All Activity

Nikon wouldn't be supporting RF mount at all if they didn't buy a company already making cameras that used it. And what was the first (or one of the first, I don't track it that much) things they did? Release most of the same cameras again using their own mount. DL mount was invented for drones (I think for the X7), a category where DJI has no competition at all and where they can get away with selling a mediocre 35mm f/2.8 lens for $1,200-1,400 (prices on the others are similar). If DJI management are as dumb as you're implying and think that they can sell cameras that can only use those lenses, then they deserve the enormous failure they're about to suffer. I suspect they aren't idiots, though. The only reason that I have the 24/35/50 is that I got a really good used deal on the 24 and got a kit with the 16/35/50 from ebay for $2,200 and immediately sold the 16 for about $200 - and the only reason that I was willing to spend $1k/lens for the others is that I wanted aerodynamic lenses for when they're on a camera going around 100km/h. If buying a camera for a standard mirrorless camera that I don't plan to hang off the side of my car at high speed, though, if you give me the choice of a mediocre 50mm f/2.8 for $1,199 or an excellent G Master 50mm f/1.4 for $1,298 (current B&H pricing), you've given me the simplest choice of all time. I'd buy a Sony camera and the GM. Most people would. And I don't even like Sony that much (though I did shoot with them for 5+ years). As BTM_Pix already pointed out, DJI have been part of the L mount alliance for a while now and as I already pointed out, DJI already make and sell an L mount for the Ronin 4D. My hope would be, if they release a very small mirrorless camera (and if I want that camera) is that it would just accept the lens mounts for Ronin 4D since I already have them in DL, M, and EF mount (and I'm not opposed to also getting one in L mount)

The L Mount Alliance is actually governed by Leica though. Leica accepted DJI into the alliance over three years ago now. Whether there is a covenant limiting DJI to only ever using it on the Zenmuse X9 is open to interpretation I suppose but I would be surprised if it’s limited to a single camera. If there is a DJI mirrorless about to be launched then we will soon find out how much of a “full” member they are. https://leica-camera.com/en-GB/press/dji-joins-l-mount-alliance

Ooppsss... Sorry Andrew, please delete double posts.

Nikon is currently supporting RF mount with RED cameras, it doesn't mean they will make a RF mount mirrorless camera. In every transition process, support for non native mount makes sense; but its only a transition. If the ultimate goal wasn't to fully committed to their own mount, they wouldn't make it at the first place. There is also the Japanese side. Why you take their permission for granted? Why they should license their mount to a Chinese giant with billions of dollars of R&D? They can eat Panasonic for breakfast.

Nikon is currently supporting RF mount with RED cameras, it doesn't mean they will make a RF mount mirrorless camera. In every transition process, support for non native mount makes sense; but its only a transition. If the ultimate goal wasn't to fully committed to their own mount, they wouldn't make it at the first place. There is also the Japanese side. Why you take their permission for granted? Why they should license their mount to a Chinese giant with billions of dollars of R&D? They can eat Panasonic for breakfast.

Nikon is currently supporting RF mount with RED cameras, it doesn't mean they will make a RF mount mirrorless camera. In every transition process, support for non native mount makes sense; but its only a transition. If the ultimate goal wasn't to fully committed to their own mount, they wouldn't make it at the first place. There is also the Japanese side. Why you take their permission for granted? Why they should license their mount to a Chinese giant with billions of dollars of R&D? They can eat Panasonic for breakfast.

Nikon is currently supporting RF mount with RED cameras, it doesn't mean they will make a RF mount mirrorless camera. In every transition process, support for non native mount makes sense; but its only a transition. If the ultimate goal wasn't to fully committed to their own mount, they wouldn't make it at the first place. There is also the Japanese side. Why you take their permission for granted? Why they should license their mount to a Chinese giant with billions of dollars of R&D? They can eat Panasonic for breakfast.

I just checked and my initial enthusiasm for the cloud option for something like a 48hff or similar faded quickly. It looks like the option is not granular enough for a weekend project - minimum interval is 1 month and it's $30. At that price, I might just deal with the headache of sharing one of my licenses/seats with the editor for the weekend (bought one, got one with the UC12K, each has two seats). I was really more hoping for a thing that would let me toggle it on for the weekend for around $10. At least the free version of Resolve is able to download the proxies from BM cloud that were made when the DIT (which is sometimes me) imported media into my laptop on-site. I'm also kind of excited to experiment with the same with the UC12K's wifi since I think it can sync proxies to BM cloud directly from the camera. Hope they don't change that to push that use case into a $30 cost. FWIW, the rest of my cloud plan (that I am not actively using right now so I should probably cut down on) is $12.50 for 500GB of storage and $5 for a cloud project library. That's the minimum that I've found is needed to create Cloud projects with shared proxies. Wish I could pay a bit less for 100GB, though - proxies ain't that big.

That's no different to Adobe's subscription. Access to the apps, and cloud storage. I hope it's not a slippery slope, but I also don't really understand how Resolve makes Blackmagic any money at all. As a solo op/editor, I have 3 Studio licenses from camera purchases, each one can run on two machines at the same time. So in theory, I could hire 5 other editors and we can all run the full version at no extra cost. Even if I didn't have the spare licenses, the rental cost would have to be very low to make it worth it for customers. How long could you rent it, while staying under the $300 for the full license? I hope they start introducing big features as plug-ins instead. Studio licence + $50 for Magic Mask 3 for example - and that's tied to your serial number / cloud account. (Cloud account is free if you don't need extra storage)

Watched and thought it was great but did spend a great deal of the time seeing BTS such as; someone is holding that door open, someone is cranking up the VND, the camera was just handed off out of the window to someone else, he's not really driving that van, it's being hooked up to the drone right...about...now. I've watched and read a couple of BTS pieces on it and somewhat surprisingly, they used just the second take on Episode 01 but all the rest were...if I remember correctly, between 11-16 takes. Any small mistakes they tended to let slide if they could get away with it, but obviously stuff happened and they had to restart at least 10 times on every episode after the first one. Very well acted, especially the kids. The single room psychologist scene, they both cocked up their lines a few times and ad libbed but this happens I believe in movies so... Really well done and as someone who took part in a movie that was filmed at my school as a kid https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090310/ must have been a lot of fun for those that took part!

🙈

Willing to bet that was a typo and should have said "EF mount."

Is it?

Exactly. We live in a world where component and platform sharing becomes increasingly the norm. IMO, if DJI were to release a FF mirrorless and try making that fly (not literally, - they have other products that do that) with their own tiny range of lenses, good luck with that, but it would be a recipe for disaster. E Mount is dead so yes, using older lenses etc is all well and good, but Canon are all in now on RF. And to truly compete against the likes of Canon/Nikon/Sony/Lumix, it almost certainly needs to be a hybrid rather than a pure cinema camera. DJI already have strong links with Lumix, - the S1RII and Ronin 4D share a sensor (not officially stated but the general consensus is it is) and are already in the L Mount system, so a bit of a no-brainer. But then maybe the the whole DJI mirrorless camera is just a fantasy...

Sad to hear. Living and working with someone that long is truly remarkable, even if it didn't end up lasting. Gotta be careful about the wedding ring thing though, I've noticed couples that both simultaneously stopped wearing them and it's turned out to be them preparing to renew their vows and getting their existing rings polished / embellished / etc before the celebration! It was even a surprise so their close friends didn't even know it was happening!

Do you mean their cinema camera that has swappable mounts including DL mount, L mount, and M mount all coming first-party from DJI themselves? And E mount coming third-party rebranded by DJI? And EF and PL mount from third parties? If you go on any Ronin 4D user group, you will quickly see that Sony E mount seems to be the most popular followed by L mount. I think you're just flat-out wrong on this, sorry. DJi have a total of 6 lenses for DL mount, IIRC. 16/2.8 (APS-C), 24/2.8, 35/2.8, 50/2.8, 75/1.8, and 17-28/4 PZ. These lenses are generally considered mediocre - I have had every one, sold the 16 (since cropping for it is pretty redundant with 24 on FF) and returned the 75 after verifying that it didn't fix the autofocus lag I was getting on a manual mount Leica lens. The whole point of those DJI lenses (except the zoom) is that they are very light weight and designed to be aerodynamic - I use them when mounting the R4D on a car. I like the 17-28, but it's really a focal length that basically screams "use me on a gimbal" and would have everybody instantly demanding a 24-70 ASAP. There two third parties who have made a small number of lenses for the mount, the most interesting being Viltrox who have a set of f/1.8 lenses. This would put them in the position of having to play huge catch-up on lenses since everybody else has a many years-long head start and it'll be a major uphill fight to get third parties like Sigma to make lenses for it, given the lack of market penetration. So it makes perfect sense that DJI would release a new camera using a mount that they already support and offer on their cinema camera. That or that their cinema camera would just support the mount system for the R4D and all of the mounts that go with it.

Part of me wants to knee-jerk against anything even remotely resembling a subscription, but this is also something I've wanted when using BM Cloud on things like a 48 hour film project to collaborate with others. If the studio rental is cheap, I might even do this sometime.

They have announced film grain by the end of this year, in their picture profile as they just launched the silver version of the Nikon Zf.

Oh… On the surface this could appear to be the first step on the slippery slope but at least in this form it’s actually potentially a possible positive move. Its difficult to get the detail as their link provides no further information but my reading of that tweet is that if you are working on something and need an additional seat for a collaborator then you can rent it for the time needed without having to buy them another full license. Of course all of that still ties you in to having the paid version of their cloud account if you want to do collaborative working so there is an underlying subscription element involved albeit one with a useful every day function of storage. Based upon the comments under that tweet, Blackmagic will be in no doubt from their users about any progression to a full subscription model for Resolve. It might well be that this method of rented functionality tied to the Cloud account may be the way they go for access to what they consider premium new features in the future. Time will tell.

That's the point. You can't make your system based on other parties structure that you can't even modify to be compatible with your proprietary features. And nobody can manage 3 mounts at the same time. Even a volume focused giant like Canon couldn't and ditched EF-M mount. This DJI camera with L mount is not even a rumor. Its a fantasy made by YouTubers who are struggling with Japanese camera menu system and wish an outsider make a modern one, while let them use Japanese glass.

Not necessarily... Hasselblad might be owned by DJI, have their lenses built in Japan and source their sensors from Sony, but are still a Swedish company designing and building their own cameras (and I believe in designing their own lenses) and based on their most recent release, seem to happy to be chasing a purely stills orientated market. I can't see them producing a FF or smaller sensor camera as it wouldn't make sense but instead leave that to parent company DJI... ...who from an aerial perspective, makes sense to use their own mount or fixed lenses. But any new FF camera, who would their customers be? Well there is no existing DJI camera (outside of the Ronin 4D and that is a different thing) so they would wish to nab customers from all of the existing brands, so; Canon, Nikon, Sony, Lumix, Fujifilm etc Realistically, in order to do that, they would need to be both innovative and mainstream, ie, have 'something' that the others do not but at the same time, be able to do what say your typical 'mid' mirrorless can do, ie, photo and video. A handful of lenses wouldn't cut it so they would need to launch with a lot more than what is on offer or they'd be dead in the water. People don't buy bodies, - they buy systems. Well business users do anyway, maybe not the average Jo Public. As an existing L Mount user for all my ground based photo and video needs and DJI for aerial, having something that fits in with that has a lot of appeal such as my S9 is currently the most 'at risk' bit of kit in my lineup and it's currently part back up, occasional semi-static, sometimes gimbal-like use and I'm toying with getting another gimbal and making more use of it than I do, but this is where DJI might fit in with their history as also a maker of gimbals...and if the lens mount ties in with what I already use, it makes sense. I guess we'll find out in a few weeks, but if DJI do enter the camera arena, I hope it's FF and it's L Mount and to me, it makes perfect sense that these are the most likely options. But then what do I know?!

Still doesn't justify licensing the L mount. It sends a terrible marketing message. And looks even more stupid when you remember their cine camera is DL mount. Everybody in the industry is trying to make a platform based on their mount that bridges between their still and cine line. DJI adopting L mount for FF still and DL for FF cine and drones, and another mount for Hasselblad is beyond stupid.

Cost and range. L Mount now has a huge number of available lenses whereas DJI have very few. Take something like the Lumix 35mm f1.8 at around 500 US/UK/EU currency whereas the DJI lens is f2.8 and 3x the price. OK, it's smaller and lighter, but video orientated also. But no reason why they could not develop their own line but they would probably be limiting their market by not using a more openly available mount? Folks moan all the time about how few options outside RF there are for Canon. Same thing, but with a less well known brand.

How you take 6k raw which is 6144 from 6936 pixels without crop? Its only 12% crop, but still crop. Any why on earth DJI should make a camera with L mount that has no control on when has its own mount with its own lenses?

Yes please, but history says that most attempts in this industry just flop and the big boys just plod on with their glacial development… I was thinking yesterday how the S1RII could have been better for my needs and the only thing I came up with was a body design a la FX3 with a flat top so there could be twin hotshoe mounts, or rather one hotshoe for mic and one cold shoe for a small light, ie, no need to have to make a choice or add a cage. Internal VND (without sacrificing IBIS) would also be the obvious one, but beyond that, there isn’t anything else for me that I can think of. I suspect both the new Canon and Nikon will be good, but not groundbreaking in anyway, but FX3 style versions of the R6III and the Z6III respectively. DJI has access to Hasselblad colour science, at least as a marketing thing and lidar AF and doesn’t come from the conservative mold of the more traditional Japanese brands, so could be interesting. Lumix’s next FF cam is surely the S1H and can’t see it being that tiny thing in that pic which if Lumix, is more likely a tiny 4/3 cinema camera based on size and the ‘fact’ that they are unlikely to plop out an APSC camera at this time? Or it’s some other brand such as Black Magic because they have M4/3 roots and now use L Mount so a return to a modern version of their OG pocket camera?