Because if they offered h.264 8-bit on the 4k model for example, along with the other formats there would be pretty much no reason to buy any other camera, right?

Because making good H.264 hardware encoder is much much harder than making raw or ProRes one :-)

Before they implement h.264, they will probably want to work on some more common user requests like audio meters, display of remaining card capacity, ability to format in-camera...

Because they don't to travel back in time. Just saying.

Sorry but this is kind of amusing. We wait all this time for 4:2:2 cams with 10 bit at cheap prices, and now that we have it, people are asking about 8 bit 4:2:0. No insult intended, it's just funny. Back to the future!

H.264 is a great format for finishing a project, but for recording in a professional invironment it just has too many limitations. Sure people use GH2's and 5D's in a professional invironment but many producers and clients are starting to wise up after they likely have been burned several times in post. I'm not knocking H.264 or H.265, they have their purpose, just not as a recording format.

I'll give an example of the need for a better codec for recording. Lets say you shoot a 2 person conversation inside from two OTS angles. Also lets say you are limited on lights. One OTS where the background is a wall ends up working great, you have enough lights and your exposure is great. Now you turn around to do the other OTS where the window is in the background. With limited lights you are not able to bring the subject close enough to the window exposure. With a camera that records 420 8bit you need to stay pretty close to exposing for the subject and you end up clipping the highlights in the window. If you expose for the window and correct in post, you'll be dealing with macroblocking on the subject. If you had at least a 422 10bit codec to work with in post, you could expose in a way so the highlights don't clip and lift the subjects exposure in post. 422 10bit should be the professional recording minimum. There is a lot more leeway to fix things in post. Blackmagic camera's are professional camera's and not meant for the masses.

It seems to me that a lot of people wouldn't want a 4.2.0. as an additional feature simply so the camera remains for "professionals only" or something... Adding the feature wouldn't deny anyone the ability to record in 4.2.2. or raw, it would simply allow us to use the camera in more situations. How many of you would use a BMD camera for live events where you need a lot of footage? I would assume very few. If you had a project like that, you would use a DSLR or camcorder so you don't end up with half a terrabyte of footage... It so odd that more of you wouldn't think it would be great to only have to buy one camera for (almost) everything.

H.264 itself is capable of 422 and 10 bit and even Intraframe anyway. Have a look at Sony's XAVC…

If you'll be making custom codec that is using H.264 it can be even 444, same is true about bits.

Topic is not about this, thing is that BM has huge issues even with making basic H.264. True way to view BM cameras is not like advanced products, but as extremely dumbed down ones, with added ability of recording high bitrate content.

Yepp, and apart from celebrating to have kicked some asses, they might have hard times ahead.

Sony is now trickling down it's better codecs to lower cost models and Panny will need to do the same. For projects that don't get the time and money for good grading, I'll take a good codec in 422 10 bit any time, and even 420 and 8 bit can be OK if you light carefully and adjust for the look in camera.

Horses for courses, ale always.