Leaderboard

I would say that Z mount would be the way to go. It can adapt everything you’ve got in your lens collection to be near native. Not just your AF EF and F mount but with the TechArt you can have AF of all your manual lenses as well. If you can stretch to a used Z8 then that would close the argument on every aspect and would be a - if not THE -forever camera. I say this as someone who has still failed to buy one for the past three years despite it being THAT camera to me. But I’m going to London this weekend and you know what, I might well end up feeling saucy and doing a Wayne Campbell…

Back from a visit to Japan. We spent most of the time in a small town but went to Tokyo for a weekend, so I shot a lot in Tokyo and used the rest of the time to test a range of lenses I took just for that purpose. I tested the 12-35mm F2.8 for Night Cinema and it worked great and I loved the images, but as it got darker I kept cranking up the ISO and in the end it just didn't have the levels for the truly dark backstreets. I also tested the tiny 35mm F1.6 c-mount CCTV lens I got off ebay some time ago. It produced some really nice images in the right scenarios, but the plane of focus was so incredibly distorted that any scene with stuff off-centre in the frame would look really strange. It had more level than the 12-35mm but still fell short of my better options. My themes for the place emerged very quickly.... vending machines, bicycles, and lanterns. Anyone who has been to Japan will be surprised by this exactly zero percent. At this point we went to Tokyo and I treated it like a Night Cinema interval event, basically shooting as much as I could. I shot a whole sequence from the hotel window as the sun set using the Takumar 50mm F1.4 and SB, my go-to setup. I did a number of walks around the local area with the same setup. Each time I went out I liked using the setup more, and each time I reviewed the files I liked the images I got from it more as well. After China I was feeling like it was a bit too vintage / low-fi but I've really warmed to it since. I found myself a bit at odds with Japanese culture, especially in regards to the fervent dislike of badly-behaved foreigners and the locals dislike for being filmed in public (despite the fact no-one will tell you they don't like it), so I mostly filmed the place and not the people, or at least I didn't tend to film individual people, instead including them small in the frame, or en-mass, or out of focus. I think that lent itself to the cultural experience as well. The city, and to many extents the culture, dwarfs the individual, placing the focus on the group. As a tourist I can only glimpse the culture from afar, so taking the perspective of the outsider in the compositions is very much representative of the experience. My "big" outing was a walk from Shibuya to Harajuku on our last night there. As these places are known for youth and fashion and culture (and the counter-culture that fashion normally draws from) I concentrated on the grittier side of these areas. I also leaned into the layers and the overall chaos of the place, taking advantage of the Takumars ability to focus on a small slice of the chaos, both through the 70mm FOV and also the shallow DOF. Back in the small town I did more "test" walks with the TTartisans 50mm F1.2 (100mm F2.4 equivalent), the Helios 44M + SB combo (82mm F2.8 equivalent) and Takumar + SB combo for comparison (71mm F2.0). As the small town was much less dense I found the extra reach of the TTartisans to be useful, and the DOF was shallow enough to be useful at distance, and the image was much cleaner across the frame compared to the Tak. The Helios 44M was a different beast. I felt like I was fighting with it basically the whole time and came back from the shoot thinking it was a bust and I'd wasted an outing. The FOV often seemed wrong, it lacked the aperture to get enough light to the sensor and I was pushing the ISO a lot, the DOF was also deeper and so I found myself having to get closer to objects to get the separation I wanted, which then meant I was too close and the parallax motion from my hand-held movement was really distracting. The focus on my copy is very stiff and it is a very low gear so to go from distance to closer focus had the ergonomics of opening a jar where something sticky had gotten into the threads. Still, I got back from the shoot and lots of the images looked really nice, which I think is to do with the extra diffusion this has. It was also better behaved on the edges of the frame compared to the Tak too. One thing that isn't obvious from the frame grabs is the ghosting from the strong light-sources in frame, and because I shoot hand-held and have IBIS active, they move in unnatural ways. At first I thought they were coming from my vND but if anything they got worse on both the TTartisans and Helios after I took it off. I think due to this I'll have to lean into the imperfections in the grade and edit and go lo-fi, which is why I've applied a film emulation softening equivalent to 20mm film to the Helios footage. I also shot a lot with the iPhone 17 while there, normally during the day for non-cinema purposes, but that's a different topic for another time.

"Max Yuryev left the chat room"

According to Brandon Talbot, Nikon is working on fixing H.265 and adding RED Log3G10 as an option for it besides N-LOG. That will make the camera tremendously more useful for the majority of normal users who don't always want to shoot R3D NE.

A may have, sort have, hacked my Sony a7 IV. Although the firmware is encrypted the .DAT cam settings file isn't. This allows you to dive in and change picture style parameters, without the limits of the camera menus or Sony's tethered apps via USB. This is early days yet, but I've already got a prototype app that's quite useful. First bonus feature... it allows you to save all your Picture Profile recipes and Creative Style settings to your laptop and manage them in a nice to use Mac OS app (Windows version I'll also be working on later). This allows you to store as many "Recipes" as you want and dial them into the camera. Second bonus feature... It is able to apply recipes to Sony raw files and export as LUTs for S-LOG2 and S-LOG3, with a live preview shot as you grade it. Interesting to see the reference to "S-Cinetone 2" in the data... Third bonus feature is that this app might allow us to go further in future... I'm getting a good understanding of how the camera OS works. I have also reverse engineered Canon's picture styles, although this is a topic for a future post 🙂

The GH5 has been my workhorse for almost a decade now. For whatever reason, the need to move on from it has never been necessary, so I've stuck with it. For instance, AF is not an issue. Manual focus is how lenses get used by me. Slow-mo is a thing to do less of, not more of, imo. A full 10 years on, what does a different camera offer; like really offer? An extra stop of exposure? An extra bit of DR? Looking at a GH7 the thought is, "MMM, pretty nice." But then what? A big difference in ... what ... gets captured? Maybe the market has matured TOO much for me?

No doubt. I have a 5DMII that I think still delivers in this regard as well. What I have is good enough for me, so I've decide, "Eh, I'll stay where I'm at." (for now) 😉

I heard this recently and think it's pretty interesting. I'm not sure if it's the best definition I've read, but it's more practical than other ones, so is useful from that perspective. “He who works with his hands is a laborer. He who works with his hands and his head is a craftsman. He who works with his hands and his head and his heart is an artist.” - Saint Francis of Assisi I'm 100% for not gatekeeping. Even from a practical perspective, saying someone/something is or isn't 'art' doesn't mean anything, and people who like to be critical are really just telling us about themselves, not the thing they're talking about.

Mosts artists create and never share their work with people outside of their immediate friends and family. Others create and share it on the micro level, simply wishing to share it but not make a big thing of it (example: folks that play at the local bar but have no interest in recording and releasing music.) I think as a whole we are far too judgmental about art and the things people create. It's okay to be critical, but at the end of the day, we should encourage people who create anything at all, especially as AI creeps into the picture. People don't just use AI for the convenience, but because of their own insecurities. I know too many local businesses who have started using AI because of the belief that it looks better than what they were creating themselves. I'm certainly guilty of thinking to myself, when looking at something a local business owner clearly made themselves, "that's awful." What I wouldn't do though to go back to seeing that stuff over the soulless, gross AI slop that they are all switching to. At least it had personality and you knew someone put their time and effort into creating it, even if it wasn't great.

some people can't understand why some oil painters have no interest in selling their paintings ,the satisfaction is in the pleasure of creating the painting ,and even sometimes it may be better than the last one.

His choice... It's always a choice. Needless to say there's only so long you can go on liking cameras but never shooting anything with them. And the social media skit can make one thin skinned and insecure - people look up to you like a God, which is ridiculous, or tear you down - not much in-between. So while part of me understands The Gerald Dilemma, the main part of me thinks, well, he chose to milk it for all it was worth didn't he? And it was a very privileged position that many would kill to be in, he could have used it as a springboard into an artistic career, but there wasn't an artist inside, nothing on the springy board. The problem is the system. YouTube / Alphabet is a billion dollar industry based off the hard work of content creators, who get a very small share of the overall pie and Google's Ad Business the lion's share. The internet has pivoted from a place where the artist owned the platform themselves (own website, own server) thus able to keep the benefits of 100% of their labour, to big tech owning the platforms and us becoming mere commodities as consumers/creators in a hive mind, whereas before we were founders, builders and owners as well as artists. The shift is noticeable in the language too. In 2012 we were all saying 'filmmakers' or 'musicians', but now everybody is lumped in together as a 'content creator', which got shortened even further to simply 'creator'. It's really dystopian shit. This is at the heart of what created The Gerald Dilemma - being a little pawn in a PR machine and ad industry rather than an individual. Being on a treadmill of content creation for the benefit mainly of big tech platforms. I don't see how anyone can take any personal satisfaction from it other than the money.

Luckily photography/videography are my hobby so my decisions don't need to make any sense... so I just bought a new-in-box Nikon ZR & a 40mm f/2, both for 30% off. Same store had a Megadap ETZ21 Pro for half price. So far having a blast with the camera.. I like the form factor a lot and the screen is just exciting, both the IBIS & AF are easily better than my Fujifilm X-H2s. The H.265 is definitely subpar, but it's still ok for social media use because once it's 1080p on a phone, anything will look good. You should buy things the way they are now, but I sure am hoping they'll bring a firmware update to bring the H.265 to the same level as in the Z6III.

Well I came, I saw. I chickened out. Bought a secondhand ZFc with a kit lens. Effectively, I confidently walked in to get the 64 Strat in classic white with triple single coil pickups and a whammy bar…and walked out with a banjo. Went from getting a forever camera to getting a foralittlewhile camera. I had an FM2 when I was a kid and this drew me in as did the £450 price. The Z8 will have to wait but…

Here's an anecdote regarding our level: A-Cam was an Alexa Mini on a documentary shoot. The cinematographer didn't really get enough variety for the storytelling the director wanted. We tried to make it work in the edit booth. Couldn't do it. Late in the edit/production when the budget had been burned, the two of us went back into the field to get necessary pick-ups. Those pick ups ended up covering close to 1/3rd of the film. All the footage was cut together, color graded, and released on one of the major American TV networks. Every shot looks cohesive. That pickup stuff was done with my used, ebay purchased, 9 year old GH5. And there ain't no way anyone watching that film could readily tell the difference between the two. That said, anybody got one of those Alexa-Minis laying around they want to give me? I'll trade you my GH5.

Z6 III vs ZR, you said? Both are full frame, both use the Z mount, both have subject detection AF for 9 subject types, and both offer internal RAW up to 6K/60p. The Z6 III has a 24.5MP full-frame sensor, and the ZR also uses a 24.5MP full-frame partially stacked sensor with EXPEED 7. From there, though, the split becomes pretty obvious. The ZR is the one Nikon has shaped as a compact cinema camera. It gives you internal R3D NE, RED colour science, Log3G10 / REDWideGamutRGB, 32-bit float audio through the internal mic and 3.5mm jack, plus a 4.0-inch screen designed more for actual filming without leaning as heavily on external accessories. Nikon is very clearly positioning it as a compact cinema body. The Z6 III, on the other hand, is much more complete as a stills camera. It has a 5.76M-dot EVF, burst shooting up to 120fps, Pre-Release Capture, mechanical and electronic shutter options, and up to 8 stops of stabilisation with Focus Point VR. It is simply the more all-round camera of the two. Physically, the ZR is noticeably smaller and lighter at around 134 x 80.5 x 49mm and 540g body only, or 630g with battery and card, whereas the Z6 III is larger and heavier at roughly 138.5 x 101.5 x 74mm and 670g body only, or 760g with battery and card. The viewing setup also says a lot about the intent behind each one. The Z6 III has an electronic viewfinder and a 3.2-inch vari-angle screen. The ZR goes the other way with a 4.0-inch rear monitor and is not really being sold as an EVF-centered body at all, but as a video monitoring-first tool. Audio is another area where the ZR is in a different class, because the 32-bit float recording is a major selling point and still quite unusual in this form factor. The Z6 III has serious enough audio for video work, but that is not one of its defining features. Even the card slots tell the story. The Z6 III uses CFexpress/XQD plus SD UHS-II, while the ZR uses CFexpress/XQD plus microSD. That alone already says a lot about the difference in philosophy between a photographic hybrid and a compact cinema camera. The Z6 III is still the more rounded hybrid camera, while the ZR looks much more like a compact cinema body built primarily around video use. On paper they overlap in some important ways, because both sit in the same broad full-frame Z-mount ecosystem and both are clearly meant to appeal to shooters who care about strong video features, but the intent feels different. The Z6 III is the camera I’d look at first if the job includes serious stills as well as video, because it gives you the EVF, the more conventional hybrid ergonomics, the stronger photographic identity and a much more all-purpose way of working. The ZR, by contrast, seems aimed at the person who is leaning far more into filmmaking and wants a smaller cinema-oriented body, RED-style workflow influence, more specialised video tools and a more stripped-back approach that is less about being a do-everything camera and more about being a focused moving-image tool. That is really the core of it. The Z6 III is the safer all-rounder. The ZR is the more interesting specialist. So if somebody mainly shoots photo and video in equal measure, I’d say Z6 III. If they are really after a compact cinema camera in Nikon form, then the ZR is the one that makes more sense.

'I can't believe a company would release broadcast equipment and try to get ahead in a new broadcasting industry at the National Association of Broadcasters.' I work in video and it's annoyed me that Canon keep releasing new printers! What do you mean Panasonic has a new microwave, I need faster AF! I don't need a PS5 for God's sake, why won't Sony give me better menus! At the very least, BMD is keeping within the same field and pushing the boundaries throughout the whole workflow as much as they're able to. Parts of this technology will eventually come to the more 'interesting' products and while we're waiting there's plenty of choice from other brands. It feels like I'm defending the brand, which I don't mean to do, but damn. Complaining that groundbreaking products don't fit your own expectations is pretty wild to me. If it's not for you, it's not for you. No need to get upset. My intial point remains, the amount of times Grant says things like 'but there's a problem with this process, so we've also created this solution' is very promising. I don't see many other companies thinking so far ahead and getting around problems that don't even exist yet.

From Canon's support people, someone has to examine the camera to determine the level of work, but a rough estimate of prices, based on the perceived difficulty is: Minor = $269 Standard = $359 Major = $499 That's before my CPS discount on repairs which is, I think, 30%. So I guess that'd be $180, $270, or $340, give or take. Added to the approx. $1,500 below new price (and about $1,100 below most used prices I've been seeing), that ain't bad at all. (Though I do really need to sell something now, my gear list is getting ridiculous - anybody want a used Z Cam E2-S6G in good shape with a bunch of accessories including the eND?)

That's a key point. Or "Kye" point, if you will. My handheld shooting drifts and sways a bit, as I like that sort of kinetic visual energy. Not all IBIS handle this camera movement AND stabilization elegantly. Rapid shifts of the image that are unwanted can happen. Fuji is a disappointment in this regard and it makes shooting my style of video with my X-T5 pretty much useless. Meanwhile I can "dance" pretty good with LUMIX and Olympus.

For those interested in small setups, in modestly priced gear, in non-clinical rendering of images, in very fast lenses, in vintage lenses, or older equipment, we exist in a space that has no quantitative reference. There are no numbers to look up and understand things from. It applies to the equipment: Questions like "how sharp is that lens?" don't have an answer (that is intuitive anyway - MTF charts aren't intuitive and often aren't reliable or even available). Even if it did, that answer would only be true at one aperture setting, and even then, is only true for the middle of the frame or the edge of the frame, but not both at the same time. If we shoot at base ISO with a 4K camera then we'll likely get an image with roughly 4K resolution, but at higher ISOs the effective resolution will likely drop due to ISO noise, NR, compression, etc. If we use filtration, like diffusion filters, then these lower the effective resolution of the image. It's literally what they're designed to do. How much do they do this though? Not only is there no published answer to this, but the answer changes depending on focal length, sensor size, etc. It applies to the look we're creating: Any colourist working creatively will be trying to create an image with the right amount of resolution / sharpness / noise / etc, not just "the sharpest" or "the highest resolution". How much is desired? What are the references? I've been struggling with many questions from my own equipment and projects, including: My TTartisans 17mm F1.4 is less than half the weight of my Voigtlander 17.5mm F0.95, but the TT is quite soft at F1.4. How soft is it though? Is it too soft? If I want to shoot low-light with the GX85 (which has terrible higher-ISO NR) then what ISO setting is too soft, and then which lenses do I need to use in which environments to get enough light into the sensor? My Takumar 50mm F1.4 on my generic M42-MFT speed booster has pretty soft edges, but how soft? You'd think the solution to these would be to look at the footage and decide, but (for me at least) it's a double-edged sword because I also don't know what final images I want! I have spent a good amount of time looking at Hollywood films and big budget TV shows (see the original The Aesthetic thread) but apart from just going "I like that" and "I don't like that" we have the problem once-again of there being no way to quantify things. Saying "this show is softer than that show" really doesn't help. My solution is to reference things back to film. I originally did this with my Panasonic GF3, which shoots 1080p so soft you could cut it with a wet noodle, by comparing it to the presets in the Film Look Creator tool for 8mm and 16mm film I concluded that when the GF3 didn't show macro-blocking due to the (very low) bitrate, it was about the same as 8mm film. This was actually a really useful reference for me, because the associations I have for 8mm and 16mm film are quite useful. 8mm film has an aesthetic that is very nostalgic and low-fi, but was never good enough for TV shows, let alone the cinema. My new plan is to reference everything back to film, across quite a number of ways... Texture, which is what I've talked about so far: - I will be trying to "map" my lenses and cameras and codecs to a specific resolution of film (16mm, 35mm, somewhere in between) - I will be trying to "map" my aesthetic preferences to film too, like wanting a certain project to have the resolution of 16mm for example, but further than this - the size and amount of grain can also be a useful reference. These are useful references for me because a lot of the aesthetic references of cinema I have were actually shot on film and so by associating these things back to film it's a relevant reference, not just some arbitrary scale that isn't directly related. Dynamic Range and Contrast: - How does the DR from the GX85 look when put through an image pipeline in Resolve compare to the contrast of a 250D -> 2383 process? - What about the iPhone vs a 16mm process from the 90s? or a B&W process from the Italian Neorealism or French New Wave period? Contrast and DR should be relatively easy to match to various film stocks by just shooting some over/under exposure tests and adjusting my standard Resolve colour pipeline to match what is in the spec sheets. Speaking of spec sheets, not only do the spec sheets for motion picture film contain the Sensitometric Curves that show DR and contrast, but they also contain the MTF curves too as a reference for resolution. When it comes to resolution you don't need to look at the charts though - I asked some film geeks I know to comment on the FLC presets and they said that the 8mm / 16mm / 35mm presets in the Grain panel have about the right amount of image softness and amount of grain (but that the character of the grain isn't accurate), so the FLC is a reasonable reference for the texture of film in a very broad sense. What else? Image stability is another one. 8mm film cameras were larger than modern compact cameras so were more stable with the lenses they were normally fitted with, but 8mm had pretty terrible gate weave (alignment from one frame to the next) so having micro-jitters from hand-holding is compatible with the look. Whereas 16mm would have had more mass and less gate weave but at least at first would have probably been shoulder mounted or on a tripod, so some types of shots / angles will be more compatible with the aesthetic than others. Depth of field is another one. Lots of people think the "Super 16mm look" just means deep DOF, but it's more nuanced than that, as the lenses typically used would have some separation in low-light when focused closer, but due to the lenses at the time the shots might have been softer wide-open, so that's another relationship to understand. There are lots of other parameters that make an image that aren't covered here, but I am finding that getting some kind of reference for texture and contrast fills a very large gap in the landscape for me. The goal isn't to accurately emulate anything, its to develop a keener understanding of the spectrum these things exist in. Where I'm hoping to get to is to be able to develop summaries like: The GF3 is about 8mm at base-ISO, which during the day is equivalent to <some particular F-stop>, so I can put basically any lens sharper than 8mm onto it and the result will still look like 8mm. I can hand-hold this tiny camera with an acceptable level of shake up to about Xmm and it'll still fit the 8mm vintage / amateur / nostalgic vibe. The GF3 is tiny but once you add a lens that is larger than a pancake then I may as well use the GX85, so the only sensible lens is the 15mm F8 bodycap lens. Any other combo doesn't make sense. (This is an actual example I've worked out through testing). The GX85 at base-ISO is equivalent to <film size of some kind.. 16mm? 24mm? 35mm? 50mm?> which requires lenses of <F-stop> during the day and <F-stop> in well-lit night environments. This amount of resolution is suitable for projects with a vibe of <gritty street? vintage? night cinema? high-end commercials? etc?> but not other vibes. (This is still yet to be tested, but once I've worked out the camera then certain lens combinations will reveal themselves to make sense and others will obviously not work) iPhone? Where does it sit in all this? It has huge resolution and very strong codecs (4K Prores HQ or even Prores RAW) but poor DR and even worse ISO performance. GH7. What are the aesthetics I want to create that I can't create with the above (because the above is too limiting). What lenses and shooting styles and approaches are required for these aesthetics? The ultimate thinking is developing "constellations" where there is compatibility / alignment between: a camera, one or more lenses, certain shooting situations and techniques, an image pipeline, and a target aesthetic. I've been working on finding these "constellations" by starting at the camera and working forwards, but also by starting with the end aesthetic and working backwards, and I've identified a number of partial matches, but I think that by relating everything back to motion picture film, I can make more progress fitting the pieces together.

This is why, for me, there are two likely ways to use it: 1) My small bag full of C-mount and D-mount lenses and possibly attach it to the smallest 5" monitor that I have (which is quite small) 2) Throw it in my bag where it takes up almost no space and attach it to the back of existing short telephoto lenses which now function like long telephoto lenses

There's a colleague in my town that is trying to make "animation" films with 100% generative A.I. What would Francis conclude about someone working without 'hands' and 'head'? Or at best, no hands and half their head. Like Gerald, this colleague is hoping he's able to maintain a financially rewarding YouTube channel. It could be that he is jumping on the slop-train. But, on the other hand, at least he's making a novel effort production-wise to try and pay his bills. Whereas, my naive thinking is that there's still a chance my documentaries will be, somehow, someway, financially rewarding. And, even though that's unlikely, making docs is at least creatively fulfilling.

Luc Forsyth likes it, or what he saw at NAB anyway. This is a setup they had with a broadcast servo-zoom lens on it. His comments (link with timestamp) He's worked on the survival show Alone for a few seasons and they use dozens of GoPros, but the footage always looks like it came from a GoPro This new model with a proper lens attached looked like footage from a real camera The broadcast zoom setup (with a phone as a monitor) handled like a proper camera He doesn't use AF when rigging cameras to vehicles etc most of the time so the lack of AF doesn't bother him in that context

Everything is art, that's why you can stick a urinal in a gallery and suddenly it's art. With YouTube what matters to me is the intent of the artist - are they doing it to shill a few cameras and get cozy with marketing, or are they doing it to further their aspirations in filmmaking and trying to build a community of other artists around it? Shilling a few cameras and getting cozy with Jack from PR is an art. But it's on the same level as cinematography is it?

I think you hit the nail on the head there. Gerald is a rigger, and a studio guy. He stuck to what he knew. Nothing wrong with that of course. It's interesting how vague he was in the goodbye video about what he's going to pivot to - something product based, but stuff that gives him joy, not very specific is it? Just shows how important enthusiasm and obsession are in this industry. If you lose interest, you're finished!

This is interesting to see whether internal H.265 will be better than shooting R3D NE and converting it to H.265 RED Log3G10 with 500Mbps bitrate in Resolve. R3D NE bitrates are not that bad, but not having the possibility to save trimmed R3D NE files as R3D NE is THE problem. Shame on Nikon and RED if they don’t fix this. With NRaw it works, so it is up to RED SDK to support R3D NE trim.

Content is art. Not all art is equal, but it's still art. It's like arguing that the people who write instruction manuals or textbooks aren't writers. They are, but that doesn't mean they're Stephen King.

Hello all, settle in for a long post... For the past 10 years I have mostly shot with my Canon 5D Mark iii with ML Raw. Other than a couple short stints with some native lenses, the only one I kept was a beat up 28mm 1.8 because it was cheap and I really like the rendering. I also have a Sigma FP which delivers a fine raw image but I've always found it to be an awkward camera to work with... especially with its horrific battery life and annoying SSD tethered to the camera. For the past year I've been using a GH6 a lot I bought on the cheap. It has the Arri LogC update, and I've been fairly happy with it except for my normal distaste for crop factors... although I have found the cheap 7artisans 24mm 1.4 lens to be a treat. For the most part, I think the GH6 could be the ultimate low budget filmmaker's camera. The LogC curve/color science mixed with 4K/5.7K ProRes HQ codec truly is remarkable... not to mention the IBIS which is nothing short of miraculous. Even the 1080p, with its small ProRes file sizes looks pretty amazing to me. Otherwise, I borrowed a friend's Canon R7 for a few weeks and found it to be a pretty amazing little camera. The h.265 files were way better than I thought they'd be. The cLog2 was a treat to grade, the AF was practically perfect and the IBIS was better than I expected. Since the pandemic, I've gotten into shooting stills a little. I first started with film and loved it. I still shoot some, but they're a little expensive since I don't have the capability to process/scan them myself. I then picked up an Open Box Pentax K10D which I enjoy taking out and getting some random shots with the beautiful CCD sensor, but video is more important to me than stills and I don't want to maintain multiple systems so I am thinking of starting over and investing in a new camera and a lens or two... So... I was looking for some advice from anyone who has first hand knowledge about a few different systems. My criteria for stills is basically nothing... shoots decent stills. For video, I'm looking for a full frame camera that shoots internal raw video, or ProRes, has decent IBIS and decent AF. I'm a few months away from a purchase, but I'd like to keep it below $2500 for the main camera and then possibly pick up a second, lesser model, camera in a year or so. Right now, it seems like Canon or Nikon are the two obvious options, but after reading Andrew's mini review of the FX2, I'd be open to going Sony as well even though there's no internal raw. I have ruled out Panasonic and the L Mount. I have extensively used an S5iiX and have meh feelings about it. I just didn't jive with it. I'm kinda leaning towards Nikon due to the ZR, but it doesn't seem like the best hybrid camera. But in a lot of ways, it's kinda my dream camera... even though I think 6K is a bit of overkill. I'm also interested in the Z5ii because it seems like it gets me a good bit of my list and gets me into the Z ecosystem for a fairly decent price. But since I started shooting video with a ZR65, I've always gone back to Canon and have always been relatively happy about it. And finally, although lenses are important for stills and those times I'd like to track an actor in a short film or something, I'd probably use my vintage lenses more often. Anyway, I know this is a lot, but any insight you guys might have would be much appreciated.

I'm pretty sure that the Mavo Mark II LF is using IMX410. It's a great sensor which is why it's been used in so many cameras since it was introduced in 2018. But that's also exactly the problem. It's in a lot of cameras already. Sell it at $1,500 and it's interesting as a budget play. Sell it at $3,000 and you're going up against the EOS R5, Nikon Z8, Red Komodo, Nikon ZR, Panasonic S1 II, and EOS R6 Mark III. IMO, every one of those sensors that's at least equal to the IMX410. They also support 10-bit internal recording that doesn't look like ProRes 4444 (I think that's the only 12-bit format available on Kinefinity right now). Of course, it's also up against the much cheaper Z Cam E2-F6 and E2-F6 Mark II which also use IMX410. The form factor is enticing, but a ZR is even smaller and also has a big flippy 4" screen. And internal raw. And really good autofocus. And costs around $1,000 less. Just like with some of the other cameras that have been announced recently, the question to ask not just "What makes me buy this over the other cameras on the market?" - but it's also "What makes me buy this over a camera I already have?"

https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/media/release/20260414-01 In Portuguese. In conclusion, now in English: The big leap in Resolve 21 is this: it is no longer just an editor and colour-grading system for video. It now also includes a new Photo page, designed for still photography, with album management, node-based grading, crop and reframe at original resolution, tethered capture with Sony and Canon cameras, support for LUTs and Resolve FX, and collaboration through Blackmagic Cloud. On the AI side, the package has become much more aggressive. It now includes IntelliSearch to find people, objects, and even words spoken in dialogue, a voice generator from text, CineFocus to recreate depth of field, Face Age Transformer, Face Reshaper, skin-imperfection removal, automatic slate reading with AI Slate ID, UltraSharpen, and Motion Deblur. In the Cut and Edit pages, the most visible additions are improvements to keyframes and curves, the ability to adjust Fusion effects directly inside those editors, native support for HTML and Lottie graphics, improvements to Text+ and MultiText, and more practical smart bins for filtering footage in the Media Pool. In colour, VFX, and audio, Resolve 21 adds MultiMaster Trim Manager to generate HDR and SDR versions from the same timeline, Magic Mask render in place, list and layer views in the node editor, and group versions for grades. Fusion gains the Krokodove library, improvements to the macro editor, and an updated USD toolset. Fairlight adds track folders, 6-band clip EQ, EQ and Level Matcher, and Chain FX. For creators and modern workflows, there are ready-made square and vertical resolutions for social media, direct upload to YouTube, TikTok, Vimeo, and X, support for IntelliScript with Final Draft, import of ATEM Mini ISO projects, and major reinforcement of immersive workflows, including VR180 and VR360, Panomap, ILPD retargeting, MainConcept H.265/MV-HEVC, and foveated rendering for Apple Immersive. In short, Resolve 21 seems to be three things at once: more useful AI, tighter integration between areas that used to be separate, and a much broader opening toward photography, creators, and immersive content. Blackmagic itself presents this version as a major update, with the new Photo page, dozens of new features, and many usability improvements. This is no small improvement. And who said they were focused only on the SMPTE crowd?! ; ) LOL Amazing upgrade, kudos to them! : -)

I think laying off 23% of it’s workforce has had a lot to do with the share price rising. Those finance vampires love people losing their jobs.

What are you shooting and what lenses are you contemplating? I can't recall what your other normal equipment is, but MFT opens up a Pandoras Box whole world of possibilities with adapters etc too (if you don't need AF) so that can be fun too. I've been shooting street video at night with two combos that work incredibly well.. the first is my 42.5mm F0.95 with the Sirui 1.25x anamorphic adapter on the front, making it an equivalent of 68mm F1.5 and creating beautiful rendering wide open, but the combo is 1.3kg / 46oz so I also got a Takumar 50mm F1.4 on a speed booster, which is equivalent to a 71mm F2.0, which is much more vintage but is tiny and almost a full 1kg lighter. I'm contemplating a native 35mm F0.95 or F1.4 to replace both and have a less vintage but still lightweight for travel shooting. I also rock the 14-140mm for day shooting while travelling, and in brighter places the 12-35mm F2.8 is pretty hard to beat. So many great lenses. If you don't need crazy DOF then MFT is a great option, even with the larger body sizes.

I mean, the lens mount makes it very adaptable, but not having auto focus seems like a big deal breaker.

Getting good affordable 960p would be cool for lots of people. I see the science explainer channels showing bad quality 960p and the richer channels with Chronos setups. Don't get me wrong about them not being cameras that appeal to a large number of people. They're very good for getting the new "EVERYTHING IS AWESOME AND WIDE AND SMOOTH AND DEFINITELY SHARP SHARP SHARP!!!!" style of video that looks more like video than anything ever made before, but as soon as they say it's a cinema camera, there are 27 things they have to change from every other model ever made, and to bet they'll get every single one of them right is a very long shot indeed.

If you do decide to go with Nikon the FTZII adaptor works very well with F mount AF-S lenses and the resulting auto focus speed is very close to z mount.AF-S lenses are easy to get second hand and far cheaper than the new lenses in Z mount .My AF-S 35mm f1.8 was only Aus $200 second hand and to purchase new in Z mount is around Aus $1000.

Yes, Z8 is a temptation. And now ZR... : ) However in my case, the Blackmagic 6K FF and the FX30 are both in a league of their own.

For sub-$2,500, a used EOS R5 ticks a lot of your boxes, I think. Afraid of overheating and want longer takes? R5C is right at the top of your price range, but would be doable. If you're willing to compromise on IBIS for the Nikon ZR and if you're willing to bypass stills, a used OG Komodo is just in the $2,500 price range. If you already have some stuff around for rigging up a cinema camera, you'd be able to use it pretty cheaply after that. If not, you'd probably be in a few hundred bucks more and out f your price range. The Komodo does have a built-in gyro, though, so it can be stabilized. Otherwise, the ZR seems to be a fantastic choice. A used Nikon Z8 would be just out of your price range, but would also be a really solid choice. A used Z6 III would do you really well too. Price is about the same as a brand new ZR. lensrentals.com has a used BMCC 6K for under $2,500 as well. It's a sensor from 2018, but you can get good results and nowadays, it has surprisingly good autofocus. No IBIS, though.

Well WTF - turns out "1 inch sensor" is marketing BS and it's actually 13.2mm wide, making the crop factor 2.73x, and only just a touch larger than Super 16 which is 2.88x. Source Lots of MFT glass and also lots of c-mount options too as already suggested. Ironically, with the lack of electronic contacts you can't control the aperture on most modern MFT lenses, so much of the sharpest glass will be unavailable (making the 8K sensor spec rather redundant!). However getting shallow DOF will probably be more difficult, especially as we have no idea what kind of focus assists it will have, so stopping down might be the best move (focus wide open then stop down to eliminate any slight errors) and that will sharpen up older / lesser lenses. This might end up being the mythical tiny S16 cinema beast that people have wanted (or said they wanted!). It's much smaller than even the BMMCC and that's before you realise the BMMCC doesn't have a screen so you have to rig it up to use it. I am still skeptical though - there's lots of stuff we still don't know about and given GoPros history I have complete faith that they'll include at least one fundamental fatal flaw that will prevent this.

Think it’s a 1 inch sensor so it’s likely to be 2.7x

None are shown on any pictures. Luckily, there are about a bazillion lenses that can be adapted to Micro 4/3 mount - including a lot of C-mount lenses and probably at least some D mount lenses will cover or work in a cropped mode. 'The same 50MP 1" sensor as..."

Looks interesting with an MFT mount and the claim the Hypersmooth works with any rectilinear prime (their stabilisation is a pretty important feature, especially with how small they are). Of course, if they don't have animal eye-detect PDAF then the internet will skin them alive!!

I don't care about any of that, just want a new Pocket cam

The reason Blackmagic are out of the consumer / prosumer market now, is that the Japanese cameras are too good and too cheap. Blackmagic can't compete with an X-H2 shooting ProRes 422 8K for under $1500. Also the profit margins in the broadcast stuff is massive. It's funny isn't it, how the industry has pivoted back to where everything was before 2010, pre DSLR! The only thing missing now are new small chip ENG shoulder cams! Then we can truly party like it's 2008!

Yeah, just casually looking at flange distance, I was, like, "How's that work?" But those of us poors do hope that there are ways to outflank expenses, regardless of our ignorance. After all, the image of the Arriflex camera with a Nikon mount conversion is cool, as my go to lens is an old Nikkor 50mm that I put on my m43 gear all the time. Still, the more this 2C sits on the shelf and I look at it, the more I'm keen to really take a run at shooting a reel. Now, just have to write a worthwhile idea... And, in a neat wrinkle, I could use one of the oldest cameras with the newest film stock: https://www.kodak.com/en/motion/product/camera-films/verita-200d-5206-7206/

If you'd like to spend about 2 hours learning about a bunch of expensive, high-end broadcast gear, the latest Blackmagic NAB update was made for you! BEHOLD million bazillion port VIDEO SWITCHING DEVICES STARE IN AWE at a first-party mount to use 2/3" camera lenses on your FULL FRAME CINEMA CAMERA GASP WITH AMAZEMENT as instead of making the smaller, cheaper media module reader that everybody wants, they make one BIGGER AND MORE EXPENSIVE! YOU MAY HAVE PAID FOR THE WHOLE SEAT, BUT YOU WILL ONLY NEED THE EDGE ------------- Resolve 21 looks nice. Otherwise, 0 new consumer products. Every single thing that they announced today was for broadcast and specifically seemed targeted at sports broadcasters, the only people who are trying to multiplex 50+ 4K+ input streams to 50+ output devices all at the same time. I suspect that rampocalypse pricing for components has basically obliterated profit margins on any consumer gear that Petty was going to announce. Maybe in 3-6 months, we'll get an out-of-cycle product release livestream.

Pros in 2026...

They invented, solved the problems of and instantly became a leader in a whole new industry. Live, multi-cam immersive production. That's the closest thing to teleportation you can get without the risks of becoming half man half fly. Imagine BBC's yearly Glastonbury coverage being shot and broadcast live with this immersive workflow. You'll have the whole festival in your living room, with clean toilets just through the door. Arri and RED have film, Panasonic and Sony have indie and YouTube, Blackmagic stands alone on the forefront of a sci-fi world where the competition aren't even looking.

here you go 🙂

Less with the YouTube spam dude.

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.

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!