ac6000cw

Most camera comparisons are pretty worthless because you're almost never compare two cameras in the real-world, and even if you are:
They'll be from different angles, so will have different content They'll be colour graded, and matching cameras that shoot LOG is pretty easy Things like DR don't matter unless the scene has huge amounts of it, but this is rare these days Videos get compressed to within an inch of their lives by the streaming services, so anything subtle will get crunched You don't need to get that close in colour in order for people to not notice different camera angles not matching perfectly Even if camera angles don't match, it only bothers people if your film is completely crap A much more significant impact on your final film will be the features of the camera, as they make a different on set in terms of efficiency of shooting and your ability to spend any time savings on lighting, directing, etc etc Trying to improve your film by concentrating on the minute differences in cameras is like trying to improve your paintings by concentrating on minute differences in your paint brushes.

If you are really worried about that, buy it and stress-test it quickly so that you can return ASAP it if you're not happy.
But if long recording times in hot environments are important to you, then you should be looking at a camera with a fan anyway (so you don't get distracted from the enjoyable creative stuff by worrying about overheating). Otherwise avoid leaving the camera out in hot direct sun/put a sunshade over it/put a white or reflective cloth over it. And turn it off when not using it, so it's not already hot before you press the record button.

If you want to minimise the risk buying used, buy the body from a major dealer who will provide a decent length warranty and allow you to return it if you're not happy with it e.g. in the UK, Wex offer a 45-day return period and provide 12-month warranties on used gear. MPB offer 6-month used warranties, as do some of the other major UK dealers.
If you want long warranties, buy new and then buy an extended warranty from the manufacturer, or wait until the manufacturer offers a free extended warranty as a sales promotion on new bodies.

We all know that cameras produce (sometimes dramatically) different images and image quality, and yet we also know that within a given price range those same cameras typically use the same sensors from Sony and are recording to the same codecs in basically the same bitrates.  It's maddening!
So, WTF is going on?  
Well, I just came upon this talk below, which goes through and demonstrates some of the inner workings in greater detail than I had previously seen:
It's long, but here's my notes...
Firstly, how you de-mosaic / de-bayer the image really matters, with some algorithms being higher quality and require higher processing power:
(Click on the images to zoom in - quality isn't the best but the effects are visible)


If you're not shooting RAW then this will be done in-camera, and if your manufacturer skimped on the processor they put in there, this will be happening to your footage.
If the camera is scaling the image, then the quality of this matters too:

and if the scaling even gets done in the wrong colour space then it can really screw things up:

There's more discussions in there, especially around colour science which has been discussed to death, but I thought these might be illuminating as it's not something we get to see that much because it's buried in the camera and typically it's not something we can easily play with in the NLE.
All these add up to a fundamental principle that I have been gradually gravitating towards.
If you're shooting non-RAW then shoot in the highest resolution you can shoot in, and just un-sharpen (blur) the image in post.
Shooting in the highest resolution means that your camera will be doing the least downscaling (or none), and most glitches and bad processing will be at the pixel-level, which means that the higher the resolution the smaller those glitches and errors compared to the size of the image, and un-sharpening de-emphasises these in the footage.  
You might notice that all of these shortcomings make the footage sharper, not duller, so the errors have made your footage sharp but in a way that it never was - it's fictional sharpness.
Also, the more modern displays are also themselves becoming sharper, so it's no wonder that footage all now looks like those glitch websites from the late 90s that were trying to be cool but looked like a graphic designer threw up into them...

FilmLight (who make BaseLight which is the Resolve competitor that costs as much as a house) seem to be on a mission to get deeper into the image and bring along the industry on that journey, and I'm really appreciative of their efforts as they're providing more insight into things we can do to get better images and get more value from our limited budgets.

If you are really worried about that, buy it and stress-test it quickly so that you can return ASAP it if you're not happy.
But if long recording times in hot environments are important to you, then you should be looking at a camera with a fan anyway (so you don't get distracted from the enjoyable creative stuff by worrying about overheating). Otherwise avoid leaving the camera out in hot direct sun/put a sunshade over it/put a white or reflective cloth over it. And turn it off when not using it, so it's not already hot before you press the record button.

If you want to minimise the risk buying used, buy the body from a major dealer who will provide a decent length warranty and allow you to return it if you're not happy with it e.g. in the UK, Wex offer a 45-day return period and provide 12-month warranties on used gear. MPB offer 6-month used warranties, as do some of the other major UK dealers.
If you want long warranties, buy new and then buy an extended warranty from the manufacturer, or wait until the manufacturer offers a free extended warranty as a sales promotion on new bodies.

(My bold) I agree - I'm often taking video of moving vehicles where I also want the background reasonably in focus to provide context for the image, so shallow DOF just doesn't work for me/isn't the 'look' I want.
(I also often shoot wildlife stills and video - the inevitable shallow DOF due to long lenses is a real pain to deal with when you might only have a few seconds to get the shot and there are tree branches/twigs in the way - which the AF prefers to focus on of course...)
One reason I often prefer the Pana 14-140 F3.5-F5.6 over the 12-60 F3.5-F5.6 (which I also own) is that the aperture drop off with focal length is slower over the wide to mid range - though the 12-60 is a bit smaller and lighter and much cheaper used.

I'm thinking about replacing my old Pana 20mm F1.7 (with slow and noisy AF) with the Oly 17mm F1.8. I find I commonly use around 18mm as a focal length on zoom lenses, so having a fast (and quiet) prime at that length makes sense for me.

I'm thinking about replacing my old Pana 20mm F1.7 (with slow and noisy AF) with the Oly 17mm F1.8. I find I commonly use around 18mm as a focal length on zoom lenses, so having a fast (and quiet) prime at that length makes sense for me.

My combo is usually the 14-140mm plus 25mm F1.8.
On my last 'serious' trip (almost two weeks of railway video/stills photography in Southern California), I took a G9 + 14-140mm + 25mm F1.8 (for low light), used hand-held, with G80 + 12-32mm used as an occasional tripod-mounted 'B' cam. I took the G80 instead of the (smaller) GX80 because it has a mic jack.
If I were doing a similar trip now I think it would be OM-1 (main) and ZV-1 (B-cam), but lens choice for the OM-1 would be harder as I recently bought a used Oly 12-100mm F4 IS Pro. It's much larger and heavier than the 14-140mm Pana, but it supports Sync-IS on Oly/OMDS bodies and the overall stabilisation performance is fantastic.
If you buy a used Pana 14-140mm F3.5-F5.6, be careful about which version you are getting. Panasonic sold the Mk 1 version (H-FS14140) in two different markings - white, gold and red 'HD' lettering (earlier lenses) or all white lettering (later lenses). Then they updated it to the Mk 2 (H-FSA14140) with weather sealing and all white lettering. AFAIK all are optically the same, and support Dual-IS and Dual-IS2. I've come across dealers who've mixed up the white-lettered later Mk 1 and the Mk 2 versions in their used listings...

My combo is usually the 14-140mm plus 25mm F1.8.
On my last 'serious' trip (almost two weeks of railway video/stills photography in Southern California), I took a G9 + 14-140mm + 25mm F1.8 (for low light), used hand-held, with G80 + 12-32mm used as an occasional tripod-mounted 'B' cam. I took the G80 instead of the (smaller) GX80 because it has a mic jack.
If I were doing a similar trip now I think it would be OM-1 (main) and ZV-1 (B-cam), but lens choice for the OM-1 would be harder as I recently bought a used Oly 12-100mm F4 IS Pro. It's much larger and heavier than the 14-140mm Pana, but it supports Sync-IS on Oly/OMDS bodies and the overall stabilisation performance is fantastic.
If you buy a used Pana 14-140mm F3.5-F5.6, be careful about which version you are getting. Panasonic sold the Mk 1 version (H-FS14140) in two different markings - white, gold and red 'HD' lettering (earlier lenses) or all white lettering (later lenses). Then they updated it to the Mk 2 (H-FSA14140) with weather sealing and all white lettering. AFAIK all are optically the same, and support Dual-IS and Dual-IS2. I've come across dealers who've mixed up the white-lettered later Mk 1 and the Mk 2 versions in their used listings...

My friend takes stills of his family holidays and has an ancient relic (IIRC it's a Canon 30D?) that he would always take with him.  He is a minimalist and was sick of hauling it around so did his first overseas trip without it and used his iPhone 5 (current at the time).  He took a bunch of photos on the trip, but when I asked him about it his thinking wasn't clear.  On his next trip he took an updated iPhone (maybe an 8?) and took lots of photos again, but still didn't have clear thinking about it.
It was only several years later that he had a good reply, he said "The photos look fine but I realised that I never felt compelled to print and hang any of the photos from it".  He still can't define what it is, but something is missing for him.  I've looked at the prints he's got hanging in his house and the difference isn't obvious - it's not like his prints have shallow DOF or anything, they just have this timeless sort of look about them, and his iPhone pics all look like iPhone pics (unsurprisingly).
Even the RAW stills from my GF3 from 2011 don't look like iPhone pics, even the current ones.  It might be a matter of blurring the iPhone images a bit, and toning down the strong saturation and contrast, who knows, but maybe they'll get over that hurdle soon.  Maybe they already have - I still have an iPhone 12 mini and don't use the stills in my creative work.
TBH it's probably the "everything is awesome!!" processing that Apple do to their images.  Maybe the RAW images off the sensor are fine.

I think this is about the sum of it, at least from the ‘quality’ side of things.
I think raw only came to iPhone with the 12, but could be wrong and for me as someone who only shoots raw, probably part of my personal ‘disconnect’ from photography using my phone as in I have not been using it’s full potential.
Also, whilst I don’t need to be in ‘full on pro mode’ all the time (when not actually working), I probably need to get out of ‘point & click phone mode’ when using my phone and use it more like a camera. If that makes sense?
Something I probably need to explore…
 
 

If you're not so bothered about the lens length when the camera is off, I'd seriously consider the non-pancake 14-42mm 'Mk ii' kit lens (the H-FS1442A, in the 3rd photo). The change in length over the zoom range is only about 10mm, it's got proper zoom and focus rings, supports dual-IS (with FW 1.1 installed) and is cheap used.
Yes it's quite hard to beat the combination of size, performance and flexibility the GX85 (or GX9) offers. Main reason I bought a ZV-1 was to get a compact camera with better audio - versus the GX85 it has much better sound quality from the on-board mics plus a 3.5mm mic input.
But otherwise the GX85 is nicer to use, and paired with say the Pana 14-140mm becomes super-zoom travel cam, which is smaller than 1" sensor cams like the FZ1000/FZ2000/RX10. Which is the main reason I still own one...

I think Pana versus Oly/OMDS lenses having zoom rings that operate in opposite directions is really annoying...
Anyway, here are pics of the Pana 12-32, 14-42 PZ, 14-42 kit and Oly 14-42 EZ on my GX80 (all with filters on the front), with the zoom set to give maximum lens length (which was max wide on the Pana and max tele on the Oly - minimum lens length was in the mid zoom range). Also the ZV-1 set to maximum lens length, and a GX80+Oly14-42 and ZV-1 side-by-side. Note the 10cm mark on the ruler is approx. aligned to the front of the body, so the all the lens lengths are between 55mm and 60mm i.e. around the same...
(The ZV-1 has a JJC filter adaptor stuck to the front of the lens tube - https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B07GWQ6CXL )

I think Pana versus Oly/OMDS lenses having zoom rings that operate in opposite directions is really annoying...
Anyway, here are pics of the Pana 12-32, 14-42 PZ, 14-42 kit and Oly 14-42 EZ on my GX80 (all with filters on the front), with the zoom set to give maximum lens length (which was max wide on the Pana and max tele on the Oly - minimum lens length was in the mid zoom range). Also the ZV-1 set to maximum lens length, and a GX80+Oly14-42 and ZV-1 side-by-side. Note the 10cm mark on the ruler is approx. aligned to the front of the body, so the all the lens lengths are between 55mm and 60mm i.e. around the same...
(The ZV-1 has a JJC filter adaptor stuck to the front of the lens tube - https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B07GWQ6CXL )

I've got the Pana 12-32, 14-42 (non-pancake) and 14-42 PZ lenses, plus the Oly 14-42 EZ (power zoom) lens. No LX10 (or GX800 anymore), but my ZV-1 might be an interesting size comparison.
I'll take some photos of the extended lenses on my GX80 with a ruler alongside.
Note that of the pancake lenses, only the Oly has a focus ring, but it doesn't have any OIS - swings and roundabouts...

I've got the Pana 12-32, 14-42 (non-pancake) and 14-42 PZ lenses, plus the Oly 14-42 EZ (power zoom) lens. No LX10 (or GX800 anymore), but my ZV-1 might be an interesting size comparison.
I'll take some photos of the extended lenses on my GX80 with a ruler alongside.
Note that of the pancake lenses, only the Oly has a focus ring, but it doesn't have any OIS - swings and roundabouts...

I agree - Sony will be doing image processing before the H.265 encoding (e.g. noise suppression, de-Bayering, sharpening etc.), whereas you might expect less of that happening with N-RAW - isn't it meant to be raw sensor data, warts and all?
H.265 is a sophisticated codec, so I'm not that surprised 4:2:2 10-bit 8k video at 500Mbps from the A1 looks really good, especially on a static image like Andrew used in the N-RAW vs H.265 vs CDNG comparison article.

PS... order placed with cvp so we'll see how it works out!

I agree - Sony will be doing image processing before the H.265 encoding (e.g. noise suppression, de-Bayering, sharpening etc.), whereas you might expect less of that happening with N-RAW - isn't it meant to be raw sensor data, warts and all?
H.265 is a sophisticated codec, so I'm not that surprised 4:2:2 10-bit 8k video at 500Mbps from the A1 looks really good, especially on a static image like Andrew used in the N-RAW vs H.265 vs CDNG comparison article.

I doubt it - for example, AFAIK including MPEG/AVC/HEVC in a product requires license fees to be paid to the patent holders (normally via a patent pool licensing organization). As end users we don't usually see those fees directly, because they are paid by the companies selling the products i.e. the fees are included in the purchase price.

intoPIX and Fraunhofer IIS are the two major contributors to the JPEG XS patent pool - https://www.jpegxspool.com/ and https://www.jpegxspool.com/s/JPEG-XS-Patent-Pool-Licensed-Patents-01-Oct-2023.pdf  and https://www.tinynews.be/jpeg-xs-intopix-belgique/
As JPEG XS uses a wavelet transform, there is a reasonable chance TicoRAW uses a wavelet transform in its implementation, especially as JPEG XS has built-in support for RAW Bayer/CFA images - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG_XS#Sensor_compression
But as intoPIX is a developer of video compression technology, TicoRAW unlikely to be "just another branded version of something that someone else wrote."

intoPIX and Fraunhofer IIS are the two major contributors to the JPEG XS patent pool - https://www.jpegxspool.com/ and https://www.jpegxspool.com/s/JPEG-XS-Patent-Pool-Licensed-Patents-01-Oct-2023.pdf  and https://www.tinynews.be/jpeg-xs-intopix-belgique/
As JPEG XS uses a wavelet transform, there is a reasonable chance TicoRAW uses a wavelet transform in its implementation, especially as JPEG XS has built-in support for RAW Bayer/CFA images - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG_XS#Sensor_compression
But as intoPIX is a developer of video compression technology, TicoRAW unlikely to be "just another branded version of something that someone else wrote."

I think he was talking about N-RAW versus h265. The bitrates for N-RAW are here - https://onlinemanual.nikonimglib.com/z9/en/06_video_recording_02.html#id226OJ0Y0V5Z - 4.1k at 24 p is 350 Mb/s in Normal quality mode.