How doe this "Clean on a Budget" when it's twice as much as its main competitor, and with fewer features?
Not to complain too much but are they being a little cagey in their phrasing re: internal stabilisation? The c200 doesnt have it, right?
Lots of features strangely missing on the video end that are becoming standard on cameras less than half its cost. No picture profiles (no S-log), no flip out screen, no full-size hdmi, no 10 bit out, no 10 bit internal, according to Tony Northrup's initial impression: poor video AF. I know this is essentially a stills camera for sports but for a 4500 Sony hybrid camera the movie side of things seems intentionally kneecapped.
"Adequate" is exactly how I'd describe cropped 35mm. I was watching "There Will be Blood" (shot on 35mm, projected in a 35mm theatre) and the otherwise beautiful landscape vistas fell apart through lack of resolution. In this age of one spectacle after another, it's sad that we're still hovering around this "adequate" quality. Studios spend hundreds of millions of dollars on every tentpole movie and consumers spend 50 dollars for two tix and some concessions--it's long, long, long, past time we moved past adequate. It's 2017--it's time we get something magnificent for our money. 8k (or higher) means the return of Imax, better than it ever was for a fraction of the cost. And in a few years, ultra high rez, ultra lightweight headsets will give you a beyond imax experience anywhere and any time.