EduPortas

Yes, but the thing is most audiences have become accustomed to these clinical/sanitized products and consider it the new "normal". They will gobble it up just because it's been released on Nflx or Amazon Prime and has a high level of techical polish but little depth. They think it's cool because it's new and since it's new it must be cool, right? As many have said, with most new shows and movies the agenda is so obvious it hurts. Yet after watching high-quality material (cine or TV) I like to reflect and ponder about the ideas inside the narrative, not become partisan to X o Y cause. Isn't that what cinema is all about?

Was thinking about the exact same thing today after watching some of Herzog's very first films from the 70s. Dude was really "out there". Sadly, we're not even on the experimenting level of cinema of the 80s-90s right now, let alone the 60s and 70s. I swear the ratio of crappy-to-respectable movies and series on Amazon and Netflix is about 9 to 1. But hey...that's what the masses want 😶

You could. But then hedge funds will start to make money off of other hedge funds betting who will go down each week. Same with stocks. They will bet upwards in price, not downwards as per usual. It's basically just a huge casino.

Because some dead French men of the XIX century and his pals made a bunch of experiments proyecting 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23 FPS. Then they arrived at 24 FPS and went "yeah, that looks about right and there's no perceivable difference between 24,25,26,27,28,29 FPS and 24 is cheaper to roll". That's the legacy. Like the wheel, why try to change what is already damn near perfect?

Obviously we are living in very different realities. We are a people who enjoy the outside world, despite high insecurity levels and overcrowding. Our weather allows that year-long. Over here enjoying a nice evening with drinks, dinner and a cool movie inside the cinema is the civilized thing to do during the weekend. We can even drink inside the movie theatre, hehe! Audiences are generally very respectful inside movie theaters. When they are not, they get shouted at until they leave the room (saw that during the last Nolan film). But that's rare and, honestly, comical. Pretty sure big movie companies will go for one last hurrah in my third-world country before migrating completely to streaming. Or at least I really hope so.

We know it is, friend. But not in a flash, more like a slow churning.

People who actually enjoy going out of their houses? 😛 Not everyone is rocking a 75-inch screen in their tailored-made domestic movie theater. If some of you guys are lucky enough to own a monster TV set and speakers then great, but going out for dinner and a movie is still a popular and accesible way to have fun. Has been like that for the last 100 years. Streaming services tend to rack-up. Their prices, as many have said, will only go up, even if we don't care for 99% of the crap Netflix and others push on their platforms. I WILL happily pay once or twice a month for cine ticket I know my family or friends will watch with me in a movie theather. Nice way to spend time and actually enjoy the outside world (facemask included).

I respect that. But the fact remains: cinema and a big ass TV in your living room are two different mediums. As such, the effects they produce are different. The way you receive content through them is different. You can'y say Western civilization without cinema. It's a ritual and a huge industry also. Are you ready to lose that?

How about going on a date? Breaking the monotony? Doing something different for a change?

Thank you. Too much has been said about Nikon exiting the camera market. Nonsense. People are forgetting that, unlike other camera companies, Nikon does not depend on video products for their survival. They can just keep trimming their camera lines until they reach equilibrium. They have started doing that. Their newer lenses seem really good (and expensive). If they stick some neat video options in their newer cameras I think it's a bonus. First and foremost, as I've said, they are photo camera company.

These are all important points, as well as the ones to mentioned previously. What we are seeing is a change of culture and a tranfer of power from big cinema distribution chains to Netflix, Amazon, HBO, etc. But here’s the catch: some of these production companies ALSO OWN their distribution service. It’s their clear and obvious interest to cut the middleman and the trend is destroying cinematic cuture. I can remember most great movies I saw in the cine theater. I remember Parasite, Dunkirk, Lord of the Rings, The Ring American version, The Ring Japanese version, Pulp Fiction, art house movies like The Witch in smaller venues. Heck, I even remember the original Dumb & Dumber! (great comunal experience with a cine packed with teenagers). But I cant’ remember even 10% of the movies I have seen on streaming services since 2013. They have little or no weight. Only my wife saves me from watching the same thing twice. “We already saw that one! Don’t you remember?”. No I don’t, sorry. They are a way to spend time, not an experience. Frankly, I can’t see large cinemas getting smaller to accomodate art movies and a select crowd. The entire industry is based on cashing in on huge blockbusters to finance smaller films that would never make it past a college script class. As you say, the plan is not sustainable. Either that or making movies takes a huge 180º degree turn and guys like Brad Pitt start charging $1,000 per project instead of $10 million.

Nikon is not a video company. Their forte is and will always be photo gear. They make very good products in that respect. A bit more expensive than the usual players, no doubt. But the quality is there. Let's be honest here guys: Nikon = Japanese ethos. Failing for them means being bought by another Japanese company. Since they are a part of the umbrella of the massive Mitsubishi group, I HIGHLY doubt we'll ever see a dramatic shift. At least not as dramatic as Pentax, which by the way still make a very good photo cameras.

I suppose it goes way back. A pride thing. Cameras, as most Japanese products, are built to last. Frequently they are over-engineered. We can criticize them a lot, but the products they sell tend to hang around much longer than competing products from other countries.

I'm actually excited about the cam. I think it's the least expensive FF interchangeable pro videocamera ever, not counting the Z cam FF model? The latter does not include a monitor or XLR handle, so the price difference is actually not that much between the two once you add those expenses. As of of right now you can purchase the FX6 for USD$7K with a 24-105 Sony lens. That's a huge price difference from older FF pro videocamera models from less than 5-10 years ago where Arri and Red were practically the only players in town. I'm not a Sony fanboy, quite the contrary, but this thing opens a new market for prosumers and videographers who are not cine buffs and don't want/need to spend 10K on extra accesories to start shooting.

Pentax is really drilling their niche product status, absolutely. As a MILC Pentax owner (Q system), I would be thrilled to get my hands on a DSLR that allows me to focus manually through the OVF. I've held off any new photographic purchases on the wake on their new APS-C camera with the "ground-breaking" OVF. We've waited long enough for an OVF SLR experiencie in a DSLR.

Why? It has RAW and costs the same as the C70, which does not. A new miniturization tax by Canon?

At $5500 body only, this ain't no amateur camera. In fact, it's the same price as the C200 with RAW, a profesional workhorse. So it's attacking that same market? I'm confused.

I agree that Sony is strangling its own APS-C with this new model. There are also older FF models by Sony that have come down in price and are still abundant. So yeah, if I were a Sony APS-C user I'd be worried (I was about ten years ago, so I sold my Sony gear, actually). Sony is clearly dividing their market: smaller and cheaper cameras like the recent ZV-1 and the bigger and more expensive FF models. The trend is V-loging, but the same gear can be used for a lot more. It's a marketing thing. Seems very clear cut.

Not "necessary", but certainly unique while shooting. Same goes for Medium Format. There's always that "look" defined by shooting perspective, lens, distance to subject, sensor size, etc. For shooting photos I much rather prefer a FF DSLR than a APS-C model. Video is debatable, though, since most of the time I'm looking at an LCD.

As someone said in another thread, as of this moment the 1DXM3 is the company's flaghship photo camera for video, not some MILC feature-happy product. That's logical: 1DXM3 is worth $6,500!

After all the drama about the R5 I've surmised some things: The "R" line is more of a toy for video than anything else. Time and time again we've seen the company push users to dedicated (and expensive) video solutions. Beggining with Canon's 5DM2 we lived through different models with some kind of video crippling: lower resolution, noisy mic inputs, and a hard recording limit. Despite all this, people bought a Canon DSLR for reliabilty and lens selection. Lens selection was adressed quickly for RF users with good and expensive glass. However, they are losing their "trustworthyness". The R5 wil NEVER replace the tank-like 5D. Never, not 5 or 10 years from now. The damage is done. Was it Canon's true intention to replace the 5D with the R5 by way of an "umbrella effect"? I'm having doubts. No manager worth his salt would have released this fiasco product. Especially not a Japanese one working at Canon. Not one that damn well knows the brand represents (boring) reliabilty. Maybe the "R" line is more of a "moonshot product". Aim high. Fail fast. Ride the mirroless wave, but always differenciate between the photo and cinema lines.

I'm afraid Canon also addresed the "fix" for virtually unlimited recording time you guys found by removing the battery and placing the little screw on the card door. Or was it by removing the little clock battery in the R5? I get confused. The new firmware states: The phenomenon in which the movie recording time available is not correctly displayed when the Date/Time/Zone is not set has been corrected. An invisible crackdown on moders? Note this is the last weasel-bulletpoint in the firmware description.

As ludicrous as it sound to the West, that's the way things are run in Japan since the XIX century, at least. The collective beats the individual. Not so in the West, where it's exactly the opposite.

This is true. Not only cameras. The thought extends to automobiles or department stores, for example. Even sumo wrestling, according to the author of "Freakonomics". Remember that one? There's a "gentlemens pact" that dominates huge companies established centuries ago. These huge interlocking companies have everthing from steel to shipyards to camera groups under one massive umbrella. They call it "keiretsu". That's one of the reasons Nikon will never "fail". Their parent comnpany is Mitsubishi. It's a national pride thing, as you mentioned.

So this is a classic case of newer is not always better. It's incredible how reviewers keep spinning the idea that the R5 is not for professionals. Of course it is! The price and specs define that by itself. Also the high price of Canon RF lenses. Professionals bought Canon because they were dependable cameras, even if they were underspec'd. To this very day you will find thousands of payed professionals using the venerable 7DM2, 5DM3/M4, and obviously the 1D in its various incarnations. They are workhorses that will ever rarely fail, unless you seriously deface them like some jackass demonstrated in a Digital Rev video way back. These new mirrorless FFs? I don't think so.