Sdaniella: lol.too many folks confuse needs differ between Cinematography and regular videographye.g. the look of AF, wobbly like Pany GH4/GH3, no AF in 4k (GH4), or fast AF in sports (dSLRs, EOS 7DMkII), or smooth-n-slow pull focus as in Cine (EOS 70D) or fast smooth 'no wobble' AF in Cine/videography (EOS 70D), etc
e.g.Autofocus Comparison - Canon EOS 70D vs Panasonic GH4EunJae Imhttp://vimeo.com/96882002"Yes, I think both are working well. I just try AF Mode (49-Area & Custom Multi) on GH4 and it was bit more faster then 1-Area (center). BTW, AF is almost useless at 4K mode." - EunJae Im
Pany's AF in both GH4/GH3 is 'wobbly', unfit for serious Cine, but fine for regular videographers/handicamers where Cine-centric smooth speed-customizable focus pull matters, as would be the case for EOS Cine C-series users, or even 70D Cine users with smooth 'no wobble' Touch AF or AF racking
"nobody could for Cine, because AF was never available before EOS C"
This isn't true. FS700 has AF. It also has very fast PDAF AF with SLT adapter. AF is just not used by professional videographers.
hippo84: Why does A77II has the same ISO, shutter speed and aperture as shots from 7D and other non-transluscend mirror cameras? Wasn't shots from A77II darker and then corrected?
So where is A77 II review?
JJ Rodin: What is it with Sony fanboys and xavc/-s codec fetish ?
The xavc codec/definition is a Sony specific spec. Why would Canon or Nikon or ARRI or any other maker necessarily use xavc/-s or even want to use it ?
I am not saying the codec is good or bad (as compared to which other?), but Sony guys, there are oodles of codecs at least equal codecs to Sony's, I suspect pros would not touch xavc-s or whatever (ProRes 444 or 422 better?) - much better codecs - does an ARRI alexa 65 use xavc codecs - NOPE!
Of course the pro cams (which this is a low end model) should offer multiple codecs beyond RAW - not likely xavc me thinks.
If you read PhilipBloom and other pro blogs, a lot of them (vast majority) don't even like raw. Too much disk space (costs add up), too much work in post editing and encoding.
So raw is not the answer for many people. Even TV dramas shot on Alexa are mostly shot in ProRes, not raw.
Also, C100 Mark II can't shoot raw, not even with external recorder. It does 8-bit uncompressed video to external recorder, but that isn't raw.Yes that can be converted to other formats, but don't call it raw. It's 8-bit uncompressed video.
raw is pure sensor data before debayering and it's usually 12 bit or higher.
Nukunukoo: It's 4K capable, why is it not enabled?
F5 did 4K only with R5 recorder, but firmware changed that. Now both can do 4K internally or with the R5 recorder.
F5 does 4K
AVCHD is also codec jointly owned by Sony and Panasonic. AVCHD and its logo are trademarks of Sony and Panasonic
So why is Canon using AVCHD? The answer is that Canon licenses (pays money) to use AVCHD in C100 Mark II
The better choice would have been prores, but again, Canon would be paying Apple to use that codec, just like Blackmagic and others (like Arri Alexa) pay Apple for that codec.
The real issue is that XAVC is so new, Canon probably doesn't even have chip that can do XAVC. Things like this require hardware chip on the camera motherboard.
C100 mkII still has no raw and no 4K, not even with external recorder.
As for AF, this camera is independent pro filmakers, right? AF is not important in that market. Alexa and Red don't even have AF
GodSpeaks: So, no 4K, despite it having an 8.3MP sensor? Or did I miss something (again)?
At one third the price, the GH4 would be a much better buy for most people, and it does 4K.
AF matters for consumers, but real filmmakers don't use AF in video.
Red, Alexa, F55, F65, - none of these cameras even have AF.
shadowz: The Sony A77 mark2 is almost as good ...while wearing a significantly lower price tag .........
but what do I know .....
Where is A77? Looks like DPR not only have no plans to review it, but they didn't even bother to do do studio shots
Funny DPR never posted anything about FS7 that totally kills this in features (internal 4K, 10-bit video, 180 fps, XAVC, 12-bit raw to external recorder, etc) and ergonomics.
Nonsense. 8.85 MP sensor in C500 records 4K with external recorder.
I am pretty sure the sensor could have done at least UHD if Canon wanted to include that feature.
Zvonimir Tosic: First the amazing GX7, now LX100. This is brilliant; real thinking outside the box.
RX100 is a pocket camera. LX100 isn't. They aren't in the same category. If someone wants a pocket camera to add to their ILC gear, RX100 wins, as RX100 is a pocket camera, period.
LX100 is comparable to Canon G1X series.
Curtox: I was all in on this phone. Then I saw that price. If that's for real, this thing is destined to barely make a dent in terms of sales. That's an incredibly steep asking price. Just wow.
Yeah, 128 GB IPhone plus is $950, $100 cheaper than this phone which is only 16 GB. IPhone 6 16GB $650, half the price
quangzizi, the whole laundry list is useless, as RX100 is a pocket camera while LX100 isn't. If someone wants a copact pocket camera, RX100 wins. Period.
"LX100 is by an order of magnitude *smarter* and more innovative product than any Sony's compact"
How is it more "innovative" than the original 2 year old Rx100 and full -frame RX1? One was a pocket camera with zoom lens and 1" sensor and the other was first full frame compact.
Pana is more similar to Canon G1X series.
AlanG: Clearly Sony sees that one place to attack Canon and Nikon is in the full frame video market.
Nikon has never been in video market. Sony has been in video market before Canon.
WHere is FS7 announcement? That's E-Mount camera
princecody: Also why no Sony E mount Otus?
E-Mount can use all other mount lenses with adapter.. There is no AF on the lense anyway.
Bob Meyer: You comment that:
the a7S's low-light advantage is less clear-cut when shooting VIDEO. The low-light advantage will only be available when working with shallower depth-of-field than the GH4 can offer (which may be desirable, depending on what you want to achieve). However, if your composition requires a certain depth-of-field, the sensor size advantage is lost as soon as you match the two.
Both cameras have sensors close enough to the state-of-the-art that there's no way the GH4 can make up for the difference in sensor size, which should give the Sony a 2EV advantage, in low light.
The first applies to still photography as much as video, and the second ignores DOF . If you need more DOF, you need to stop the lens on the FF camera down two stops, exactly matching the light falling on the smaller 4/s sensor. Sometimes a FF camera's ability to generate shallow DOF is an advantage, sometimes not.
Why re we talking about Hollywood movies with milion dollars lighting budget?
There are other professional independent filmmakers and journalists who might have to shoot in available light. DOF is flexible and A7s clearly would be a better camera to shoot in lowlight situations.