ac6000cw

Aren't most Sony APS-C cameras (including the ZV-E10, but not the FX30) well known for having high levels of rolling shutter distortion in 4k? A quote from dpreview's review of the ZV-E10 (which is still online at the moment): Not a problem if you shoot video content which doesn't show it up (or stills with mechanical shutter), but it's certainly one of the main reasons their APS-C cameras have never been on my shopping list (as I often shoot content which really is badly affected by it).

...and also don't/can't possibly remember the sometimes scratched, fuzzy, grainy, cue-dotted n-th generation distribution prints (with mono sound and worn sprocket holes) that played in the average neighborhood cinema... while at university I sometimes projected 16mm prints for the film society and they were decidedly 'well used' at times. I guess they think the pristine 'digitally restored' old movies they see today are what they really looked like to the average cinema customer 'back in the day' 🙂.

Yep! (...still enjoy reading about the 'better' cameras though - GAS addiction? 😉🙂)

Yes, I very well know that - it's the main reason I use micro-4/3 cameras and long telephoto lenses for wildlife video and stills. Full-frame lenses of equivalent 'reach' are far to large and heavy for me to want to carry around, so I accept some picture quality compromises instead e.g. low-light performance. If you want to keep the lenses small, then use 'cropped' sensors e.g. APS-C or micro-4/3 (or maybe use 'APS-C' lenses on full-frame sensor cameras - I think Sony and Panasonic support that at least, maybe Canon and Nikon too). You just have to decide which set of compromises you can live with... I agree. Whenever I look back at video I shot in the past on VHS-C, DV and HDV tape, plus a variety of small-sensor cameras (like HX9V and FZ100), and compare it to 1080p let alone 4k from my Pana G9, I'm reminded how much video consumer/prosumer quality has dramatically improved over time...(as have camera stabilisation and the displays we view it on).

Have you tried using https://camerasize.com/compact/ to compare the size and weight of various camera and lens combinations? It's a great tool for quick visual size comparisons of the top, front and back views (and hovering the mouse pointer over a camera or lens picture will pop up dimensions and weight info). For example, this is a comparison of A7c, FX30, A7 IV, R8 and X-T4 - https://camerasize.com/compact/#858,895,883,903,841,ha,b

An inner foam layer with a 'furry' that fits over it works quite well e.g. below is what Boya supply with the BY-PVM50: (In that case you have to put the foam inside the furry first, then slide the whole thing over the mic barrel - it's really hard to pull the furry over the foam when it's already on the barrel !)

Yes - this is an 'exploded' view of it all (the foam is a trimmed-down cheap vocal mic pop shield): ...and it all fitted on the TM-2x: I've bought a few windmuffs from 'windcutuk' on Ebay over the years- they seem decently well made and work OK, and they do one for the TM-2x - https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/165305982845?hash=item267d011f7d:g:7wIAAOSwks5ghLpY This is their windmuff on my Tascam DR-05 recorder:

Yes, it's 'OK-but-not-great'. I use an old Rycote fur 'windjammer' (which I owned before I bought the TM-2x) over a foam windshield. The windjammer is large enough to cover most of the mic plus foam, not just the capsule part like the Tascam one does. If you want to keep it small and it's not too windy, try using just a reasonably thick foam windshield (from memory, the included foam one is a bit thin).

I've sent you a PM with a link to a video file of mine (just trimmed, no EQ or other processing and with plenty of bass) using a TM-2x, in case it might help. (I'm afraid it's 50 FPS though, as I'm firmly on that side of the FPS divide....😉 🙂)

I'm only an amateur, but I fully agree. I my case I just don't want to carry lots of (or large) gear around and I mostly shoot handheld, so the mics I mentioned are (for me) a sensible compromise between sound quality and size.

See below - from the left, BY-MM3 (without muff), TM-2x (side and front views) and BY-PVM50 Echoing what @newfoundmass said upthread, I think it sounds pretty decent (for a relatively low-cost, compact, stereo mic) and the camera viewfinder is still usable because it doesn't extend back much from the hotshoe. I think the capsules are the same as Tascam use on their low/mid-end handheld recorders. The bass end isn't subterranean, but it's fine with a bit of EQ, and I think it's generally smooth sounding but not super-detailed. I can't compare it to a Rode Stereo Video Mic Pro (which I think is what is pictured in your first post?) as I've never owned one (it's too large for me to consider using on relatively small mirrorless cameras).

Also the small/cheap recorders in general (I own several) don't make much attempt at isolating the mic capsules from the recorder body, so are terrible for handling noise (and pick up wind noise via body vibration, so you almost have to completely enclose them in a wind muff).

For a height comparison, these are the three relatively small stereo mics I use, mounted on my Pana G9 (which is around the same size as an S5). Tascam TM-2x (cardioid capsule X-Y stereo, plug-in power). Overall the most flexible, with a switchable low-cut filter, two sensitivity settings and a shock mount that works. Boya BY-PVM50 (cardioid capsule X-Y stereo, uses LR44 battery). The 3.5mm jack is at the rear centre of the barrel, and the mic can be moved forward and back in the shock mount. Boya BY-MM3 (omni capsule stereo, plug-in power). This is overall the smallest/lightest/least obtrusive, but as it's non-directional it's only really suitable for 'ambient sound' recording.

Isn't that an OM-5 😉🙂

Yes, it's a nice lens (used it as my main video lens back when I had Pana G6 with a 'power zoom' toggle on the body). It doesn't support dual-IS though. The Oly 14-42 EZ pancake is also 'OK' and has zoom and focus rings instead of toggles, so is a bit nicer to operate. I think build quality is better on the Pana lens though. Oops - yes, quite correct, I was thinking about the mid-range 20MP Pana cameras (GX9, G95, G100 etc.) when I wrote that, which have 1.25x crop in 4k. No excuse really as I own a GX85... I suspect the processing chips could do 100Mbps All-I 1080p, but having lots of video mode choices in a mid-range camera (aimed at ordinary buyers/users instead of video enthusiasts like us) I think would just be regarded as confusing.

The Pana 14-140mm f3.5-5.6 is not much larger/heavier and has better OIS (but it's much more expensive used). It's been my main 'travel' lens for years. Apart from market segmentation and heat issues, I suspect the processing chips used in the lower-end cameras can't support it. They also have major crops in 4k and pixel-binned (probably) FHD, versus uncropped and over-sampled video in G9/GH5/GH6.

The pretty small GX800/GX850 & GX880 do have 4k video capability at 24/30p (& 25p for GX800), limited to 5 minute clips (20 minutes for 1080 60p, I think). There is no manual exposure control for normal video but you can use the 'Flkr Decrease' menu setting to fix video the shutter speed to 1/120, 1/100, 1/60 or 1/50. However '4k photo' mode gives you video with full exposure control - but it's 4k30p only... No viewfinder but you do get a flip-up screen. I own a (silver) GX800 - it's rather plasticky feeling but it works well enough (and at least it doesn't have the IBIS noise interference onto the audio that the - otherwise superior but larger - GX80/GX85 suffers from).

Having been a confirmed (amateur) Panasonic micro4/3 user for years, I dipped a toe in the Olympus world after the OM-1 came out and the used prices for the E-M1 iii dropped dramatically. My Pana G9 beats it hands-down for basic video quality, but for me the E-M1 iii is such a nice camera hold and use (it fits my hands perfectly) that it's become the camera I take out most often. Battery life is excellent, as is the (adjustable strength) IBIS. You get used to the menus eventually... The GX85 is another 'feels great in the hand' camera, so my usual travel cam is a GX85 with an Oly 14-150mm lens (overall smaller than some actual 'superzoom' cameras), and the G9 is the 'max video quality' and 4k50p option. (Also got a cupboard full of other Panasonic cameras - G80, GX800, G6, LX100, LX7, and far too many lenses! )

Reviving an old thread, but if anyone is interested in the Harrison Consoles plugins, at the moment Plugin Boutique has six of them on offer at £8.95 each (mastering EQ, Legacy EQ, multiband compressor/expander, spectral compressor, a de-esser and a vocal processor) - see https://www.pluginboutique.com/manufacturers/302-Harrison-Consoles?s=price_asc

The problem is probably caused by 10-bit files and/or too high resolution. I think 10-bit is more likely to be the problem on older TVs e.g. ones that don't support HDR etc. As Michael S says, for maximum compatibility use common/older formats e.g. H.264/AVC 8-bit 4:2:0 1080p

But 6.2k frame size is 6240 x 4160 (from the file info you posted), which is approximately 3 x the pixel count of 3840 x 2160 UHD (25958400 vs. 8294400 pixels) So in terms of compressed bits-per-pixel it's basically the same - 88 bpp for 6.2k @2284Mbs, 87 bpp for UHD @720Mbps

Surely the important thing is: does using auto-iso all the time work for you, in the shooting situations/environments you experience? Personally (as an amateur) I basically use auto-iso all the time, because I'm nearly always filming documentary stuff outdoors in uncontrolled lighting conditions that sometimes can change very quickly. It's one less thing to think about and adjust manually, when I'd rather be concentrating on keeping things framed sensibly and in focus. For me it means I'm more likely to get usable footage of e.g. wildlife and other 'in the moment' events. If you are using auto-iso, remember that exposure/light metering settings will affect the behaviour of it, so you might need to change those to suit the subjects you are filming (like you have to with AF settings sometimes). Modern cameras are pretty good at dealing with most situations, but they can't know how you want the image to look in difficult situations e.g. in a very high contrast situation, is it better to burn out some of the highlights or lose some of the deep shadow detail? - that's an artistic choice...

Another thought if weather sealing and top-notch IBIS in a fairly compact ILC body is important are the Olympus/OMDS E-M5 iii and OM-5. Both have PDAF and basically the same video quality (up to DCI4k@24p & UHD4k@25/30p) plus mic inputs. Essentially the E-M5 iii is most of an E-M1 ii and the OM-5 is most of an E-M1 iii in smaller & lighter bodies. You lose the dual card slots, the headphone jack and the large battery (and Log video on the E-M5 iii). Never owned either of them, but I do own the E-M1 ii & iii - the video C-AF is definitely more flexible and better behaved on the E-M1 iii and you get auto-iso capability in manual exposure video. That also has adjustable movie IBIS (3 levels) but I don't know if that has carried over to the OM-5 (the user guide for it doesn't go into that level of detail).

I'd also vote for the GX85/GX80, maybe paired with the 12-32mm 'pancake' zoom and the 25mm F1.7 prime - both are cheap used, lightweight & good. It's just a nice, solid-feeling camera to hold and use, and has in-camera battery charging. One downside for video is the noisy audio (and no mic input). Mine usually has an Oly 14-150mm lens on it, and I use it as my travel 'superzoom' camera - laid on its side that combo fits in quite a small camera bag (or I put a neoprene wrap around it and stuff it into a small bag or rucksack). The LX100 is smaller and lighter and has a nice fast lens, but the rear screen is fixed and the stabilization for video is mediocre (as is the video C-AF). IMHO it's a great camera for stills but only 'OK' for video. (I own the first version, have never tried the mk2 version).

AFAIK, it's a Canon designed and manufactured sensor. According to the info here - https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-R6-Mark-II.aspx - it's front-side illuminated and non-stacked, so relatively 'old tech' in design terms.