IronFilm

https://camerasize.com/compare/#704,312 With medium format set to get smaller and smaller, maybe it is silly to make FF cameras? ? It is a compromise step at every position along the way as you go up or down in sensor size. APS-C has price and size benefits (look at how big the FE lenses are! Vs APS-C) Oh and I think Fuji doesn't have 20 APS-C mirrorless cameras, rather there are a lot of their P&S models included in that size comparison chart. Nicely put!

I'm not keen on the idea of EF Mount FF mirrorless. As say the FS5 etc (to name but one of many) have shown it is perfectly possible to have a mirrorless mount and internal NDs.

http://www.red.com/tools/crop-factor Ah, Dragon 6K 16:9 is x1.35 crop. Bit bigger than 1.5x indeed, but not massively so? It isn't a dumb idea if it is the best option out there. Like you said, E mount is not an option. (ditto FZ mount) KineMount isn't ideal for LS300's intended users. (as I imagine many of them like the idea of using MFT lenses for run and gun shoots, as the camera is more targeted at videographers than cinematographers) Trying to create a new standard is rife with its own problems, so no sense using a new mount here. Isn't hard to see that if you wanted an intermediary mount on a camera that then when the JVC LS300 was launched that MFT made the most sense, and still does. Guess making cameras with permanent EF mount isn't an ideal solution either.... If they'd had a sub mount underneath then this would have been a much easier fix to be able to offer after the problem was discovered.

I'll let others be the early adopters, but if say 12 months from now it sees a substantial discount on the price, perhaps let's pretend a 50% reduction then it would be easy to put this camera on the top of any short list as a new buy. I can't see a better camera coming out in the next twelve months that is better at the sub $1K price. But at $2K it is has fierce competition from the BMPCC4K/GH5/GH5S.

If I was them, I'd have partnered with a smartphone brand, such as Zeiss has done.

? How much longer are you in NZ for?

A million plus one.

You can route almost anything to anything, would be my assumption.

Analogue was thriving! Until 1997.... I tried! But couldn't find in google the quote about the Japanese philosopher on The Great Fire of London

Nah f*ck Keynes.

I have no personal experience with that RME product, but a five second google leaves me with the gut feeling that the F series would be better (or bare minimum not worse). Take that with the big gain of salt it deserves. Oh nice, that is a fine old recorder to have. Popular over on taperssection. (not one I'd ever use on a film set though as a soundie! As ergonomics is horrible, plus other problems) Do you already have more than two wireless? If in no rush, then I guess Deity should bring out a new wireless kit this year.

It is by far one of Thom Hogan's favorite topics to hammer away on is the massive failure of Nikon (Canon is kinda guilty of this too. And even Sony!) to produce a strong line up of DX lenses. Thank goodness for Sigma (18-35mm + 50-100mm) and Tokina (11-20) for filling in these big gaps! That is where the smart money is on that date.

Purely by accident too! Canon could have put video in the 50D. But only finally did this in the 5Dmk2 because Nikon forced their hand with the Nikon D90 Sooooo... do you know yet now the impacts of The Great Fire of London?

I'm guessing I can use this as a camera for Skype chats? Well, it is something I'll find out very soon next week! My plan is to use a Halter Technical Field Monitor to listen to the Skyper call at the other end, without their voice getting picked up on my end.

You're a niche's niche! That is "only" ten years ago. I still use the D90 once every few months. Bet I'll be using a future "D750mk2" once every few months as well in 2028 I really did enjoy my Fujifilm XF1/XQ1, is a pity I broke/lost three of them while drunk....

Was this 8K? As RED Dragon 6K is basically APS-C Probably the 123rd thread about the BMPCC4K started in this forum in the future! And a Zaxcom Deva! :-o

Nikon is a relatively small company, so while they probably are tinkering away at another DSLR to come out "some time in the future", everyone's guesses as to why their releases have slowed down is because they're devoting all their resources instead to R&D for mirrorless so that they can release something really kick ass here. As it is do or die time for Nikon when they attempt the leap into the mirrorless age. 19 of the cameras in 2015/2016 are P&S types of cameras. No wonder they slowed down with those types.... Although I still wish they hadn't killed the new DL line up! That would have three more new ones in this category. oh wow, holy cr*p, that link reminded me that the D750 came out in 2014??? Now I'm feeling very old! I still want a D750 one day. And my D5200 is from 2012, I'm such an old fart.

And this ability with and love for MFT is exactly why I'm advocating for more use of MFT! :-) Multi-aspect ratio sensors in MFT are already popular with users (nobody seems to complain about that!), this is just taking the concept a little teeny bit further (from say x1.8 ish crop to x1.6 ish crop). I'd feel that is a pity if the D850 lost DX mode, but wouldn't be the end of the world. Wouldn't be a major black mark against me buying a D850 if I could only use FX (and not DX), I'd merely be stuck in the same situation as Canon uses are with their FF DSLRs with EF-S lenses locked out from being used :-/ Anyway, I think you meant it the other way round. I'm going to take this the other approach to try and figure out where our differences are: Clearly you do not think the JVC LS300 should have been a MFT S35 camera. So that gives two main options you consider it should have been instead: 1) a S35 EF camera 2) a 4/3" MFT camera Which of these two do you believe the LS300 should have been instead and why? From my perspective if it had been a S35 EF camera I doubt we'd be talking about it much, would be just yet another EF camera. If it had been a MFT 4/3" I expect the talk about it wouldn't be so much either, and what would JVC gain? Maybe maybe shave a couple of hundred bucks off its price from using a smaller sensor. Maybe, maybe. The price difference would have been small indeed. Thus my view is for a relatively small price increase (if any?) the S35 sensor made the LS300 a more versatile and interesting camera for filmmaking than if it had been a 4/3" sensor only. I suppose I'm seeing the LS300 as a 4/3" MFT camera "PLUS BONUS" While you see the LS300 as a EF S35 camera "MINUS MOUNT" Thus I see the LS300 MFT S35 as a step forward from its starting point (4/3" MFT) while you see it as a step back from your starting point? (a EF S35 camera) Arguably JVC could have marketed this better, perhaps done more bundle deals with an adapter, and even better have done a locking MFT mount like Sony has done with the E mount on the FS7mk2 and VENICE. But maybe that is something for the LS300mk2? One can hope.

Sometimes I half wonder if Zoom should have created an entirely new brand for the F8 launch. As you're better off chucking out all your preconceptions about Zoom. If the F8/F4/F8n was a "Sound Devices" name plate on it the chassis then people would be singing their high praises! Rough timeline history: F8: groundbreaking unseen tech/quality/specs for the sub $1K price point! (together with the Tentacles released the year before, this could be as game changing for sound as the HDSLR Revolution was over on the camera side of filmmaking? Kinda) F4: a year later offering much of what the F8 can do at its core but at an even lower price F8n: fixes up many of the complaints of the F8, plus adds in even more, while still keeping the sub $1K price! Obviously any of the F8/F4/F8n would be massively better for recording in the field with than your current audio interface. But which would be best specifically as an audio interface?! Dunno, I have no hands on experience with the RME Fireface 400. However if that is a lot of what you'd do then I'd strongly suggest getting the Zoom F8n as one of its new features is being able to both recorder and be an audio interface at the same time. Edit: from a very superficial 5 second google search, and from reading this thread: https://forum.cockos.com/showthread.php?t=205212 I think maybe I'll take a wild guess that the Zoom F8n (or even F4) would perform better as a USB interface than the old RME Fireface 400. But it depends I suppose on what you're recording, and how quiet you need your pre amps to be.

Nikon will carry these on for another generation, I reckon it might even be safe to bet on two more iterations of them happening (although that 2nd iteration might take a long time coming). And I bet the first release of mirrorless this year (and probably even next year) won't be direct competitors to the D5/D500 either, as those can safely carry on in their DSLR niche for a while longer. And Nikon is better off putting their focus elsewhere for their first few new mirrorless cameras. And it won't just be the D500 and D5 which carry on for at least one more generation (maybe more). Nikon F mount will carry on for a while just like A mount will, even today in 2018 there is still: a99mk2 + a77mk2 + a68

I agree, but Sony has a huge headstart. Thus Nikon has to ballpark match Sony at price/performance this year (with their two cameras plus a few lenses, and of course an EXCELLENT adapter for legacy lenses) and then strongly follow up in 2019 as well (with a DX mirrorless, plus more lenses for the new mount). That is the minimum Nikon needs to do.

Nikon didn't see Sony as its core competitor, rather its focus was on Canon. (which I suppose makes it stranger they didn't think to make a response to the C100/C300) But while being focused on Canon the problem is Nikon let Sony grow and grow until they've sneaked up right behind them to be nipping at Nikon's heels, poised to steal #2 spot from them.

Who is to say APS-C is "wrong" for MFT? It works so thus it works! Just like it is not "wrong" to use APS-C cameras with E mount which fits full frame sensors and lenses. Neither is it "wrong" of me to use a Nikon DX DSLR just because there are also Nikon FX DSLRs which use the same mount. Neither is the Pentax 645Z or the other digital medium format cameras "wrong" just because they have a mount which uses film 645 lenses which are for a larger sensor area.

The reason they're so expensive is that anything for the higher cinema market is going to be very crazy expensive by that nature, then on top of that FZ mount is was a very small niche mount (just the three cameras for it, and only one native lens ever made) which will mean anything for it will be even more expensive due to poor economies of scale. (even so, I managed to buy each of my FZ mount adapters for only around US$100ish each) And the PL mount to FZ always comes with the camera you buy, so in a sense that costs "nothing". Exactly! This. We need to judge its "success" in the context of the wider JVC line up / brand , and the LS300 (at least on this forum, and most other such filmmaking forums) is the most "successful" camera JVC has made in recent years. No. I want MFT (or E mount) cameras so that I have greater choice in what lenses I use. Sometimes a native lens will be right (such as on a gimbal, or for run and gun) and other times an adapted lens will be right. It is better to have that choice, than to not have it at all!

Plenty of native MFT lenses which cover S35: Sigma, SLR Magic, Veydra, Fujinon, Rokinon, etc And it isn't about forcing people to use adapters, but about giving people greater choice of options (you can go native, or not, simple adapters or focal reducers). And who doesn't like more freedom of choices in their life? ? I've tried to explain this before, but I'll go again, because we seem to be seeing this from two completely different perspectives: 1) people talk a lot about this camera because it has a MFT mount 2) people don't buy it because it is a JVC brand (which has almost no brand recognition whatsoever in the filmmakers world in this day and age) That makes logical sense to me as why the LS300 wasn't a massive success. (but having a MFT mount did in my eyes surely help with its sales a little, not having a MFT mount likely would have lead to ever worse sales than it already had) You seem to think it is the other way round? 1) people talk a lot about this camera because it is a JVC camera 2) people don't buy it because it is a MFT mount camera That to me makes no sense at all. Thus I prefer believing the first explanation than the second way round.