jax_rox

When a Sony battery is fully charged, all the indicator lights turn off. If he is taking them off as soon as the third green light becomes solid, then it's possible he isn't quite getting it to full charge. Also, all batteries will drain, even without being used, eventually. Especially if they're inside a device (even with it turned off). That's how a fully charged battery can become a fully discharged battery if you don't use your camera for two months. Doesn't sound like the time he's leaving it in for is enough for it to discharge that much though.

Personally, I think Sony's FZ mount is one of, if not the most versatile S35 mounts on the market. There's one lens made for it (the one I mentioned earlier) and it didn't sell very well. Doesn't stop people from keeping 'permanent' PL/EF/Nikon adapters on there, and if you want to use any other lens, just swap your adapter. The adapters are more expensive, but necessarily better and sturdier than the ones you get for an EF, E or M4/3 mount

100%. It's too sleazy sales for me. Feels too Wolf of Wall Street 'I have here a unique opportunity'.

I think you underestimate people - many don't buy on price alone, and in fact low-cost can infer low-quality, so I don't know that I would lead with it. Getting people engaged in your story is more important than the price tag - that's why commercials with great stories work much better than ones that yell the price at you over and over.

Yes. I am. I'm speaking generally about the whole way they've gone about their campaign so far.

Nowhere.. Just saying hypothetically (and referring to their earlier Facebook ads) - yes, you can say that it's a 'new age' of funding, but even the successful Kickstarter campaigns give you something other than just a price. A Kickstarter campaign that says 'Smart watch: $100' is going to be significantly less successful than one that has everything laid out in advance.

I kinda agree, but then Kickstarter always has pitch videos, specs etc. A Kickstarter that came out and said 'we're making a cinema camera' and had perks of $500 selectable between HD and 4k isn't going anywhere. Even a Kickstarter that had a story about the company and the people and why they wanted to make a new camera and what they felt was needed and blah blah blah would still go somewhere, even without specs. One page saying 'CRAFT cinema camera: Coming soon. $500 down' That Kickstarter campaign ain't gettin off the ground.

I believe so too. It's reminiscent of RED (kinda). It just feels wrong to ask for money first, or I guess advertise the cost, before really announcing anything other than that it's a camera and there'll be an HD and 4k version. The pricing is pretty damn cheap, but who knows? It could have an EF mount, a PL mount, it could have an obscure mount we've never heard of. It could be raw, it could be a 2/3" sensor, it could be anything. Advertising the price first just feels wrong, and feels kinda shady. But we'll see Monday I guess! Will they be at NAB?

The servo's not even a hand grip...? As I say, there was the F3 servo that barely any F3 users bought... I just can't see how this will be much different. Yes it will find its market. But will it be huge? What's the cinema market like for a T4.4 zoom? I don't know that its huge. What's the ENG/events market like for a T4.4 servo? I don't know.

The difference is, there's no 'cheap' option for 2/3" cameras. You've got hugely expensive zooms, or even more expensive Digi Primes. My point is merely that there's a lot of competition these days, and with the trend being towards 'faster for cheaper', one has to wonder how a slower lens will sell, regardless of the power zoom feature. The question is really - how many people want a servo so bad they're willing to fork out 10x the cost for it? I'm not saying it won't find a market. I'm just saying the market may be small. Is that where Canon wants to play? They seemed to go right for the jugular with their 17-120, which is longer and just as fast as the Fuji 19-90, with a similar weight and size. And it's cheaper. Their other cinema zooms have great glass, are generally very fast, and much cheaper than their equivalent competition (like a Cabrio or Alura). Following up the 17-120 with this.. It's just a bit.. unexpected. I'm sure the glass will be great. I just don't have faith that there's an inredibly huge market for T4.4 lenses out there..

NR has become a standard part of the DI process. It's just as common as any part of the grading process these days - at least at the level that has the budget to spend the appropriate amount of time in a suite. I saw some launch stuff for Panasonic's new VaricamLT, and even that was NR'd (to give you an idea of how commonplace it is these days). Same as the Dragon release stuff I saw..

Yeah, I get all that. It's 1/2 the size and 1/2 the weight of a (albeit already fairly small and light) Fuji Cabrio 19-90. It just seems to me like a real niche product. Sure, it might be an okay rental every now and then for a job or two. But are people really going to invest in it as an 'everyday' lens for their C(x)00? I just don't see it happening. It didn't for the F3, and I just can't see it happening with this. It may have its uses here and there, and sure some people will love it. But what does it offer, other than a servo, that other lenses that cost significantly less, don't? I just don't think it will be much of a mainstream lens - hence my question: are Canon happy playing at the edges, in the niches?

The 28-135 is still half the price, and gives you better range. It's a great lens - though does have its weird/annoying quirks I just think they would have been better making it a T2.95 and giving it a $15k price point. 1/2 the price of a Cabrio, for almost as much range, and just as fast? Awesome. 1/2 the price of their 17-120, just as fast, but with a reduced range? Awesome. Even a $20k price point for T2.95. Instead, it's slower than a 24-70mm f/2.8, with slightly more range and the benefit of a power zoom. It reminds me of Sony's power zoom for the F3. That was similarly priced, quite a nice lens... a bit faster at the wide end, significantly more range (18-252mm, with the slight tradeoff of variable aperture at the telephoto end) etc. etc. Didn't do terribly well..

Sometimes I wonder if Canon really assesses the market before spending time and money on a new product... They appear to be banking too much on their lens mount. You can basically buy an FS5 with the 18-105 f4 powerzoom lens for about the price of this lens. I just don't really know where it will sit in the market. The range is covered by both the Fuji Cabrio, and also their own 17-120, so it doesn't make a great deal of rental sense. Price-wise has already been mentioned. It's like more and more they seem to be happy to be playing in niche spaces. As with the XC10, I'm sure this will be a totally fine product. But is it much more than something that fills a small niche? Are Canon happy to be playing in small niches?

I must've misread - I never saw the 'either', which to me (as I'd said high-end, not TV), implied that you meant the TV you were working on was high-end. Hence the continued discussion on 'what is high-end' So - apologies for not reading your comment correctly The point, however, still stands - many/most big budget narrative productions (is that a better term? ) use NR when necessary.

Check out Atomos. Tell me if HDR is going to be the next big thing like I think it is =) Also, I imagine there will be a smattering of other HDR displays there..

Right?! It's reminiscent of when the Blackmagic Cinema Camera came out and the rep gleefully stated to a room full of Cinematographers that you 'no longer have to light'. I don't know how you could possibly light the most effectively for this Lytro. Even if you get it 'round-about' right, what happens when you cut in for a CU and realise that in the CU the light looks much harsher? In traditional coverage, it's immediately apparent, and you can quite easily stick a frame on it. Or what if the contrast sucks? As I say, the 3D stuff is really interesting, and would be interesting to incorporate into a more traditional camera (if that's even possible?). The rest...

Yes - very useful. Just depends on how it captures. Can I use different lenses on it? Or am I stuck with one? What size is the 755MP raw sensor? The weight and size could prove problematic for rigging.. And then - do you have to select your aperture, focus point and focal length for each shot? Because if so, you're not really saving any time anyway. Instead of spending time getting a perfect key, you're spending that time selecting focus points, apertures, etc. Quite apart from the fact that Lytro has traditionally over-hyped, and then under-delivered (though I'm happy to be proved wrong). If you could incorporate the 3d-space technology into a more traditional cinema camera... That is what I'd be interested in. Funny though, I was saying just last week to a mate of mine that the future of cameras would just be a box that captures the entire scene in 3D space, and in post you select your focus points, focal length, aperture, colour etc. etc. I didn't think we'd be a week away from a product announcement

... You mean an A7smkII?? Ahh, A-mount. I don't think Sony's particularly interested in a-mount at the moment... Realistically though, the A7smkII is that with an LA-EA4. The LA-EA4 is pretty good.

This camera will certainly have its uses. I don't, however, think it will replace/overtake traditional cinema cameras. We're already seeing more and more left to post, and budgets blow out because of it. I think the object tracking and whatever the technology around that is, is awesome. I think the rest is a bit of a gimmick which will be useful in very specific applications, but the reality of production means it's significantly easier to choose an aperture, focal point, and focal length on set than it is to sit there dialing it in for each and every shot in post. Not to mention its size, assumed cost etc. I do think it will find a place in VFX, especially big budget VFX. Seems like a perfect VFX camera (although I'd like to know more about how it actually captures the images)

Please feel free to point out the part in my post where I said TV can never be high end. I simply said TV does not automatically mean high end. There's a huge difference between Game of Thrones, your daytime soap, news footage and fishing segments on the local channel. Are all of these high end? Many television productions simply don't have the time to spend in noise reduction. But many do. You'd be surprised at the number of high-end productions that employ noise reduction on all kinds of shots. It's become a standard part of the grading process. Productions with the time and budget also often shoot with lights in the shot and then use VFX to take them out later. This stuff is much more common place than you would think. Feel free to disagree with me, but it doesn't make it any less true! Or are you suggesting you shoot for GOT...?

I said it wasn't necessary, not that it didn't happen TV =|= high end automatically. Not to take away from any of your work, but the fact that it's on TV doesn't automatically make it the high-end stuff I'm talking about

For YouTube it's not really necessary. It's used all the time in high-end work.

Bottom looks closer to what I get out of my A7s... I think many here either love to overstate things (Sony's colour 'problem' really isn't a problem - again, feel free to check out @sonyalpha on Insta) or just don't know how to use their Sony cameras...

It's coming in a firmware (possibly paid?) update. There's no reason to assume it would be any worse than FS700 raw. Also, this rumour speaks to raw stills buffer - which I guess theoretically you might be able to shoot 24 still frames per second... But what a pain in the butt... Feel free to check out @sonyalpha on Instagram and then come back and tell me Sony colours suck..