drm

Yep. That was my point. Canon could have made a big difference, but they chose not to in order to protect their lens/legacy business, like Intel, Kodak and countless other companies before. Now, you have the cell phone companies innovating in the photography space because that gives them bragging rights, which helps them sell more phones. The computational imaging stuff that they are working on is amazing (like Google's low light stuff).
You know that it is serious when Canon is basically warning investors that they are going to get out of the camera space and focus on more profitable areas.

Yep. That was my point. Canon could have made a big difference, but they chose not to in order to protect their lens/legacy business, like Intel, Kodak and countless other companies before. Now, you have the cell phone companies innovating in the photography space because that gives them bragging rights, which helps them sell more phones. The computational imaging stuff that they are working on is amazing (like Google's low light stuff).
You know that it is serious when Canon is basically warning investors that they are going to get out of the camera space and focus on more profitable areas.

I noticed that even the action camera market is dropping in price with the Hero 7 now around $399. Then Sony brings out the new RX 100 VII @ $1200...what the hell were they thinking with a 1" sensor point and shoot camera at that price? I just noticed the Nikon Z6 w/ 24-70 lens is selling for $1799. I get the quality of the RX 100, but how big is that market? That market/price point can't have more than a couple of years left. Sony is trending up, but the market is getting smaller.
 

Well, this is the end result of Canon not making the cameras people want at prices they can afford. Canon's strategy has always been to market lenses with the idea of using cameras to try to lock people into their lens ecosystem, but the cameras are crippled in terms of capabilities in an effort to protect their upscale cameras and lenses - such as their Cinema EOS line, for example, if video is your thing.
The problem with this kind of strategy is that you end up cutting off your nose to spite your face by jacking up the price of admission to certain capabilities to the point where only a few can enter. It may be initially profitable, and you may be able to run the company for a while that way, but it eventually catches up with you. Canon have not only rested on their laurels and refused to innovate, they've also tried hanging on far too long to their existing lens ecosystem as a way to remain profitable.
Another big problem that Canon have is excessive segmentation. They have too many cameras chasing too few consumer dollars and constantly short customers on features in hopes they'll stump up for the more expensive model one or two levels up. This tells me Canon are somewhat out of touch with the state of the global economy, which tanked in 2008 and still hasn't fully recovered.
Mind you, car makers do the same thing, but they realize that only 5 - 10 % of their market can afford to buy their upper-tier versions of their basic product. They don't position their cars as a "we have a really crappy base model that has only a manual transmission and no air conditioning and if you want better than that, you have to pay Cadillac prices" kind of proposition. Most car dealers won't actually sell the stripper models, they just use them as bait to get less well-heeled customers on the dealership floor. Those customers end up opting for something a little better than base and find that their finance payments are maybe $20 -$50 per month more than the base model anyway.
In short, Canon's camera line-up and marketing strategy is downright diffused and severely confused.
Blaming their problems on smart phones is a cop-out. What if Canon made a smartphone that incorporated camera technology that beat out every other smartphone maker's cameras by a wide margin? And concentrated on marketing it to the low-end crowd that don't have a really serious interest in photography, but would have bought a point-and-shoot instead back in the days when smartphone cameras weren't so good? What I'm getting at here is that what the world wants is a good, modern-day equivalent to the Brownie camera or the Kodak Instamatic.
Make it good, make it cheap, sell a bazillion of 'em. As the technology improves, camera users that have a more serious interest in photography may be interested in a more advanced but still reasonably-priced model.
But I digress.
If I could suggest how Canon could solve its problems, here's what I would recommend:
Ditch the digital SLRs, that ship has sailed; people want mirrorless cameras that outperform DSLRs and have none of their drawbacks. Make one consumer-grade camcorder that does 4K, one semi-pro model that does the same thing, and one pro model. Price them at $1000, $1500 and $3500 ~ 4000. Start making the whole range of mirrorless lenses, from wide-angle all the way to extreme telephoto, so people don't have to screw with adapters and get, at best, mixed results. Make the lenses a common system that fits both APS-C and full-frame cameras; this will simplify manufacturing and cut costs. Make one really good APS-C stills camera that can also do 4K video with no crop. Price the body out at $1K and offer a full range of good lenses retailing for between $500 and $750. Stop incrementalizing your cameras by offering more expensive models that offer only a few extra features. Ditch the XC10, XC15 hybrid cameras. While an interesting experiment, nobody buys these cameras, not even the photojournalists/videographers they're aimed at. Ditch the EOS RP. It's so crippled that it's an embarrassment. Knowledgeable consumers don't like feeling like they have to make a Faustian bargain just to get a full-frame camera despite not having the kind of money camera makers want them to sink into a full-frame camera system. Stop worrying about having your upper-end cameras and EOS Cinema cameras and lenses cannibalized by cheaper cameras that perform nearly as well. Pro cinematographers don't want low-end or even mid-range cameras and lenses. They want proper, fully professional cameras that can accept lenses made by Arri and other pro lens makers. Seriously, the craziness I see in the photo equipment market is making me long for the days of the 35mm SLR, when everything was simple. For instance, Canon made the AT-1, AE-1, AV-1 and A-1 cameras starting back in the mid-1970s. There was just one lens system that would fit all of these cameras: the FD mount. There was no segmentation where you had a camera that accepted a small lens like the APS-C mirrorless lens of today, and another camera that would accept a bigger lens with a different mount.  Their models were set out in a linear, logical fashion and it made sense. And you could do pro work with any of these cameras save for the AV-1 maybe, and the FD-mount lenses that they accepted.
 
 
 

Heck not only P&S cameras but entry level DSLR, and entry level Mirrorless cameras to boot. Even the 1" sensor sized ones.

This happens to many big market leaders when the market changes. They try to protect their old business, rather than jumping in on the new opportunity. The list of times where this has happened is truly massive: IBM - PCs, Microsoft - anyone remember Windows Mobile????, the list goes on and on.
Canon's imaging business (and everyone else's) is being eaten by cell phone cameras. Cell phone imaging systems are rapidly improving and are even doing things that the legacy cameras can't do, like allowing people to produce live video & computational imaging. The cell phone cameras are going to continue to improve over time. SLR type cameras will hang around because there are people who care about image quality, but the camera market will be a tiny fraction of its former size. All but the most dedicated will just use their mobile device. I would hate to have my bonus tied to the point and shoot camera market in the future...

That is a dramatic difference in the sky. This is where I use highlight recovery (rebuild) too. It makes the camera seem like it has a greater dynamic range than advertised. Since the clouds are already white, it doesn't hurt much that we can't recover all of the color detail in those sections.
Scenes with that much dynamic range are problems for most cameras, particularly at the P4K price point. I think you would have to spend at least 5K to get close to enough range for this (perhaps VLog on the S1). Even the C200 is limited to about 3 usable stops of over exposure and it costs about 4 times as much as the P4K.

That is a dramatic difference in the sky. This is where I use highlight recovery (rebuild) too. It makes the camera seem like it has a greater dynamic range than advertised. Since the clouds are already white, it doesn't hurt much that we can't recover all of the color detail in those sections.
Scenes with that much dynamic range are problems for most cameras, particularly at the P4K price point. I think you would have to spend at least 5K to get close to enough range for this (perhaps VLog on the S1). Even the C200 is limited to about 3 usable stops of over exposure and it costs about 4 times as much as the P4K.

In searching out more information on Panasonic's .vlt LUTs I stumbled on Lumix Ambassador Bernard Bertrand's video where he mentions being able to use the VariCam .vlt LUTs with the S1, as seen here beginning at the 1:47 Mark...
Lumix S1 V-Log - 422 10bit - Firmware - When Panasonic strikes again - YouTube: (t=107)
 
The VariCam LUT Library page he shows in the video is located here...
Varicam LUT Library:
https://info.panasonic.com/varicam-LUT-library.html
 
I just finished downloading that collection of 35 .vlt LUTs! And here's a brief sampling of some of them from Panasonic's VariCam & EVA1 YT pages...
The VariCam LUT Library | Panasonic - YouTube:
 
So if this actually works out as Bertrand advertises then it's looking like there's a whole lot more to "look forward to" and "experiment with" when I finally get my key! Woo hoo!
Has anyone tried these yet?
_____________________________________
 
After looking at the LUT names I downloaded from that Varicam LUT library I linked to, it seems like that 8.3 naming scheme is not quite correct either...

...hmm. :\
 

That is a dramatic difference in the sky. This is where I use highlight recovery (rebuild) too. It makes the camera seem like it has a greater dynamic range than advertised. Since the clouds are already white, it doesn't hurt much that we can't recover all of the color detail in those sections.
Scenes with that much dynamic range are problems for most cameras, particularly at the P4K price point. I think you would have to spend at least 5K to get close to enough range for this (perhaps VLog on the S1). Even the C200 is limited to about 3 usable stops of over exposure and it costs about 4 times as much as the P4K.

Gerald Undone: Exposure Tips for the BMPCC4K & Why I Don’t Use ProRes
So, according to Gerald, there are several things with the P4K that I didn't know about that are very important:
1. Exposure with ProRes on the P4K can be problematic. To fix this you should use RAW, not ProRes, or be *very* careful when setting your exposure.
2. The maximum clipping point *changes* as you change the ISO, if you reduce your ISO from the "native" ISO levels (400, ~3200). At ISO 100, it clips at 83%! I am familiar with the chart showing the steps above and below middle gray, but I didn't realize they were just clipping the top at lower ISOs.
3. Highlight recovery seems to work differently than I had thought and should apparently not be used much of the time. Highlight recovery appears to cause problems with the image when you use it at ISOs >= native ISOs. I had heard that the highlight recovery used the data from other channels when a color had clipped to rebuild that clipped channel.
If you have a P4K you should watch this video! I am really curious to hear other's thoughts on this material. 
 
Thanks @kye for telling me how to embed the video!  

Gerald Undone: Exposure Tips for the BMPCC4K & Why I Don’t Use ProRes
So, according to Gerald, there are several things with the P4K that I didn't know about that are very important:
1. Exposure with ProRes on the P4K can be problematic. To fix this you should use RAW, not ProRes, or be *very* careful when setting your exposure.
2. The maximum clipping point *changes* as you change the ISO, if you reduce your ISO from the "native" ISO levels (400, ~3200). At ISO 100, it clips at 83%! I am familiar with the chart showing the steps above and below middle gray, but I didn't realize they were just clipping the top at lower ISOs.
3. Highlight recovery seems to work differently than I had thought and should apparently not be used much of the time. Highlight recovery appears to cause problems with the image when you use it at ISOs >= native ISOs. I had heard that the highlight recovery used the data from other channels when a color had clipped to rebuild that clipped channel.
If you have a P4K you should watch this video! I am really curious to hear other's thoughts on this material. 
 
Thanks @kye for telling me how to embed the video!  

I am also picking up my S1 later today. Glad and nervous - big shift. (And a return to Panasonic after a bunch of years away with Canon and Fuji.)
Looking around for VLog exposure guides (other than what is available for the GH5/-s) and happened upon this - https://na.panasonic.com/ns/253602_V-Log_Excerpt.pdf - which may not be anything new for many on this thread, but might be helpful for others. It was for me - some good reminders.
Curious about sharpening Vlog shots vs. the same shots in CineD or Flat - needed?

Just paste the URL into the message window, hit enter/return and after a few seconds it should expand out to embed the video  

Consider my mind blown... I will have to do some testing with my cameras now.
Native ISO is really 400 and 4000, and it clips at lower levels as the ISO drops below the default ISOs. ISO 100 = 83% clipping point.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/hV7ixU2AmLE
Gerald Undone: Exposure Tips for the BMPCC4K & Why I Don’t Use ProRes
Note: How to I embed a YouTube video?

In my experience (I haven't had much time to really stress test the camera) there are problems with horizontal pattern noise in the shadows, and underexposing is a recipe for trouble. The dynamic range is definitely not as much as the Ursa Mini 4.6k which I used to use. Still a nice image though if you expose it correctly.
The high frame rates above 120fps also suffer from pretty bad aliasing.
However the weird warping and flickering in that video is certainly something done to it in post, or else his camera should be returned as faulty.

That might very well be the case. I suppose if they filmed in 24 or 30, then tried to slow it way down in post, that might cause some of those problems. Although, I saw a short film that someone posted on here earlier today from the E2 and I see problems all through the shadow areas in that footage, but I didn't the temporal type problems. I would really love to see some of that footage straight from the camera  I like the idea of being able to shoot 4k/120 or 4k/160, even if it is at weird sizes, so I wish them the best.

A very interesting test of Rick Lang on BM forum (here) : a comparison between Q0 and Q5. One his conclusions: "Q0 versus Q5? Of course Q0 must be better because it’s a lot higher data rate. The design goal of the ‘Q' is a quality image and how could Q5 match Q0 with so much less data? In a word: it’s Blackmagic. Sometimes some elements in either Q5 or Q0 are ‘better’ than the other; it’s not a race in which one runner is in the lead throughout the race. Q5 makes some sacrifices that you can see, but it seems to have some less understood running style and I have to admit in this video, it emerges victorious, not only in fidelity but also edge sharpness."
 

Sony Evil S  Anounced for NABSHOW NEW YORK

When the fakes are more imaginative than the actual cameras

I'm with @zerocool22 I see image quality issues in *many* places in that video. I downloaded the highest quality version from vimeo. I am not convinced that the issues that I see are due to compression artifacts from vimeo as the patterns that I am seeing are very odd. I would really like to see the original footage before I decide for certain.
I used to run JVC LS-300 cameras and this reminds me of those cameras. The problems that I notice are most prominent in the dark areas. Here are some examples of the issues that I see. I just took snapshots from VLC while the video was playing, then saved those as 100% jpgs. When you let the video play, these issues are more visible.
There is weird pattern noise here in the intro. Watch the video to see more clearly.

Here, notice noise in his jacket and on the wall

Here notice the pattern in the shadows and on the rope:

Here, watch the guy's face.

There is a lot of weird pixelation in places that I haven't noticed before. Perhaps this footage is just jacked up or something.

Probably not any time soon. I have a couple of the Atomos Ninja Infernos and I really like them. They are great recorders and monitors and I use them when I am on sticks. They are just too big and heavy for my liking when doing a small handheld rig. I have one of the P4Ks rigged with a cage, handle, and NP970 battery. It makes a nice little rig when used with a stabilized lens. I have also been using it a fair bit on a gimbal.

Kisaha, I have a lot of m4/3 lenses (maybe 20? and Canon) but use Olympus 12-100 lens a lot. It is great because it is a constant f/4 and has a great range. The lens is also very sharp and well built. The lens IS *does* help and works well.  
I also use the Panasonic 12-35 & 35-100 f/2.8 lenses regularly. I find that I use the Olympus 12-100 lens in run/gun situations more than the Sigma 18-35 because of the better zoom range on the Olympus (plus you get IS).
After reflecting on the issue, I think that the focus issues with the Olympus lens that day were mostly due to the environment in which I was shooting. It was very bright outside and I was running handheld (cage, side handle, SmallHD monitor on top).  If you hold the camera still when focusing, the one touch focus works well. If you move the camera while focusing, you can cause the camera to freak out. I suspect that I didn't do a very good job holding the camera still that day   In the studio and most other times, the one touch focus has worked very well. I can't recall ever having that many focus issues before on a shoot, so, I chalk my problems that day up to user error. It didn't help that I couldn't see the screen very well in direct sunlight.

Funnily enough this is a reasonably easy port to the Micro. 
Which, as I have one, might well happen!
It calibrates the lens to distance so works with all of them in terms of that level of accuracy. There are variances in lenses depending on how much "dead space" there (a lens we were using yesterday had about 40% of the possible positions unused before and after its minimum/maximum focus positions). That doesn't mean it doesn't focus accurately it just means the range of steps between focus points isn't as granular as other lenses. Basically if the camera can focus it so can the adapter.
I'll give some more info regarding point selection at a later time. 
Take this as a first step for now
Thanks. 
No additional motors, it talks directly to the camera's focus control via BLE.
Yes, it does indeed do it continuously.

The P4K can already autofocus with many autofocus lenses, but it is single push to focus, not continuous autofocus. I suspect that his LiDAR system is telling the P4K *where* to focus and could probably do this on a continuous basis. The time of flight systems will likely offer a huge improvement for AF. This is a very exciting development.