Leaderboard

The problem with LOG is first of all that the gamma assists are a bit rubbish. (Aside from the Panasonic S9 and cameras where you can load on a LUT and monitor with it, without resorting to some shitty external monitor) But on the more common and better specced cameras you can't do that... Nikon Z9, Z8, Sony a1, a7 IV, GFX 100, Z6 III, EOS R6 II and so on. Secondly you should never really shoot it WITHOUT a gamma assist. Contrast, tonality and light are a really important judgement in cinematography and you can't really see any of that with a very flat display. Sure you can toggle LOG profile on/off quick in the menu and judge... but doing so is a PITA every time you want to see the real contrast and lighting. The gamma assists are all quite bland looking and flat with not very much pop, I find. Then we come to the LOG profiles themselves... EOS R6 Mark II / R5 / R3 all have C-LOG3, which a lot of people complain about but I don't mind. One of the better ones and easier to grade. C-LOG2 is reserved for the Cinema EOS line. C-LOG3 is closer to the original C-LOG on the 1D C, I seem to remember. Sony a7 IV has S-LOG2 and S-LOG3, they offer the widest dynamic range of the bunch but you still have to get exposure perfect for optimal image quality. Gets noisy really fast if you under expose. N-LOG on the Nikon cameras needs the most colour correction, otherwise you have very green-olive skin. By the way, there is a very small difference in image quality between 50Mbit/s 10bit 420 H265 on the Sony a7 IV and the higher bitrate LOG formats in range of 200-500Mbit... yes even in S-LOG3! So you can save a lot of money and card space there. With standard gamma picture profiles you don't need to shoot 10bit... 8bit will look the same. People tend to overestimate higher numbers on the specs sheet. So those tips in summary: Don't shoot from a flat image off the back screen Nail exposure to get the maximum dynamic range benefit from LOG With modern codecs like H.265 in 4K/24p - don't bother with the higher bitrates in most cases, the laws of diminishing returns apply big time (Although if you're shooting 8K or high frame rates then 200-500Mbit/s is recommended) C-LOG3 is easiest to handle, with N-LOG last Hope that in-camera LUTs/monitoring becomes a common thing, it's really bad that it isn't even 12 years since LOG first came on the mirrorless camera scene.

Wow, so looks like a new FW update in December will allow the R5C to do 8k 60p RAW with no external power and JUST the LP-E6P battery: https://www.canon.co.uk/press-centre/press-releases/2024/11/firmware-updates-add-extensive-new-functionalities-to-canon-professional-video-cameras/

Sharing my notes... If I were to consolidate a few cameras (I'm selling 3-4 of them) into one newer one, which would it be? My current main cameras are Fuji GFX 100 and Sony a7 IV. I sold the a1 as wasn't really using the extra resolution or speed, but mainly because of the risk of crazy depreciation now the new one is out... We'll come back to that in a moment though. I see the EOS R6 Mark II is currently on sale for 1800 euros brand new, which seems like a good deal but then you realise a used EOS R5 costs about the same now as it's 4 years old. Given the R5 does 4K/120p, internal 8K RAW, higher resolution stills, oversampled 4K from 8K, whereas the R6 Mark II is... erm... newer, maybe less overheating issues, the R5 starts to look like a better buy.... Although the R6 II has a much more convenient movie/stills switch and a proper mode dial. Main drawback of RF cameras for me is the poor performance of IBIS when used with adapters and manual focus lenses. It almost stops working entirely. Same goes for EOS R3, and the R5C lacks IBIS entirely. Now let's compare to Nikon Z6 III is 2500 euros / dollars. It is very similar to the EOS R6 Mark II in most regards but the lens mount is more flexible and you get better IBIS no matter the lens. 6K, 4K120fps (cropped?), but is it better than an EOS R5? Z8 would make more sense for me... but now we're in the 3500 euro range. It's an exciting camera but at that price, we're back at looking at a used a1 surely? E-mount for me has more going than Z. Problem is the Sony a1 used is still £3200/3800euro/dollar, so it hasn't come down much yet since the a1 II announcement... Better to wait until it has reached the 2500-3000 range, at which stage it's a no-brainer and would be my choice over everything else mentioned so far. The 8K codec internally, is a match for Canon RAW and N-RAW in my experience. The a7 IV is best bang for buck... 1400 used, for a camera with very little missing... No 4K120fps of course, and rolling shutter is higher than something like the Z6 III. 4K/60p is a crop, but I'm still more of a 24fps guy and it does that very well. A9, the original one... is about the same price. If you don't mind the lack of LOG, 10bit codec, H.265, new colour profiles and 4K/60p, the a9 is very capable especially for stills. It's the only one that has a fast enough electronic shutter for under $1500 to truly be a silent stills camera like the Z8 and Z9. Now to the latest and greatest, and we have to go to $5k-$7K realm... Doesn't seem worth it to me? The mid-range is just so good now. EOS R5 Mark II is an evolutionary update. EOS R3 doesn't do as much as a Z8 when it comes to video + IBIS issues. Z9 is trumped by the smaller and cheaper Z8 for the same spec. The A1 II and a9 III are just too crazy expensive, although really cutting edge. Which would you choose between $2k-3.5K? A7R V gets a shout?

nikon used to lag behind canon in the sensor design and making. not any more. the shortest flange distance, plus, the best sensor design, and the codec. nikon seems will out edge canon, arri, sony.

I know you were dying to know 😄 https://ymcinema.com/2024/11/28/nikon-and-red-the-z-mount-cinema-revolution-coming-in-2025/