All Activity

Well, this will 90% be used for video, and around 40% of that handheld. Might throw in some flash work (weddings, galas, etc.) requiring the shutter here and there, but I've mostly moved away from that. The rest of the photo stuff I shoot is at high ISO in very low light where flash isn't allowed, as I've been doing since nearly the beginning. Usually use my A9s for that, but I'd also toss the R8 in depending on what lenses I end up with for it. I do like the R50V for its price/performance ratio. That, and paired with the RF 10-18, it's umatched for FOV, size, and capture quality. Nice to have a good amount of controls on a small body from Canon, too!

For comparison its his ZR test At 0.1 High S/N ratio, DR is 6 stops. In his R6III test its only 3. Not only he is not curious at all why its so low, but doesn't even notice the drastic fall of it (from 8.26 to 3.04). As a reviewer I would dig into the data. I seriously feel he's not interested about what he's doing anymore. He's like "AF is good". What? How you tested that? Where is the evidence that its good? Canon website says its good, what else you know? And good for who? and why people should pay near $3k to have "good AF" when their current camera already has good AF? I assume R6III AF is "better" than R6II, but I need to see the evidence in practical situations. That's the job of someone who reviews gears for living.

R5 Mark III? Hope/assume that's a typo and it's for the R6 III. 😱

I'd be truly shocked if the main sources on all of the ____rumors sites weren't the marketing teams for the various camera manufacturers. These days, those sites function as a pretty major portion of their pre-release marketing as well as allowing them to do sentiment/market analysis based on how people react to the rumors when posted.

If this PhotoRumors.com table didn't come from Sony, someone went to a lot of trouble to create it. One possibility is that Sony is leaking this info to keep its FX9/FX6 customers from jumping ship to other brands/systems. Otherwise, I don't see how we get such detailed specs for an unknown and unannounced camera. Such a camera could exist exactly as described, so it is theoretically real and not based on Burano frame sizes/resolutions. The 8K 4:2:2 XAVC-HI (Intraframe) codec, which was featured in the Burano, is the standout feature. The lack of internal RAW is disappointing, but not surprising. Pricing: FX6 and A1 II are both selling for $7K USD. FX8, as described, should be at least $2K-3K more. It is competing directly with the C400 ($8,800) and body-only URSA Cine 12K LF ($7,700), so I would imagine that the FX8 will retail for around $9,000 with the current tariffs.

I really do think the camera is the least important aspect these days though. Lighting, set pieces, costumes, locations, etc. are so much more important. Magellan could have been shot on pretty much any camera from the last 10 years and looked just as good, because everything else about it looks good and it's clearly made with skill and talent. 28 Years Later was a huge disappointment for me as a film (28 Days Later is one of my favorite films of all time) but it's still a gorgeous looking film that was shot on iPhones. If it was shot on a ARRI Alexa 35 it wouldn't have changed what I disliked about the film. And watching it, I didn't think to myself "jeez, this would've looked so much better if they'd film it on a better camera." A LOT of gear went into making it look as good as it does, but the camera itself was pretty low on the list, I think.

I saw one part when he was saying that it was a little annoying that they did not get exact time remaining for recording. The same guy said that it was totally unacceptable a cine camera did not give exact time remaining on the card. OK, it is written cine, but it is still a 2200 USD camera, and h265 by its nature is variable bit rate. Simple example on a sitting interview with a static background and the bitrate goes a lot lower, while have dynamic shot with lots of movement or movement in the shots and the bitrate goes up drastically. The just couldn't find any thing to say positive at the camera except about Nikon color and his luts, that he sell!!!

Don't worry, until Nikon is selling cameras, he will be reviewing... I mean criticizing them.

Here in the US the GH5 has actually gone up quite a bit in price! It's about $600 currently on eBay and Facebook marketplace. If you're lucky you can snag it for a little less, but a few years ago it was going for about $500. I always liked the image out of the GH5s more, especially the colors. The GH5 wasn't terribly difficult to get right, just a few tweaks most of the time, but the GH5s right out of camera always looked really nice. We're pretty lucky to be able to still use these 10 year old cameras and still get incredible results.

And a lot of small improvements too

Maybe with the next camera, he will retire, thank God.

Suddenly Gerald finds no problem in DR and 10 stops is good enough to declare "cameras peaked".

Media Division did a deep dive. Big improvements for sure. They were able to trigger overheating in some pretty extreme scenarios, but it no longer seems to be a likelihood in any reasonable shooting situation.

New firmware dropped today, apparently S2 cameras no longer catch fire and several 8k open gate tests have been shown to outlast battery life. No mention of the latter being improved and maybe they sneaked something in there in that regard as it’s less than I am used to and my only real criticism of the camera. New Sigma 17-40mm f1.8 landed for me personally also. So far, so good. Internal zoom, hurrah. Not big nor heavy, hurrah. Bright f1.8 constant aperture, hurrah. Hybrid zoom works with 4k 50p and there is a 422 all-intra mode, albeit at 800mbps, another lower one at 600mbps and a long gop 420 at just 200mbps and most likely going with that with the new Cinelike A2 profile that is not as flat as the D2 or as punchy as the V2. With the hybrid zoom enabled plus the standard level (ie there is a higher level with more punch in) EIS engaged, gives a good FF equivalent range of 28-66mm which is perfect for my needs. I think we’re going to get along beautifully and should do exactly what I needed which was to reduce kit (bodies, lenses, lens swaps etc) down to a more compact level. The proof of course will be out in the field but it’s a mild evolution than any kind of revolution after 5 years now with LUMIX, so not expecting any surprises…

Although Andrew Reid’s Revolutionary Instincts might be an appropriate subtitle for ARRI?

Well, if you talk about eras, I absolutely agree, but if we consider a single "historical period", the camera doesn't make a difference, except in extreme cases. We have seen many examples over the years. Your works with the mighty GH2, Independent films shot with the GH2. Blind tests where the GH2 was mistaken for a cinema camera. We have the shorts shot by Filippo Chiesa with a GH5S which has a better look than this film with the GH7. We have the blockbuster shot with the FX3. The reality is that in common use cases, the camera doesn't make a difference. The difference is made by the lights, the set, the lenses, and the skill of the DOP. Certainly, with a more limited camera, the DOP is forced to work harder with the other tools. In this forum, everyone is still nostalgic for the 5D MKII with Magic Lantern, which scientific tests have shown does not have more than 9 stops of DR, and yet here, we are declaring the death of a camera over 13 or 14 stops of DR. Run&gun is different of course. Other extreme cases that come to mind are wildlife documentaries where you don't have the possibility to set up cinematic sets (up to a certain point), and therefore the camera and lenses make the difference between having or not having the result. Here, in fact, RED cameras and their crazy mix of resolution and frame rate (and pre-recording) still reign almost supreme. Yet, as the article I posted wrote, action cameras are also used out of necessity simply because it is the only way to film certain situations, and then it is up to the colorist and editor to manage to prevent you from seeing the difference. Returning to the film with the GH7, I personally don't like it at all. The look is banal, heavily color graded, and with heavy grain added in post. But I believe it was a personal taste of the authors and that it was not something done to cover the limitations of the camera. Perhaps more the limitations of the production budget. I repeat, this is a very personal opinion.

Leica could indeed be a good fit, or Blackmagic. But they don't have the spare cash to throw at that big support network ARRI has and needs to service all those demanding bastards that use the gear. I think it needs to be a bigger company like Sony or Panasonic. Maybe Nikon bought the wrong cinema camera brand? Should have waited 🙂

The gear doesn't matter thing is so boring, it does matter and you can't shoot much without it. The GH1 opened a door, because the aesthetic on offer was very different to the small chip digital camcorders at the time or Mini DV. It opened the door to all those interchangeable lenses, and there's a big difference in look between these lenses let alone between a GH1 and a Mini DV cam. Actually you can tell the Magellan is going for a certain look too with the GH7 - it isn't Hollywood, it's documentary style and looks quite clinical in places with a deep DOF, which they didn't have to do but the Lumix lenses are like that and it works well. So choice of gear, informs the look of what you're making and does matter greatly. The difference in image quality between a GH6 and GH7 doesn't matter quite so much... But the format of camera, and era of camera does.

The GH5S is pretty unique, largest multi-aspect sensor ever in a Micro Four Thirds camera, so larger and wider than the new GH7 sensor, the best low light performance, and it's basically a Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera 4K with same sensor but more features and it does double duty as a stills camera. Only some of the Lumix bodies have gone UP... like the GX9 and GX80. You can get a GH5 for crazy cheap now, but the GH5S is much rarer. I just have too many cameras though, and want to look at getting an S1H again or an S9 so I can make some real-time LUTs for it.

I think this one is the most likely as Panasonic already have some kind of relationship with Arri and also with Leica so why not? And as one of the riff raff slum-dwelling Panasonic Loser Boys, there might be some future trickle down benefit to me… I don’t much care for their Log LUT though and think Panny’s standard Vlog is better, but what do I know…

Complete with 30% discounts like today’s announcements.

How about Black Magic Design to buy them? COMING SOON: Arri Pocket Cinema Camera 24K

Why not Leica as a good fit for Arri ? They can keep it in Germany, use it as a platform to sell more of their cine glass and God knows they can be trusted to keep out the riff-raff from buying them! Interestingly, though, both companies have a relationship with Panasonic so could be good news for the riff raff with a trickle down.

Read this: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/oceanfootagemastery_underwatercinematography-myoctopusteacher-activity-7396815155616989184-C-CD

I think very few of us would know and even less care, what anything was shot on unless told. I do not know too much about the movie industry except that in Hollywood, it’s a massive racket of control, tradition and expectation whereas outside of Hollywood, filmmakers are saying fuck off to your control, tradition and expectation and making films with less kit, less bodies and far less BS. I suspect like all great empires, it’s had its day and is falling apart with something else taking over and that something else is the rise of the less controlled, less traditional, less expectation and almost a return to how it began with a more pioneering filmmaking style. I rarely go to the cinema these days and it’s even more rare for me to have even the slightest interest in any big budget movies because as has been mentioned, if they are not an over AI’d bunch of balls, so much is badly scripted, poor story, woke rubbish…made by companies who lack any passion for the craft and are simply about making as much money as possible. It’s not the camera and never really has been. One thing is for sure…I think…and that is the industry is not dead or even dying, just the structure of it is changing, coupled with the mass market viewing practices, but that is another topic and one I suspect we can’t get past.