a mistake to try and compete with larger sensor cameras, even though it resulted in incredible cameras like the GH series. Those cameras are what brought them to the dance, so to speak, but it was only a matter of time before everyone else would catch up, and in that period between when the GH5 was released and when a full frame equivalent that could match its capabilities was finally released, Panasonic had stopped innovating in the M43 space. 
When I got a GX85 I really kinda realized what the true potential for M43 was: small lenses and small bodies. I still take the GX85 and 35-100mm f2.8 into places that I could never bring an APS-C or full frame equivalent into and get beautiful, stable footage every time. It's such a small package that no one even gives it a second thought to. It's such a discreet, compact package. You'd have to use a bridge camera from Sony to get comparable footage, but it'd have a smaller sensor and worse stabilization. 
It's late, I'm rambling, but I do hate seeing people pronounce the death of M43 because I see so much potential in it, but I don't know that it'll ever reach it or if it's even viable to try. 

Not to turn this into a GH5 thread, but the reason I've kept my GH5 and why I planned on sticking with it was because it's still a very good camera, and if we're being honest for most of us there's not really anything out there that is so heads and shoulders better that we NEED to drop thousands of dollars on a new camera. The only reason it's not my a-cam right now is because I got a really great deal on an S5. But the GH5 is such a good camera, and I'd planned on using it for at least another 2 or 3 years. At this point I don't know that I'll ever buy a NEW camera again, because there really hasn't been that huge of a jump since the GH5 came out. I think I'll be perfectly content being a couple camera releases behind unless something big happens. If I'm still shooting Panasonic in a couple years I'll probably get a GH6. 
To me the M43 system had/has so much potential. In some ways I feel like it was a mistake to try and compete with larger sensor cameras, even though it resulted in incredible cameras like the GH series. Those cameras are what brought them to the dance, so to speak, but it was only a matter of time before everyone else would catch up, and in that period between when the GH5 was released and when a full frame equivalent that could match its capabilities was finally released, Panasonic had stopped innovating in the M43 space. 
When I got a GX85 I really kinda realized what the true potential for M43 was: small lenses and small bodies. I still take the GX85 and 35-100mm f2.8 into places that I could never bring an APS-C or full frame equivalent into and get beautiful, stable footage every time. It's such a small package that no one even gives it a second thought to. It's such a discreet, compact package. You'd have to use a bridge camera from Sony to get comparable footage, but it'd have a smaller sensor and worse stabilization. 
It's late, I'm rambling, but I do hate seeing people pronounce the death of M43 because I see so much potential in it, but I don't know that it'll ever reach it or if it's even viable to try. 

It looks like a pretty decent camera, and the screen is awesome, but it doesn't seem to be a vast improvement over what Sony offers. Doesn't stop the usual suspects from gushing over it, though.
Watching the Gerald Undone video, and it's really a bummer to see how much of a Sony shill he has become. He will bring up negatives, but then downplays them or just outright dismisses them as not important. Meanwhile, he'll temper his compliments of other cameras. The titles of his reviews from the last year or so really sum it up, honestly.
Sony a7R V Review: A Fantastic Camera!
Sony a7 IV Review: The Best Hybrid Camera for the Money!
Sony Alpha 1: A VERY IMPRESSIVE Camera! (Sony a1 Review)
Sony FX30 Review: Good Camera. Great Value!
SONY ZV-E10 Review: Sony's BEST Budget Camera
The SONY a7S III: A Technical MASTERPIECE!
The SONY a7C: Why THIS Camera Is IMPORTANT!
vs.
Canon R3 Review: 10 Things I Love/Hate
Fujifilm X-H2S: A Very Nerdy Review & Technical Guide
Nikon Z6 II - Video Review & Blackmagic RAW Discussion
The PANASONIC S5: A STRANGE but POWERFUL Camera
Sigma fp L Review: A VERY CONFUSING Camera!
Kinefinity MAVO Edge 6K: An Undone Review

I don't even think he does it on purpose (or maybe he does?) But it feels like we're far ways from what made him appealing to me in the first place, which was a measured analysis of a camera's capabilities.

Gerald is one of the only long-form reviewers on YouTube, he doesn't have much competition.
Someone like Kai is not going to be much competition
The thing is Gerald is a box and spec sheet reader, the presentable face of a specs sheet.
It is useful for finding out info although you could find it out a lot quicker by reading a web page instead.
He is a tester of what it says on the box. If it shoots 8K he is probably going to show you what the wall of his studio looks like in 8K versus all the other modes.
Without wanting to get rude, or personal, What's missing is any kind of real world creativity. This was apparent in the Sigma Fp and especially Fp-L review where he dismisses it for not having IBIS and fancy AF.
That was yet more proof if you needed it that he doesn't shoot anything. Those Sigma cameras have a unique look, a unique form factor, and Cinema DNG.
I think Gerald has an imaginary user in his his mind whenever he does a reviews. His imaginary user is always turning up for work for an online advert shoot, rather than on a street to shoot some poetic cinematography, or showing up at an indie film that he wrote himself.
So it is always going to be heavily biased towards "getting a job done" based on having all the boxes checks... AF, IBIS, 120fps, and so on.
It is a pity that in so many years he hasn't developed a craft, because he's had the perfect opportunity - so much spare time, money and freedom to put these tools to good use - but seemingly no actual interest in cinematography.
Anyway, that's just my opinion of Gerald.
A bit like as was the case with Bloom, these people get put on a pedestal because of internet fame and their work just doesn't justify it.

Well, it's certainly true that the GH6 has not made the same kind of splash that the GH5 did. Personally, I don't find M43 to be too much of a burden when shooting with a 0.64x Speedbooster. It's kind of a sweet spot of boosted light for exposure and manageable DOF. For me full frame has too little when shooting wide open with fast glass and I think that approximately APS-C or Super35 sensor size is pretty good. M43 is too small, but with a 0.64x speedbooster it's actually "bigger" than APS-C at 1.28x crop relative to full frame.
Here are a few clips shot wide open with an Iscorama 36 on an Olympus OM 50 1.8 manual lens. Talk about making life difficult for myself with an Iscorama shooting wide open - swapping diopters between almost every single shot! A lesson in patience! Oh well, it's worth it for the bokeh and the flares I guess 😂
 

I've defended Gerald a lot on this forum, but when you do those analyses and then completely downplay the results or say they're not important because you're in the bag for Sony, you do more harm misleading people than the reviewers that just gush about how great every camera that is sent to them is. He built a reputation for his technical, long form reviews that were neutral and even-handed. Now that reputation is used to shill a company. It's dishonest, far more so than those that just give their opinions. And whether we like it or not, these people DO influence a lot of people's purchasing decisions. Whether you're one of those people or not, his move from being objective to significantly less so should be disappointing.

It wouldn't shock me at all. There will always be a market for monitors and recorders, but cameras are increasingly adding features and codecs that you needed recorders for in the past. The ability to record RAW was important short term, but it's only a matter of time before these companies develop their own flavor of RAW or implement ProRes RAW or BRAW directly, leaving Atomos out in the cold. It's hard to see where the camera industry will be in 5 years, let alone the monitor/recorder industry, but I imagine the former will be in better shape than the latter, especially with so many budget monitor options out there now and in the future.