I am responding to Jim Martin's comment. Jim, your challenge about Canon's color science intrigues me. I want your opinion so I can better understand. Let me tell you my experience and what I see and I want to hear your perspective or other people's perspective on this color thing. As I mentioned, I have shot 50,000 fashion photos which often included a lot of skin. I give you that Canon has some nice skin tones but are they really the best in the industry? I have shot with Nikon (D3) and had shoots where I shot Canon and someone I was training was shooting Nikon (D810). This gave us the ability to compare photos of the same subject. I often liked the Nikon skin tones better. I hate the camera because after shooting Canon so long, Nikon is backwards. Same situation with Sony. I have used Sony cameras since the Beta tape days. Sony seems too saturated. So, I guess I see a spectrum where Canon has muted colors and Sony and Nikon tend to oversaturate their colors. Now, shooting video in some type of Log to extend DR is becoming more prevalent. I am seeing a lot of videos that seem muted like they shot with S-log or Log-C and someone only partially color corrected or applied some crazy LUT. The muted videos look like Canon colors to me. (I like vibrant colors. Maybe it is because I live in the desert and everything is beige but I like vivid colors.) I am always bumping up the saturation in Canon footage slightly. I bump down the saturation in Sony or Nikon colors. My comment about color science came from two things. First, the fact that RED marketing and RED fans are always saying RED has the best color science on the planet. Second, HDR is becoming the rage. 4K TVs are coming out with HDR and seem to be selling well. If HDR is truly the next trend because people like it, it seems to me that slightly over saturated colors (Nikon and Sony) might become more popular than slightly muted colors (Canon). I am just throwing out an observation and wondering what you or others think.
I am not just disappointed at Canon's decision to dumb down the video on the 5d Mk IV, I am offended. I put off buying a camera because I hoped the 5d MK iV would again be a great combo camera. The 1D X Mk II came out with impressive still capabilities but only 8 bit 4:2:2 in a disappointing mjpeg codec. I think, okay, they are making the 1D X Mk II a stills camera. Maybe they will do more video with the 5d Mk IV. Nope. And they cropped it. Sigh. It doesn't even compete with Nikon. Shame. Dishonor.
I guess I should thank Canon. They made me a competent filmmaker over the last eight years. I've created over 200 TV commercials. I've shot 50,000 still images in fashion photography. Now, it is time to go to RED for my video and either Nikon or Sony for my stills. Have you seen the leaked specs on the upcoming Sony A9???? 70 to 80 MP and unlimited RAW burst!!! RIP Canon. You did good for awhile. Unfortunately, your color science is sorely lacking now and will not survive in a 4K world. You still have good glass on the low end but now I am moving to cinema lenses. Have you seen the releases about the new Sony Master Glass lenses??? Sony really wants to take customers from Canon and they are going to do it. RED is going to get my business, too. Canon, you failed. It's not that your technology is so bad, it's that you created artificial categories that prevent you from adding truly innovative new products that keep up with competitors. When your competitors are delivering amazing sensors and color science in evolutionary products at lower and lower prices, you cannot compete without cannibalizing existing lines. RED and Sony here I come.