Subforums
-
The EOSHD YouTube Channel (22,055 visits to this link)
-
- 57
- posts
17,165 topics in this forum
-
- 539 replies
- 238k views
-
- 30 replies
- 28.9k views
-
- 5.8k replies
- 1.6m views
-
- 2 replies
- 19k views
-
- 437 replies
- 95.4k views
-
- 15 replies
- 562 views
-
- 9 replies
- 379 views
-
- 3 replies
- 144 views
-
- 684 replies
- 265.3k views
-
- 23 replies
- 1.1k views
-
- 61 replies
- 29.9k views
-
- 64 replies
- 31.1k views
-
- 12 replies
- 1k views
-
- 14 replies
- 8.9k views
-
- 5 replies
- 275 views
-
- 9 replies
- 864 views
-
- 3 replies
- 426 views
-
- 118 replies
- 30.7k views
-
- 22 replies
- 2.4k views
-
- 29 replies
- 1.7k views
-
- 111 replies
- 48.9k views
-
- 242 replies
- 131.2k views
-
- 13 replies
- 1k views
-
- 7 replies
- 814 views
-
- 9 replies
- 738 views
-
- 91 replies
- 69.4k views
-
- 9 replies
- 682 views
-
- 0 replies
- 337 views
-
- 92 replies
- 33.9k views
-
- 5 replies
- 1.7k views
-
Blackmagic brings genlock to the iPhone 17 Pro, while Apple’s first ProRes RAW goes straight to your pocket... 1 2 3
- 48 replies
- 23.2k views
-
- 25 replies
- 2k views
-
- 10 replies
- 1.2k views
-
- 8 replies
- 1.1k views
-
- 4 replies
- 737 views
-
- 10 replies
- 1.2k views
-
- 0 replies
- 675 views
-
- 3 replies
- 963 views
-
- 13 replies
- 1.9k views
-
- 31 replies
- 3.3k views
-
Popular Contributors
-
Forum Statistics
-
Total Topics17.2k
-
Total Posts350.1k
-
-
Member Statistics
-
Posts
-
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. -
By eatstoomuchjam · Posted
R5 Mark III? Hope/assume that's a typo and it's for the R6 III. 😱 -
By eatstoomuchjam · Posted
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. -
By newfoundmass · Posted
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.
-
