Leaderboard

Here's a preview, very early days yet but the idea is to have a wiki page for every camera that draws together all the trusted resources for that model onto one single page with a clean design, no spam, no tracking malware banners, and no clickbait. Within each page: A ranking system In-depth detailed info and specs at a glance. LUTs and downloads, such as links to firmware updates, colour profiles, etc. A box with only "trusted" high quality YouTube reviews sourced per camera. Links to the top 5 best quality written reviews, manually sourced by me per camera. That will replace DPReview and Google search results for camera models, both enshitified to the point of unusable now, with so much AI and clickbait.

Vintage anamorphic adapters are optically imperfect in very pleasing ways, but are large, expensive, difficult to find and setup, and can be slow to use (double focusing etc). Modern smartphone anamorphic adapters are optically imperfect too, but are small, cheap, easy to find and setup, and designed for AF cameras so should be incredibly fast and easy to use. Of course, the first question is about coverage, and this might surprise you, but modern smartphone sensors are approaching MFT sensor size. GX85 with 14mm F2.5 lens (no adapter) - I took a photo so this is open-gate MFT: GX85 with 14mm F2.5 lens and Neewer 1.55x anamorphic adapter in-front of the lens (de-squeezed): Full-sensor coverage and no vignetting visible. Can it cover S35? Who knows! Looking at this image it's much blurrier on the bottom than the top, but I was just holding the adapter in place so maybe I didn't have it exactly centred vertically, but it should give an idea of the image quality. It's obviously lens-dependent though, as this is the GX85 with the TTartisans 17mm F1.4 in 16:9 movie mode (no open gate)... Coverage.... isn't ideal! However, with the 2x digital zoom on the GX85 and de-squeezed you get this: This equates to about 44mm FF equivalent, and reminds me of some of the more funky vintage anamorphics. Perhaps the most impressive thing is the form factor. This is a 1.55x anamorphic setup probably more pocketable than a BMPCC4K, and that's literally got "pocket" in the name! Those just show the adapter leaning against the lens, as I am yet to work out how to mount it properly. The challenge is that this adapter has a 17mm rear thread which is smaller than any step-down ring I can find, so I'll probably have to go DIY to mount it. People have suggested I drill a hole in a metal lens cap, or get the smallest step-down ring I can find and glue a washer to it where the inner diameter of the washer matches the thread size. I'll have to experiment, but there are options. That whole rig weighs less than my Sirui 1.25x anamorphic adapter on its own.. 627g vs 744g!! It's early days for this idea, but the coverage surprised me and I think makes it a real option for shooting actual projects. The fact that the 14mm looks so clean and the 17mm so dirty means that buying one of these probably gives you as many looks as you have lenses, so potentially quite a few. I'm yet to play with how it looks at different apertures and focus distances, but they'll probably give some variety as well. The above were shot at F5.6 or so. If you stretch the 16:9 files from the GX85 you get 2.75:1 so super widescreen and you can crop the sides if you wanted to. On something like the GH7 with a 4:3 open-gate it would be almost exactly 2:1, a very useful format. It's not just MFT either. I've heard quite a number of instances where people want to go for an older look and will use a S35 cinema camera (like a RED) in a lower resolution mode and combine that with some vintage optics to get the look they want, or used the Alexa S16 mode and S16 lenses. Lots of cool stuff has been shot like that and when you have to de-squeeze in post then cropping a bit takes very little extra time on real projects. In a way these are perfect for low-budget anamorphic experimentation if you're interested in optics with some character and getting a range of looks from just one purchase.

I have experimented with the Beastgrip 1.33x and 1.55x adapters using full frame cameras and wide/normal to short telephoto lenses (35/40/50/75). I have tried with my slow Leica M lenses, which are usually pretty forgiving on coverage. These Anamorphics will cover full frame and are easy enough to attach to the M mount lenses with a 39 to 37 step down ring. the 1.33x is definitely a better fit for the 35 & 40mm lenses, as the 1.55x has a pretty wide FOV. Results are similar to the above samples, with soft edges and major distortion. But definitely plenty of character. Next time I take a stab at it, I'll post some samples.

On a phone the purpose of RAW video for me ideally would not to actually capture to storage in RAW but use the RAW10 uncompressed output of the sensor without Apple's processing, as a way to bypass the stock look and bake that uncompressed "Digital Bolex" look into an H.265 recording with the raw data just a temporary thing held in a buffer for the LUT and H.265 to work it's magic on in realtime. Sure LOG and ProRes RAW is great if you enjoy spending hours in Resolve and want the ultimate in flexibility but then the question is why choose a smartphone at all for that purpose when so many better options exist. What I want from a phone is the RAW look without the storage and grading hassle, and it's needed more on a phone than on any other type of camera because the stock Android and Apple looks are consumer-looking dialed-up HDR TV soap opera hell. I am working on a few iPhone apps at the moment and actually one way to bypass the stock video look is to apply a LUT to the rec.709 in realtime that adds back the tonality and character... a little like EOSHD Pro Color for Panasonic back in the day. Raw would be more ideal for this as the high digital sharpness isn't baked in.

Funny that sony raises prices and blackmagic cuts prices. Allthough for me with the storage space costs at the moment. Braw isnt cutting it. It is better then h265, sure. But I just cant justify the storage costs. I wished they included compressed prores again. Love blackmagic though, it has an amazing look. I think I owned lost of their cameras until the pyxis. But its shitty on gimbals, and storage adds up, not as much as the nikon zr though. I hope nikon announces good news on IBC in a couple of weeks. My c500ii will do for now.

Yeah - sounds almost as good as Fuji already. 😅

Quick review after the shoot this morning. I used the Pyxis as a roaming camera for a lecture hall presentation, so it was basically a 4th angle... which is a good thing. Face detect is a no-go for this situation; too many faces. I normally use the wide area AFC window on my Panasonics with great success panning across people in their rows, shots of hands writing and typing, group discussions, etc. I tried to replicate shooting this way with the 12K... no good. Pretty unpredictable. Sometimes it would perform exactly as I'd expect, other times it would refuse to change focus, other times it would hesitate, other times it would stutter back and forth between points. I used the Sigma 28-105mm f/2.8 today. I tested across a range of focal lengths and focus sensitivity settings. I stuck with a reasonable aperture of f/4.5 as well. It actually did better when zoomed in >85mm. Maybe the compression or blur helps it. I don't know. Overall, I'm not discouraged by this, though. This is a great first effort and I fully believe it will only get better.

It took a minute to find a link to what you're talking about. Doesn't seem to have made it to many of the usual suspect forums yet. Hopefully AF on Pyxis 12K means that the same is coming to Ursa LF sooner rather than later! https://forum.blackmagicdesign.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=239482

Well it’s happened! Blackmagic released a beta firmware adding PDAF to the Pyxis 12K. I’ve been playing around with it a bit tonight. It’s really impressive for a first effort. The face detection mode is superb for a standard solo interview. AFC is pretty great but takes a bit to get used to, because it operates a bit differently than my Panasonics. The object tracking mode is its weakest at the moment. That needs some real work. The other nice feature with this update enabling linear focus throws and the ability to set rotation degrees on focus by wire lenses. If this firmware will work with Tilta’s upcoming PL to L adapter, I’ll be veryyyyyyy happy. Going to try it out on an actual shoot tomorrow.

I also found this video below, which combines a cheap adapter from Aliexpress with 17mm rear-filter and the Viltrox 28mm F4.5 lens. He just sticks the mounting plate from the smartphone clamp for the anamorphic directly onto the Viltrox lens with tape, so hardly and ideal situation, but it is more proof of concept, and it covers FF too! Test image: Video:

Yes, the Beastgrip might well be a better candidate - not only due to having a filter thread I can convert to but also potentially with a larger rear aperture for better coverage! I found this comparison between the Moment M-series (left) and Beastgrip (right) which shows the rear openings: Some rough measurements of the Beastgrip suggest that the rectangular opening is almost exactly 17mm across, which would make the image circle significantly larger than my Neewer, which uses a 17mm threaded mount. The rectangular opening looks to be on a separate plate - I wonder if that could be removed somehow to really open up the rear element? Wow - full frame coverage! I really didn't expect that, and it's very encouraging to hear! I also realised the 1.55x makes everything pretty wide, and have been contemplating what FOVs I'd want to get and what focal length taking lenses I'd need to use to get them. You reminded me of my ultra-cheap Risepray 35mm F1.6 C-mount lens, which has a 37mm filter thread. Assuming it doesn't vignette (and therefore doesn't need any cropping) that would give me a 45mm F2.1 equivalent lens, which would be pretty good for shooting street and run-n-gun like I do.

I'd be happy to help you test it, I'll join the group later today. Have about 25 android phones!!! I can imagine how difficult it is on Android to test on so many OS and hardware combos, the number is just insane. I am actually working on a stills camera app for Android and iPhone at the moment. So have been learning the ropes for just over a year now

Do a ‘spec’ job for a non-profit that has board members with deep pockets and active businesses. Do something simple and over deliver. Make a great first impression. It’s just networking and word of mouth.

A short from Filippo Chiesa Thanks to Sony Italy, I had the opportunity to put the new FX5 through its paces on a real project I’m currently working on. I shot everything in X-OCN LT 5K open gate, using spherical lenses. The FX5’s sensor is truly wonderful, and I believe its performance sets a new benchmark for cameras of this type—and beyond.

On iPhone I’d see the practical route as DNG/ProRAW or RAW burst → custom linear/Metal pipeline → H.265/HEVC, with a much flatter, less processed look than the stock camera. Not ProRes RAW. The limitation is that iOS does not expose continuous Bayer RAW video in the same way Android Camera2 can expose RAW streams, so an iPhone version would likely be AVFoundation + Metal: RAW/DNG stills or bursts, plus a controlled HEVC mode with custom tone, colour, highlight rolloff and IT8/LUT calibration. I don’t have an iPhone to test on right now, so I can’t promise it yet. But the idea is definitely interesting. First I want to finish and publish the Android version and see if people find it useful. If the feedback is positive, I’ll try to look into an iPhone version — probably DNG/ProRAW or RAW burst into a custom Metal colour pipeline and then H.265/HEVC, rather than ProRes RAW. For me the goal is to do as much as possible directly on the phone — capture, colour, calibration, encoding, maybe even basic editing/export, Davinci style. On the PC I’d rather have a voice-driven movie editor, where you can just say what you want to cut, move, translate, subtitle, shorten or colour-match, instead of digging through endless panels. I’m also working on PocketCAD for Android and a customised WearOS/Android smartwatch project, so it’s all part of the same direction: practical tools on small devices, with more voice control and less dependence on big desktop workflows.

But but but but the Z6iii doesn't have a 4 inch rear LCD 😜

N-RAW Normal at 25 fps should be below 1000 Mbps. If I calculated correctly, N-RAW High Quality (which is similar to R3D NE) has a compression ratio of approximately 1:4 compared to uncompressed raw video (which is not available on the ZR, for obvious reasons). N-RAW Normal is about 1:8. RED's own codecs (not TicoRAW) in the (not Nikon) RED cameras range from 1:2 to 1:22 depending on settings. I suspect Nikon didn't implement the lower quality TicoRAW in the R3D NE codec (although both Normal and High Quality are available in N-RAW) because of the additional quality loss, and as a matter of protecting the quality expectations associated with the RED brand. They could be simply trying to impress. The ZR body is quite lightweight and slim, and adding more heat sink materials, a fan etc. to enable better quality compressed codecs would have made it larger and heavier, as would adding more hinges and mechanics to make the back LCD screen more flexible in the angles that are offered. I can imagine a bunch of things that could be wanted, such as full size HDMI, SDI, XLR, etc. connectors. THe ZR is probably as small and light as Nikon could make while enabling long recording times and R3D NE recording. Rather than focus on the data rates, I am puzzled at the lack of fully featured software support for the raw video formats. Some formats (R3D NE) reportedly offer a good visual match between what you see on the camera LCD with LUT applied but if you want to apply distortion corrections, a separate transcoding utility need to be applied to convert the footage to Prores. With N-RAW you can get lens profiles applied in Davinci Resolve, but the color doesn't apparently look like how it was on the camera display (?). If you use Premiere, N-RAW is shown with RED's Log profile, which then is different from what you see on camera in the view assist mode. People complain that you cannot cut the R3D NE and remove parts and rewrite the edited footage in the R3D NE format, instead it has to be transcoded into something else before the trimmed footage can be stored (if it is stored in R3D NE format the file does not get smaller). With N-RAW you can cut parts out and store it in N-RAW, so why is this different for R3D NE? Or did I get I could have gotten some parts wrong but to me it seems the software support is as much missing as the camera firmware, and the raw video is sort of an experimental feature at this point. Some comment and seem to think that to get the maximum quality is essential but then complain that the resulting files are too large, even though they are compressed at 25% of original data size, and further compression visibly reduces the image fidelity. I think for video there has to be a realization that you cannot get still-camera like detail and expect small file sizes. A compromise needs to be made. I like using Prores 422 HQ 4K on the Z8 as it allows the distortion profiles to be applied based on lens type and still looks fantastic to my eye, while avoiding the 8K. I can immediately tell the h.265 (which in Nikon's case is always 4:2:0) does not have as rich color on textured, colorful clothes as the 422 codec. Absurd in-camera file sizes, almost as big as 6K RAW? Yes, but it just looks gorgeous and is easy to edit. I delete the original files once I'm done with editing. I can't imagine shooting 8K RAW but with a 6K camera the RAW option is a possibility, once storage costs go down. At the moment the cost of a fast external SSD I got 3 years ago is three times as high as it was in 2023! Hard drives seem less affected and are a possibility for long-term storage, but for editing the SSDs are better. About your lens preferences, the 50-150/2.0 is 4599€ here, quite pricey! Although a set of f/2.0 primes would also be expensive, and together would be heavier, I still would choose the primes for their smaller size in hand, or use the 70-200/2.8 as a classic choice which is available on all major mounts. But I can see that a portrait and event-oriented photographer might prefer the f/2.0 zooms over primes or the f/2.8. I don't think the f/2.0 zooms will become mainstream though, as the f/2.8 are very high quality, lower priced, and have greater range.

I’ve come close to pushing the ZR button a few times now and there are really only 3 things that have prevented me doing so… 1. The file sizes of that Red Raw codec. Apparently N raw is the next best option and there are of course some ‘workarounds’, but until there is a compressed version that maxes out at no more than 1000 mbps, it’s just too much and one of the principal draws of this camera is the Red codec. 2. I’m not unhappy with L Mount. In fact the opposite except for one factor and that is the absence IMO of equivalent lenses to Sony’s: 28-70 f2, 50-150 f2 and Tamron’s 35-100 f2.8. It’s ‘almost’ worth switching just for these lenses alone, but that last word, ‘alone’, but alone is not enough and lenses aside, everything else that L Mount, specifically Lumix offers, beats that of Nikon & Sony. 3. I still have hope that from within the L Mount Alliance, over the coming Winter and next Spring, either (or even both) a rangefinderesque camera will appear from either Lumix or Sigma and at least one rival for one of the lenses above, will appear. Unlikely to be a Leica, but next gen FP a possibility and even more likely, an S9ii? 4. Bonus reason, - switching not only costs money, but there is always a settling in period with any new system that frustrates. So my set up now just works, I have it and I like it and as above, my only real crit is with regard to certain lenses, but the ZR body style just appeals to me and I would like that rear LCD, but ideally as a fully articulated unit which is a bit of a missed opportunity IMO.

I agree. I had an EOS-M when it was first hacked, sold it, and then broke my own rule and bought it again when Crop Mood hit. Now I have two of them: one built up, and one bare bones. And the developers are improving it all the time -- especially lately. Have you checked out Amit's new builds? They are based on Bilal/Danne's last release so they are seemingly just as stable, if not a little more-so. But the new UI is great, and he seems to be unlocking a new feature every day!

Canon EOS-M with Magic Lantern in 1:1 mode. These are the resolutions currently available: 3072 × 1308 2880 × 1226 2560 × 1440 2520 × 1080 2160 × 1620 (doesn't work with a monitor plugged in) 1920 × 1280 Yes, there's a major crop. And yes, it is possible to overload the buffer with the 3K and 2.8K modes when shooting 12-bit. And rolling shutter is pretty terrible. But it's a digital 16mm camera with 1:1 readout that shoots raw. Practically no moire or aliasing. And a beautiful image (one of my favorites right now, bar none). Plus, one developer has been making major updates to the UI and simplifying the menus in the past 2-3 weeks. It's like a whole new camera.

As a person who is waiting for used ZR prices to drop a bit more before picking one up, this all sounds good to me. 😅

At least so it seems https://www.dpreview.com/news/panasonic-did-what-apple-sony-and-nikon-couldnt-overturn-a-red-raw-video-patent/

The ZR is a smaller and lighter body and thermal management could be the issue. The Z8 and especially Z9 have a lot of mass that includes heat sinks that help keep components cool. None of them have cooling fans. The Zf (the one with the dials) is another smaller and lighter body (compared to Z8; it is not nearly light as the ZR) and it's actually quite easy to get it to get hot in stills shooting. Nikon made a choice to keep the ZR design quite thin without a built-in fan, and to make long recording times available, they seem to have compromised on the shadow noise reduction algorithm to reduce processor load, the result is a h.265 codec which in log mode is soft. They have indicated that they are working on a firmware update with a higher quality h.265 in mind.

There is one important point here : ) A Japanese decision invalidating the Japanese patent does not, by itself, kill equivalent patents in the US, Europe or anywhere else (even if they belong to the same patent family). Patent rights are territorial and each national right has, legally speaking, its own existence within its own jurisdiction. So no, compressed RAW has not suddenly become free for everyone everywhere : ) What is interesting is something else: if the claims are substantially equivalent (and that is obviously the important bit), the reasoning used in Japan may well become useful ammunition in other validity challenges. That is why, for me, the really interesting question is what Panasonic (or anyone else) does next. If equivalent RED claims start falling elsewhere too (particularly in the US), then yes, we may be looking at a very different landscape. - E. :- )

That works for long-term storage, but there are really two separate problems here. Transcoding R3D NE to H.265 solves the archive size. It does not solve the card capacity, ingest time, temporary disk space or transcoding time. A more efficient compromise might be to keep R3D NE only for the selects that actually benefit from RAW flexibility, then batch-transcode the rest to H.265 in REDWideGamutRGB / Log3G10. So the weak internal H.265 still matters. The workaround is viable, but it moves the cost from storage to workflow.

Why does nobody talk about the FX2? Much better value for money!

If you can afford the cards and temporary space on an internal drive, you could shoot in R3D NE in camera and then after transferring the files to the computer, convert it to log h.265 and delete the original files. By doing this you can get high-quality h.265 and avoid the long-term accumulation of storage otherwise needed for the raw files, not much different from having a high-quality h.265 codec in the camera, apart from the fact that you would need large memory cards and some space on the computer's internal drives for this step. I'm not trying to make an excuse for Nikon for the h.265 but suggesting a workaround who have this camera for one reason or another, and need a practical workflow.

Compressed RAW is probably the part I'd focus on before adding more film simulations. For the dropped frames, a small diagnostics page could be useful: sensor timestamp delta, queue depth, compression time per frame, sustained write MB/s and dropped-frame count. That should make it much easier to see whether the bottleneck is capture, compression or storage. I'd also preserve per-frame black/white levels and WB/colour-matrix metadata where the device exposes them. Especially useful if you want the RAW processing and calibration to remain consistent across ISO changes. Interesting project.

I bought one and ended up selling it. While the RED NE looks great, it's way to much data for what I shoot and the H265 is terrible, I can't understand how Nikon does not understand the urgency of fixing it.....

Hey gang, been a while. At first glance this FX5 felt a bit underwhelming but looking closer its a pretty substantial update. On paper the frame rate/resolution bump over FX3 looks small, 4K to 5K isn't a leap that sells itself, and I get why some are skeptical. But I don't think the gains are actually small once you look past resolution. Also want to bring the A7R VI into the conversation, since it was announced just recently and shares the same sensor, and does some clever things of its own. It varies its subsampling by mode: 8K comes from an 8.2K region (1.22x crop), while 4K is read from the full sensor width but subsampled from a 5K portion, roughly 2:1 binning, and rolling shutter scales almost exactly with that ratio between modes. That's actually smart sensor use for a hybrid body, flexible readout depending on what you need, high-res stills and video modes both on tap from one chip without a fixed binning scheme. Arguably a more versatile use of this sensor than the FX5's fixed video-only binning, if you need both stills and video from a single body. But for video-only work, FX5 still pulls ahead in what actually matters day to day. The RAW is the real story, 16-bit X-OCN, same bit depth as Burano/Venice 2, and the C1/C2 compression tiers are genuinely efficient, undercutting even the FX3's own compressed 10-bit codec at 4K24p. Triple base ISO and the selective dual-gain shadow cleanup add up to real, usable gains, albeit slower readout speeds a la S5ii. Oh and open gate, Sony finally caught up. On price, worth noting Sony's being smart splitting the handle and EVF out separately rather than bundling, it softens the sticker shock even though fully kitted you're still at a whopping €6,800 here, FX6 money for a mirrorless body with no NDs, SDI etc. That's the one thing hard to swallow. Went Canon with the C50 myself a couple months back, still very happy with it, dual OS is best of both worlds and the various crop modes and digi zoom punch-in flexibility over the 7K spec I rarely touch. For about 3K with the awesome XLR top handle included, it fit my wallet and needs, no regrets. Bottom line: For Sony hybrid users that need stills over RAW, do take a look at the A7R VI, smart camera with impressive specs. For video only, no real flaws on the FX5 and some serious upgrades: RAW, open gate, triple ISO, dual gain, tilt EVF option..all genuinely exciting if you can swing the price. Personally I wish they would have left a stills option (even 16MP e-shutter mode) but I have no doubts the FX5 will become industry standard for years to come. But I also don't think FX3 is going obsolete anytime soon either.

Hi everyone, I’m wondering if anyone here has tried to build a small digital RAW camera specifically around Normal 8mm / Regular 8mm cine lenses, especially D-mount zooms like the SOM Berthiot Pan-Cinor 8–40mm. The idea is not to make another action camera or phone rig, but something closer to a tiny indie digital 8mm camera: small sensor matched to the Normal 8mm image circle D-mount flange distance RAW10 / RAW12 capture global shutter if possible simple HDMI preview recording to SSD film-like color pipeline: linear matrix, log curve, gentle highlight roll-off maybe later: piezo micro-shift or a controlled “organic” sensor/optical movement to reduce the fixed digital feel I have been looking at sensors/modules such as Sony IMX900 and AR0234. The IMX900 seems more realistic as a ready Raspberry Pi 5 camera kit, but the AR0234 is very attractive because it is cheap, global shutter, 1920×1200, RAW10, and available in color and monochrome versions. The problem is the usual one: MIPI carrier board, Raspberry Pi compatibility, V4L2/libcamera driver, power rails, initialization registers, etc. The goal would be around 1080p or 2K rather than fake “4K”, because these old Normal 8mm lenses have their own character and don’t need a huge modern sensor. I’m more interested in a compact RAW camera with a real vintage 8mm optical look than in maximum resolution. Has anyone here tried something similar? I would be especially interested in: D-mount digital camera experiments Normal 8mm lens coverage on modern sensors Raspberry Pi / Jetson / RK3588 MIPI RAW capture AR0234 or IMX900 RAW workflows custom small camera bodies monochrome sensor + RGB filter experiments piezo sensor shift / film gate weave simulation I’m currently trying to understand whether it makes more sense to use a ready IMX900 Raspberry Pi kit, or to go deeper with a cheaper AR0234 OEM module and somehow solve the carrier board / driver problem. Any experience, links, warnings, or crazy ideas welcome.

Hi, you are not being rude at all 🙂 happy to have a convo as we all use our gear differently. Unfortunately where I failed was assuming the H265 was normal, at the time of purchase it seemed like a perfect camera for most projects where for higher end stuff you could shoot red code and for more lower-end project (talking heads/ social content) you could shoot H265. The 2 surprises once we started shooting with it was just how massive the red code is compared to other red cameras (we also have other reds with other DOPs on projects) and how unusable the H265 is So camera was sold and we're back to using Lumix's / Sony FX for lower end projects and Pyxis 12/Komodo for higher end projects. This is just my use case in my little world..... I know we all have different wants and needs 🙂

I have very simple needs and if I was forced, I could shoot ML Raw in 1080p on my 5Diii for the foreseeable future. I posted a video here a while ago from some Nordic guy that mixed 5Diii/ML Raw with Osmo Raw drone footage and I was blown away by the Osmo Raw. At the time, the camera by itself was too rich for my blood, but I couldn't deny the image. On the complete opposite scale, I recently used my friend's Pocket 3 and I must say that it reminded me of my camcorder days, where you just collect footage in as interesting ways as possible to tell the most important thing... the story. That said, I would be an instant buyer of a $2000 raw video version of the Osmo Pocket camera... preferably with a larger sensor, but I would be okay with the 1" too if need be. I can only imagine how much fun the pro version is... even with its headaches?

Honestly, I am a little confused. Why buy the ZR if you want an h.265 codec camera? The ZR will probably be my next camera purchase but I am buying it for the RedCode Raw/n-raw and 32bit float audio. I wish there were better 4K raw options but that doesn't exist so I'm going to deal with it, I won't buy it and then say... Nikon needs to fix the lack of 4K raw options in the camera that I already knew didn't have good 4K raw options. If I decide to shoot 4K for "lesser" projects, I'll just use the ProResHQ with n-log or even Nikon Flat for certain things. I don't mean to be rude, but there are so many cameras on the market that shoot great full frame h.265. Raw video isn't for everybody, nor should it be.

Nikon are in trouble. Camera sales down 22%. RED suffering in the filmmaking downturn. Patent has lost the biased ref. 1-0 down and could be 5-0 by full time.

Ouch! I thought H.265 was fixed in the last update... I was wrong.

The main reason these patents have been considered legit in the US patent system despite the so-called inventions being obvious to any technical person familiar with photography, is probably that the US patent office's main purpose is to protect the interests of US-based companies, such as RED, against foreign businesses. Rational arguments don't necessarily apply, if the case involves a US vs. foreign manufacturer and the litigation happens in the US. Now, since a Japanese company (Nikon) currently owns RED, it's quite possible the US position also changes (not because of Panasonic's arguments but because there is no longer a US-owned business interest for the US patent office to protect). It is difficult see how a Nikon lawyer would defend these patents with a straight face, so their arguments may be ineffective. Anyway, most camera manufacturers nowadays seem to have some raw video capabilities in their cameras so the issue is not that pressing any more. It made sense for Nikon to buy RED to gain expertise and a presence in the mid and higher end video markets, irrespective of any patent issues. What do users complain the most about the first Nikon video camera? That the raw video files are too big. So, why was there so much fuss about the patents anyway, if people don't actually want to use raw video recording in practice?

This has to be fixed! I'll ask Jarred about this (particularly about the possibility of a lighter R3D NE option) and see what he says (E. :- )

You are totally correct, however a fair bit of what I (we) shoot is delivered at the end of the the day, and TBH I can't bring myself to delete OG files when our productions are in the six digits. I ended up buying two 1TB owc cards, but still download and backing up to hard drives for a client and or producer end of a shoot day and asking them to hang around for another 40 min after a 12-15 hour day is not pleasant. Also I've seen this a few times on set where they shoot Raw and convert over to PRR LT without utilizing any of the raw capabilities and then deleting the raw, which makes me always wonder why shoot raw in the first place!!!!

The FX2 makes a lot more sense than people give it credit for. If you actually need open gate, internal RAW, 4K120 or the stacked sensor, then sure: FX5. If you don't, you're paying nearly another $2K for features you may never use. FX2 gives you full frame, 4K60, S-Log3, proper AF and an EVF already built in. For a lot of jobs that's enough. Different job. Different tool.

Indeed. So much empty space reserved for ads, the content just looks completely lost and every single change they've made to every single detail and feature feels like a massive downgrade, their tools and feature comparison database for example... now almost unusable. Yet still they pat themselves on the back for a job well done. Typical isn't it!

I quite liked it, but do know that if you're trying to capture anything with sound, the fan noise on the raw is really obnoxious. The image was pretty nice, though!

If you have 20 mm and 60 mm as the equivalent focal lengths that are available, the wider angle makes sense for including oneself in the footage, and showing a bit of environment, which must be a common thing in social media. However, at least I would preferentially shoot with 35 mm or 50 mm a lot of the time. By starting with an 8K sensor, you can get more detailed crops that mimic those lenses at least in angle of view. Of course, you lose light in cropping so the quality won't be the same as using one of the native options, but it is probably less damaged than if you start with a 4K sensor and crop from 20 mm to (say) 50 mm. I'm personally perfectly happy shooting in 4K with a 35 mm full-frame mirrorless camera and doing a bit of cropping doesn't really bother me, but the camera that I use makes the 4K footage by downsampling from 8K resolution, so even in the 4K file (typically for me Prores 422 HQ), there is a better starting point for cropping than if I had shot with a 4K native sensor camera (due to the Bayer sensor not registering all colors for all pixels natively). I think 20 mm would be extremely wide to shoot everything with (that's what the DJI Pocket 4P's magical sensor produces, 20 mm equivalent footage), and I'd want to moderate the angle of view a lot of the time to something in the 35 to 50 mm range. Thus the sensor resolution is likely to play some role in the practical quality that can be obtained. Although I like the idea of a camera that has a gimbal and can be just taken out of the bag and used, and I commend DJI for bringing the long-in-development LOFIC sensor into an actual consumer product, neither of these cameras (luma ultra and Pocket 4P) are really for me as I basically never do videos with myself in the footage, and the 20 mm equivalent angle of view is just not what I want from a video camera. Cropping (to get an acceptable angle of view) from a small-sensor camera is going to make noise more visible and detail less clear. I think use of a gimbal on a heavy full-frame mirrorless camera is painful for the setup that is required. Eventually I think some good compromises will arise, with moderately light total weight, internal (optical) zooms that don't require recalibration after FOV change, better integration of camera controls into the gimbal user interface, and some digital signal processing that is optimized to reduce the gimbal motor noise from on-camera audio tracks (this will require work on the motors themselves and the processing) are likely to make things more practical for me, but for now most of the time my gimbal is just not being used. With regards to the dynamic range, I'm used to slide film from long ago and when using it (for still photography) it was essential to photograph in what we called good light, which meant light that was suitable for the material, with no exposure latitude whatsover, and I still try to choose where I shoot so that the subjects and the scene will look good straight out of the camera where possible. With my camera the top video dynamic range is 12 stops and I've not run into anything that would make that feel inadequate, given the starting point of acceptable conditions for photography to begin with, in fact it feels wildly liberating what kind of post exposure adjustments are possible today. I would argue that if there is a situation which requires higher dynamic range, then alternatives probably result in better quality: use lighting for the main subjects in the foreground. If the scene can't be lit then shoot in a location which gives better results without lighting. Post-processing has its limits and I would argue it is not easy to mimic really good lighting on a scene with high contrast but no light (or too little light) on the subjects in post-processing. However, if you can use and benefit from 17 stops of dynamic range, by all means use it if available. I think my life is easier by carefully choosing where the original material is shot.

I think the gap isn't another database of specifications. We already have plenty of those, and the old DPReview reviews are still remarkably useful for understanding what a camera was when it launched. What seems to be missing is a "today" layer. How easy is it to live with in 2026? Are batteries and accessories still readily available? How well does the codec fit modern editing workflows? Are there reliability issues that only became apparent over time? What does the current used price actually buy compared to newer alternatives? I'd also like to see a stronger filmmaking angle rather than just image quality. Some older cameras still have a rendering or shooting experience that makes them genuinely enjoyable, even if they're objectively behind in dynamic range or autofocus. Most launch reviews answered, "Is this a good camera today?" The more interesting question now is, "Who is this camera still a great tool for?"

Have you thought about background continuity too? With people and traffic constantly changing, wouldn't traditional coverage sometimes make things harder rather than easier when you get to the edit? I wonder if longer takes, a few selective close-ups and plenty of B-roll might actually suit this kind of shooting better. ☺️

I question the need for 8K for any use. I understand some people shoot in uncontrolled ways and would rather reframe in post than compose their shot during capture. I understand people like Fincher prefers working this way. I understand that it is great to have extra resolution for VFX. But how many users of these types of cameras need these features? We're not discussing sweeping Hollywood sci-fi epics. That said, I believe the next huge indie film, shot from some kid in the middle of nowhere, will probably use one of these cameras. So if having 8K slates helps the vision come to life... that's really great. For me, I'd rather have the extra DR and I'd love that Osmo Raw that @eatstoomuchjam referenced. Hell, I may be able to afford that now. Hmm.

Thanks, I'm looking for a more human approach though.

Exactly. What you call availablism is central here. But with Wong Kar-wai it never feels merely opportunistic. The available does not remain simply available. It becomes emotional architecture. Pre-handover Hong Kong gave him the lights, the colours, the cramped spaces, the corridors, the streets, the reflections and the limitations. But the art is in turning those given elements into mood, memory and desire. That is the difference between just using a location and allowing the location to become part of the film’s inner life. In that sense, the uncontrolled city is not only a background. It becomes a collaborator. Wong Kar-wai does not simply take what is there. He finds what is hidden inside what is there.

I hear you. I was also disappointed to see the newly released DPR studio results clearly indicating that. The Nikon NEF file holds more detail at higher ISO for sure. When it comes to H.265, it is all about implimentation and we'll have to see what is not enough vs what is too much in real use. I'm not ready to make a judgement yet. The H.265 in the Z8 has been criticized for smearing and in time Panasonic might be skewered for being too aggressive with NR too, but on the contrary, I've yet to hear of compromises in detail with the S1Rii. This still is from Cam Mackey's recent video. Skip to 19:45 for more of this.

Panasonic uses NR on still RAW in a still oriented camera, let alone video. Reviewers bash Nikon for its h.265 implementation that doesn't allow to disable NR, but say nothing when Canon/Panasonic doesn't allow to disable it on RAW!