All Activity

@Djangoif you go c50 + gyroflow route then invest in the RSMB motion blur plugin. It’s the most realistic and dependable motion blur plugin I’ve owned and does a nice job adding back in convincing motion blur when you need to crank your shutter for gyroflow.

Literally the older canon r5 has ample dynamic range in the real world they all have ample DR.

NRaw is half the data rates of R3D NE and NRaw files can be saved after trimming, but R3D NE files save without trims, which makes R3D NE 20x more data heavy in worst case scenario. Started to convert R3D NE files to H.265 with RedLog10 and 500Mbps as a temporary solution. With NRaw there is no need for that. Z6iii has already good H.265, and IMHO is a better camera with more buttons and good EVF. ZR is just more fun to shoot, but getting WB, exposure and focus right takes a bit more time. The R3D NE footage does look more pleasing to the eye than NRaw when compared side by side. But without comparison NRaw looks good too. R3D NE is better in the shadows, but NRaw does not clip so easily in the highlights, so pick your poison based on the shooting scenario you are in. Neither is perfect at the moment, but both can give good results.

Makes me feel we haven’t gotten amazing IQ leaps in the last 5 yrs…I mean heck the fx3 sensor in the a7siii also came out 5 yrs ago and I don’t see any “superior” lowlight cams on the market. Only “comparable”. For example a c50 will hold its own against the a7siii. But it’s not better. Or worse. Just a 5 year newer camera.

Very true. My first camera was a Panasonic G7. The g9II still obliterates the g7 in lowlight lol. But yeah most of the full frame options from the last 7 years are all outstanding. Also it’s funny how 5-7 yr old full frame bodies are still excellent. My Canon R6 came out 5 yrs ago. The Nikon Z6 I used to shoot with came out 7 yrs ago. I filmed recently with an original Sony a7iii at 8,000 ISO (but a very very well exposed image) and the image was incredibly clean. We are so spoiled with choices anymore.

Yep. Also you can lowkey get full frame at a similar size with slower lenses and higher high ISO. The Canon R6 at 25,600 ISO is much cleaner that the G9II in 6400 ISO. 2 stops cleaner. But also r6 is applying a lot more internal NR which is up to users taste on if they like. I don’t mind saves me time in post but I get how some might want a more pure image they can Denoise later.

Ah seems like the datarates of prores lt are still A lot more then h265, so then its not a great solution. Maybe the zr2 will fix it.

How are the datarates of prores lt? Is it similar as h265?

The dynamic range is only crap in the world of luxury peepers. For whom pixel peeping got a bit out of control and if they loose 0.02 stops of dynamic range due to a fast sensor readout they will huff and puff and buy something different. Nuts!

My own tried and tested formula for determining if prices are getting out of hand is how much of an, erm, “rounding error” occurs when relaying the price I’ve paid for something to the wife. When it comes to cameras, it would be a base level of 10%. If I bought a new camera nowadays it would more likely be in the 20-25% area. The area where my perception of price escalation is most piqued though is in the price of first party lenses as much as it is cameras.

Nikon has indicated there will be a firmware update with Prores 422 LT which should give a better compromise in data rate between RAW and h.265. I love Prores 422 HQ on the Z8; the color and appearance of the image are so similar to still images, but the files are admittedly large. It is curious why the ZR h.265 is not as detailed (in reviews; I don't have the ZR) at high ISO as the Z6 III. Maybe Nikon felt it was a priority to avoid overheating and allow long recording times while keeping the camera body compact?

It seems to not be an easy fix as the formfactor of the ZR doesn't allow the chip inside to do heavy lifting due to cooling reasons...

Economics aside, GAS is real and it’s gotten out of hand. The constant hype from camera bros on YouTube and social drives it. Every few months there’s a new “GAME CHANGER” video, clickbait thumbnail, sponsored “first look”, and comment sections full of upgrade questions and system switches. It creates endless FOMO where current gear suddenly feels obsolete, while most “must-have” updates are marginal and don’t matter for real work. Manufacturers love this however this cycle has the opposite effect on me: I keep waiting. Something new is always around the corner, so I drag my feet and keep changing my mind .. That being said there are game changers from time to time, and for me open gate is that kind of benefit for my workflow I’ve been waiting for and it’s why I’m going back to Canon. I’ve seen a lot of Sony users claim it’s not important, and anamorphic shills overblow it’s relevance but truth is for me it makes sense when doing multi-platform content. Extracting high-res stills from video takes is another practical bonus that adds real value instead of just another spec bump. That’s what matters to me, not another 0.5-stop DR , marginal AF tweaks, extra IBIS stops, or RAW flavour of the month. Cameras have been more than good for a while now and all the feature creep and size reduction brings other issues like overheating when reliability should remain a priority..

Quick follow-up after spending more time with the R6 Mark III at the shop. The R6 Mark III is pulling ahead strongly. IBIS is very effective and reliable for handheld shooting, and the EVF proved extremely useful, especially in bright exterior conditions where the small 3" LCD on the C50 felt noticeably inadequate for precise framing and focus. Flash sync and mechanical shutter add useful flexibility for occasional stills. It delivers most of the key video features I liked on the C50 (7K open-gate, LUT support, S&Q) but with better overall hybrid handling and a lower entry price since I’m starting fresh on RF lenses either way. The R6 Mark III menu feels more comfortable to read overall (the C50's cine UI isn't well adapted to the small 3" display, text and icons can be hard to parse quickly). Switching between photo and video modes is instantaneous, and the mode dial with independent custom settings (C1/C2/C3) is much handier for fast-paced environments where I need to jump between setups without diving into sub-menus. Overall this makes the UI feel better suited to quick, dynamic shooting. Downsides: consumer body look (a cage + handle will address that), no XLR top handle, no dedicated digital zoom rockers like the C50. I’ll miss some of the C50’s cine-specific features and the built-in fan for absolute thermal reliability, but tests show the R6 Mark III has fairly good thermal performance in real-world use. I’m now leaning strongly toward the R6 Mark III. At roughly €1000 less than the C50, it packs a mean punch for the solo run&gun content I’ll be shooting. The open gate capability for multi-ratio work and stills extraction, combined with solid IBIS, the EVF, and overall usability, feels like the best balance. Price to feature ratio is hard to beat in the current hybrid market. I still need to do more comparative tests as this is too important an investment to wing it and I still low-key want the C50. Thanks again for all the input, it’s helped narrow things down a bit.

We might be surprised at how many people out there are in the hobby for, more or less, that reason. On the other hand, being truly creative at cinema and storytelling is rather elusive. That's my experience anyway. Good stories are hard to do. But, playing with tech is a gateway into this creative realm. Honing craft is part of the larger process, right? With craft, you don't need to be creative, so much as tenacious. One can be good and clean at the craft without being all that remarkable with the other stuff. Anyway, run around with Birders if you want to see the extremes between creativity and tech hoarding. Capturing "Birds In Flight" is a big goal, and for many of them (affluent retirees) they'll buy kits that are valued at 10's of thousands of dollars -- yet they struggle to understand how to make it deliver images that tell a compelling story. They latch onto tech to mitigate their creative shortcomings... this kind of thing is not really a harsh criticism, as it's definitely something I'm guilty of.

Good points. The way I see it is there's a toxic feedback loop of consumerism, hype, marketing, and release cycles. The skepticism and criticisms around this is justified, but the forgotten ingredient in this whole picture is us - the people paying attention. Without us, the whole thing falls flat. I would suggest the uncomfortable truth is that the people caught up in the drama of it are either making money from it (manufacturers, dealers, influencers, etc) or are desperately trying to buy their way into making nicer images. I will be the first to admit I did this. I tried to buy gorgeous images by swallowing the myth that Canon colour science was the answer, then that 4K was the answer, then that shallow DOF was the answer. The truth was that even if someone handed me an Alexa LF I'd still have made awful looking images. Sure, there are people making great work and want to upgrade their equipment from time to time and dip into the chaos briefly, but once they've made their decision and bought something that works for them, they tune out again. These people are spending their time on lighting tutorials, getting better at pre-production and planning, learning how to improve their edits, etc. They're not watching reviews and talking online about the colour subsampling of the 120p modes of the latest 12 cameras that are rumoured to come out in the next 17 minutes. My advice to you is this - if you feel like this then take a break from the industry and try and remember why you got into this in the first place. I'll bet it wasn't because you found a deep love for reading spec sheets!

"my mood tanks and it bleeds into the set" is a great way to express what I was thinking. I might have to steal your wording! I've had cameras I've loved to use and ones I always felt like I was struggling against, and it's definitely something that can be difficult to quantify. I suspect it's that we each have a range of priorities and preferences, and after getting used to the equipment and learning how it impacts the whole pipeline from planning through delivery and perhaps even into repeat business, the feeling we get is perhaps representative of how well it aligns with our individual preferences. It's easy to compare specs and pixel pee images, but there are lots of things that can be a complete PITA that don't show up on the brochures or technical tests. When reading your original post it felt like you want to go with the C50 and are trying to talk yourself into it / justify it. One thing that I think is underrated is the idea of the quiet workhorse. A camera that is a professional tool, does what you need without fuss, and doesn't have a lot of fanfare. For me that was the GH5 (although the colour science and AF weren't great) and now the GH7. These sorts of cameras don't grab headlines, but the fact that they're quiet workhorses rather than outlandish divas means you're able to move past the tech and concentrate on what you're shooting and the quality of the work. Canon have a very solid reputation in this regard - there's a reason they ruled the doc space for decades. One other thought.. if you don't have one already, consider buying a nice matte box. It'll help to stabilise the rig and will also make you look more impressive to clients!

This one gets on my moobs also as does, “tell me what content you want me to make”. The latter reads to me as, “OK, I have been through everything I can think of and also copied everything everyone else has done in this genre and now I am stuck and desperate for more material. Please help”. I have been recently unsubscribing from so many YouTube channels as part of my on-going “I unsubscribe from this world of fuckwittery” lifestyle choice.

Do I think large camera companies are out of touch? Dunno/maybe… I think most companies and people are full stop. Or at least reactive rather than proactive ie, really only act when they need to rather than choose to. Are camera companies specifically focused on the higher end of the market and have prices for such kit gone up? Yes I think so. Mainly thank phones and social media for that ‘gift’. Does any of it have any bearing on me? Nope, not really… As a business user, the cost is not that big a deal to me and if my annual tool budget cost of my turnover goes from 5 to 6%, it’s no big deal. Until fairly recently, for my specific use case, I did buy and sell far more than I would have liked and ‘suffered’ the mockery and sometimes outright abuse of various so called colleagues, in that regard (not that I really cared or it made any difference and I am still here whilst most of them are not so…) partly out of need, partly out of want. In recent times though, it’s come down to pure want that is the deciding factor. Last year for sure was pure want over need. This year I am not making a single significant change other than I’ve moved a few pieces around, bought a new relatively cheap lens last year and will be picking up a new drone this Spring as my 5 year old one flies a bit wonky after several, err…‘incidents’. I still muse over stuff from time to time and there’s a couple of things I might jump on if they ever appear but as those things do not currently exist as anything but pure speculation at best, I’m not that bothered.

Every time I’m watching a YouTube video and they say “Let me know down below in the comments” I just think “Oh no you poor bastard”. The problem is of course that they have to appeal to people to do that to get the algorithm to work for them and give their content a chance to get noticed. YouTube actually make you open yourself up for trolling to even attempt to make yourself relevant in their “who gives a shit about quality?” mindset. It’s exactly the same with the other clown and his blue tick programme being a deliberate incitement to gain money by hateposting, rage baiting and outright lying to farm replies for cash and cause division. Absolute shithouse behaviour. Particularly as it also seems to be an effective template to become US President.

Yes, but the point is that they are high. People in the US make more per capita and because of our broken system, we also need to spend more in order to receive health care, have a place to live, buy food, etc. You are severely delusional about the amount of disposable income of the average consumer in the US. Average rent in the US is about $1,800. That's more than half of the post-tax income of most people and with the rest, they need to buy groceries (average about $500/month/person), transit (varies wildly, but you probably need a car unless living in a bigger city where your rent will be higher), health care (insurance ain't cheap), and... you're now out of money. This is also why the average US citizen is $63,000 in debt. I've been fortunate enough to make a better-than median income and I was able to pay off my house years ago. That's why I can afford more fun stuff now. A wall of text with no paragraph breaks (seriously, that was barely readable, break it up man) does not fix those problems. The point is that for most US residents, including most of my friends/acquaintances, they never lived in a tower of gold - they lived and live paycheck to paycheck, just hoping that they don't get sick and ruined financially. 15 years ago? Maybe not. 6 years ago? Yes, in almost every meaningful way. Let's compare the results per dollar for an EOS R5 (used price around $1,800) and an EOS R5 Mark II (used price around $3,600). Reductive and stupid. To start a new company from scratch, you'd need to burn a shitload of investor money and be able to make no profits for several years before the first model comes to market - assuming that the major players don't lock you out by buying all the inventory from your suppliers, etc. The profit margin on camera gear is big. This is also why Black Magic, Kinefinity, Z-Cam, and a few others have been shaking up the industry for a while - offering a bigger feature set for less money and driving the bigger manufacturers to offer more/better features in their cameras to stay competitive.

Maybe the problem here is more about the targeted advertising, social media sites and generally the web showing ads based on the data that they've collected on your interests, basically always suggesting something you might be interested in buying, than the products themselves? Before the internet, and even in the early years of the web, people were shown generic ads for things such as diapers, books, cleaning equipment, clothes, cars, etc. rather than ads targeted to very niche users, to each user their own portfolio of potential wants and desires. In the past we would be annoyed by ads but ignore them because they were largely not relevant to us most of the time. Today the ads are so precisely targeted that they're harder to ignore. I personally think this data collection and targeted advertisement should be made illegal because it leads to people buying things they don't need and can't afford, and a sense of misery if they don't buy. Young people growing up with the smartphone and social media have increased rates of mental problems. Generally, commercial interests of big companies seem to override the needs of regular people in the decisions made by politicians, leading to a society where people are less happy than before, even though we have more "things" than we had before.

Health care costs in the US are high because of a private insurance-based system (where a large part of the money goes to the insurance company which doesn't actually do anything to improve your health). Health care costs in Europe are about one half of the US costs per person. In my country, large incomes from salaries are taxed heavily to provide free education and low-cost health care to everyone. This also means smaller income differences between people than in the US and as a result there is not as much of market for extremely expensive houses etc. In the US in many highly populated regions, such as NYC, or LA, the costs of housing are very high because many people with a lot of money want to live there. In my country, when people are not doing as well economically, housing prices go down even in the most desired regions, compensating to some extent for the loss in purchasing power. In the US, many people are so rich that they can afford to pay anything the market asks for, and this results in a situation where the "ordinary person" can't afford to live in those areas (which are often the most job-rich as well). This has nothing at all to do with decisions made by the camera companies. When smartphones replaced cameras in the hands of the majority, camera companies lost most of their income and sales volume, and they have had to refocus on the higher-end market since the low-end market disappeared to a large part. The reason those entry-level cameras were so inexpensive 10-15 years ago was because of orders of magnitude greater sales volumes. In addition, the customer wants ever higher specs and better performance, and as sensor resolution has increased, the lenses need to be optically better corrected to avoid showing obvious defects or limitations in image quality when the image is viewed using those high-resolution sensors and displays. This makes the lenses more expensive as the higher quality is more difficult to manufacture. Energy prices have gone up because of wars and lens manufacturing is very energy-intensive. The AI boom has increased the demand for semiconductors and thus the camera companies need to pay more to compete for access to the production capacity for chips. Customers now want cameras designed for video as well as stills, again this means the manufacturers have had to develop expensive processors and sensors to achieve the fast readout and high resolution, and lenses need to focus silently and be corrected for focus breathing and parfocality. Customers will, of course, at the end, have to pay for this development and increased manufacturing costs. Camera companies are not especially profitable today. There is not much that they can do about that. You can always get back to using older equipment as these are available for a fraction of their cost when new. Compare the results you get for dollar using a modern camera with one made 15 years ago, do you still think the new items cost more to achieve the same results? They do not. For similar capabilities that were sold 1-2 decades ago, you can get that equipment really cheaply today. If you feel the camera companies are ripping people off, start your own company and make products more affordable if you can. To make life more affordable for the ordinary person in the US, it would be far easier to make a publicly funded health care system and tax the billionaires, stop funding the military-industrial complex, fire the corrupt government, stop building golden ballrooms, and so on. These things are why life is appearing unaffordable to many people in the US. The rest of the world is used to things like cameras being expensive and don't complain so much since the fall hasn't been from a high tower made of gold and marble.

@kye Thanks for the thoughtful take, two solid points. On the first one: I don’t really have emotional attachment to camera bodies anymore. They’re just tools that either help me get the shot or get in the way. Lenses are the emotional part for me (the rendering, the character, the way they feel when I look through them), but the body is basically a computer with a mount and some buttons. That said, ergonomics and UI matter hugely. If I’m constantly fighting menus, fumbling controls under pressure, or the grip feels wrong after 20 minutes, my mood tanks and it bleeds into the set. I’ve shot with cameras that technically should be fine but never clicked with my hands or brain. The day always feels harder and the results flatter. So if the C50’s cine OS with shutter angle, proper exposure tools and XLR top handle let me stay in flow instead of menu-diving or second-guessing, that’s worth a lot more than specs on paper. Reliability is primal too. A body that fails on set (AF hunting in low light, overheating mid-interview, battery dying unexpectedly, corrupted file, flicker issues, or weird grading artifacts) is a disaster, especially solo. I’ve had shoots go sideways because of exactly that. So even if a camera is technically capable, if it can’t be trusted in the field for hours, it’s not a tool, it’s a liability. On stabilization: I’m with you. I’m not chasing perfectly locked-down gimbal shots or overcooked EIS. I actually like natural camera movement, it feels alive and human. The stuff that kills the vibe for me is the micro-jitters and tiny breathing shakes on small-body cameras. Those little floating tremors look nervous and amateurish. Big intentional camera motion (shoulder rig sway, handheld energy) can be beautiful and add to the scene, but those small unintentional artifacts from inadequate stabilization are just distracting. That’s why Gyroflow plus shooting with EIS off (or Standard only when needed) feels like the sweet spot. I get to keep the organic handheld character I like, but I can surgically remove the annoying micro-shake in post without turning everything into a locked-down special effect. If a shot is so dynamic that even that isn’t enough, I’ll reach for a gimbal or shoulder rig anyway. But for 80 to 90 percent of the lifestyle, interview and observational stuff I’m shooting, I’ll be on sticks with handheld B-roll. Appreciate the nudge. It’s always good to be reminded that mood, flow and reliability matter more than specs.

@kye I don’t disagree with the basic market argument, and I’m not suggesting cameras are a necessity or a right. What I was pointing to is less about entitlement and more about cultural tone. Markets can function correctly and still feel disconnected from the lived reality of a lot of people right now. Also i’m not arguing companies shouldn’t sell high end gear, only questioning whether the pace and intensity of constant releases and marketing still feels aligned with the broader moment we’re in. This is an observation about fatigue and context, not about price controls or obligations.