independent

So maybe the HDMI out is somehow bypassing the artificial limits, or maybe it's bypassing the temp controls and damaging the camera. I don't know. Regardless, and more importantly, the 8K Raw is the best I've ever seen. Point blank. Detail and color are next level - I think it's finally approaching what the eyes can resolve. Immersive, transparent, 3D, microcontrast, etc. 8K raw footage is truly a compilation of high res stills at 24 FPS. Can pull stills and send them to editorial—game changing in the way RED advertised w/ EPIC. But RED didn't have autofocus - this does. Every. Frame. Sharp. I was impressed by the BMPCC6K - the increase in resolution made a huge difference from 4k, and this R5 8K RAW is just as big of a jump. It's kind of staggering. You don't know what you've been missing unless you actually scrub through this footage, which you can in Resolve (good luck w/ the h265). Bottom line, the 4kHQ 24 seems viable w/ the Ninja (unless it destroys the camera). But who cares, you can get high quality 4K anywhere. More importantly 8K Raw is 100% the bees knees. That's the only news I care about from this point forward. Andrew, make it happen.

Just got my hands on a R5, tested w/ Ninja V. No cards, LCD display was off, I had mine closed to the body - recorded continuously at 4KHQ w/ autofocus (rf 50 1.2) and IS on. Recorded continuously until 1.5 hours - when the battery (regular LP-E6) died. No overheating temp indicator, but the body was HOT. Hotter than any body I've felt, and I've felt a lot of bodies.

@ 10:46, side-by-side shots show the difference between external 4K HQ and 4K non-HQ modes. Noticeable difference in detail.

Not to mention the transcoding time or computer costs of working with the h265 footage. Not a minor issue. Ninja and video assist provide edit-friendly codecs.

The Blackmagic Video Assist 12G is very intriguing. 1) greatly mitigates or resolves overheating 2) cheap SSD and external media recording 3) XLR inputs and quality audio recording 4) professional monitor 5) potential BRAW support (currently supports C300ii and Panasonic EVA1) The rumors about Canon considering BRAW would make a lot of sense here. I'd take this over the Atomos Ninja.

It’s not anybody’s job to help you. Some posters are giving you opinions. Some are giving you facts. Help yourself.

EIN (Equivalent Input Noise): Fostex FR-2LE: -129 dBu Sound Devices MixPre3: -128 dBu Tascam DR60/70D: -120 dBu What's that old saying? Be wary of the internet self-styled sound man who's trying to sell you an easyrig.

Try a fostex fr2le. Very low noise and dirt cheap secondhand. Built like a consumer radio from the 80s, but still kicking.

Really, at this point they're all fairly similar and pretty good.

Filmmaking is a team sport. It’s frustrating for golfers.

Like directing The Crow and Dark City? The man is a legend

Probably the sigma 18-35 gets the most use. If you stay within that focus range, they’re very practical. As close to cinema lenses you can get on a budget. We also have canon ef-s 10-18mm and 18-135mm lenses, which are all cheap, lightweight, and mostly good. Some distortion at either end, slow, and not as great if you need to pull focus. We generally don’t with these. We have 3 sets of every lens above for our 3 pocket 6Ks. Less often, we use Canon L zooms: 16-35, 24-70, 70-200. Canon L primes 24, 35, 50, 85, 100. We’d probably use them more if we could, but we have only one of each lens, earmarked mostly for our Canon c300ii, which we sold after the C300iii announcement. On rare occasion, we’ll use the Sigma 20 1.4. I think that’s mostly it for the 6K. We did rent the Zeiss Compact Primes, which were phenomenal in look and use. Definitely made focusing easier and more accurate to get all that 6K resolution.

Brilliant marketing ploy from the Australians

I'm curious about any of these projected calculations of rolling shutter, because I've understood it as a spec that's released by the company or measured by various individuals and websites. Is there some formula for rolling shutter I'm missing? Speaking of logic, if the R5 and 1DX III share the same ADC (via androidlad above), shouldn't the R5's rolling shutter should be worse than the 1DX III's? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the quoted readout numbers are 30ms for 5.5K (1DXiii) versus 25ms for 8K (R5). All things being equal, isn't that illogical? I can accept the notion that there are more variables to account for (e.g., the R5 has a different, more advanced sensor and processor than any existing camera, including the 1DX iii), and that people are just projecting and extrapolating. I just want to know how people are coming up with numbers.

^Nevermind, didn't see the 60fps. The real question is why rolling shutter is so awful at 24/25fps.

Agreed, but I meant specifically the rolling shutter. If the R5 readout is 25ms, it isn't terrible, but it's no C500ii at 15ms (cinema5d). Perhaps the 6K or 4K modes will have less skew. I'm a bit confused about the math. How can the R5 @45MP can have better rolling shutter numbers than the 1DX III @21MP, given they share the same ADC? @androidlad ?

@androidlad Any idea why the rolling shutter seems much worse than this?

Panasonic Varicam LT. Most compact, balanced shoulder cam I’ve ever used. RED DSMC. Started the brain/sensor in a box flexibility. Blackmagic Pocket (OG). Cinema in your pocket.

I think anybody who is interested in the highest image quality would be interested in 6K, and when 8K comes out, that would be of interest too. I wouldn't get the 6K to shoot 4K. I would get the 6K to deliver higher quality 4K. As far as the lack of 4K Braw on the Pocket 6K, I believe the HQ Prores is similar enough. I love the metabones speedboosters, but they didn't make sense economically. A P4K w/ the metabones speed booster was too close to the price of the 6K, and our team unilaterally preferred the 6K's image to the speedboosted 4K's, even with the crop difference. We did a variety of test shots, and the 6K was just cleaner, more detailed, etc. - and better in low light. I think the speedbooster may have added some blooming effects too. As far as lenses, if you have MFT lenses you love, enjoy them! I used to have a full set of Leica-R lenses, declicked, Leitaxed for my red EF mount, CLA'ed every 2 years. I never used them beyond my personal projects because they were a pain in the ass to match other lenses and didn't have usable focus marks. I stopped waxing poetic about those Leica lenses, because I find that lighting, camera features, and usability in production had a much greater impact on the final image. We had no problem w/ the pocket 6k (or 4k) powering situation because we simply treated it as any other professional camera in a cage. Conveniently we used Sony NP-F batteries that we had on hand for some of our lights, Atomos recorders, etc. I think the problem is DSLR/mirrorless users who expect all-day shooting as if they have a photo camera, which it's not. But the Pocket 4K/6K have been the most compact pro video camera we have ever used, even rigged up. We used them often on gimbals. I wouldn't call the 6K's fan as loud (have you heard REDs?!). If you work in sound, you might want to compare the db levels w/ other cameras. It's audible, but only if you're using the onboard mics. Our sound mixer, boom ops, post audio production crew haven't had any issues with the 6K fan noise relative to other cameras. Other ambient noise is always more of a problem, A/C, traffic, etc. As far as bitrate, we generally shoot 5:1 or 8:1 compression ratios on multicam shoots to stay within the bandwidth of our RAID setups. For single cam, shooting 5:1 or 8:1 probably wouldn't change your 4K editing setup at all. And let's say if you're doing a long project like a feature film; I'm not sure if storage space would be that much of a factor in your total budget. Let's say you were to compare the 6K to the 4K, at braw 5:1, with a shooting ratio of 10:1, so a total of 15 hours of footage for a 90 min film. The difference between the two would be 5 TBs. Considering enterprise drives go for about $25/TB, you'd have to shell out $125 more dollars. Double or triple that for backups, and that's still pretty much nothing.

The difference between 8.8 MP and 21.2 MP is objectively significant; it is 240% the pixels. But you do need monitoring capacities to resolve that difference. On a 5K monitor, the increase in detail of the 6K makes the 4K seem out of focus. No complaints about the EF mount. Nearly every cameras can take EF lenses, from MFT to cinema cameras such as ARRI, RED, and Canon. We've cut BM 4K/6K footage w/ the Canon C200/C300 II and lens matching was a key consideration. It's been more practical to standardize lenses for flexibility on set or in the field and consistency in post. As far as media, the Samsung SSD's give you 500gb under $100, which I think is the cheapest for any camera system. And we’ve had no issues cutting the footage on Mac pros, Mac mini’s, or MacBooks. If you already work with 4K, you may not have to add anything to upgrade your RAID setup except to add more drives. That being said, 6K is not for everybody. But for commercial shoots, it's been very good to us. Especially for fashion - the ability to pull or capture 21MP stills has been a boon. 6K also gives a bit of peace of mind considering the push to 8K, knowing that your work will hold up better in the future.

6K for $2K? I think there's no competition there. For the record, our studio had access to both 4k and 6k cameras. Once you review footage from both on a quality 4K or 5K monitor, it's not close. The 6K doesn't give you a minor increase in detail, it's significant. Everybody in our studio was struck by how...transparent the 6K looked. It looks like still photography. You can pull great stills from this, and we did for several major commercial shoots before covid. Color, skin tones, were noticeable better as well. The 4k looked almost out of focus in comparison. If you're delivering in 1080p, who cares, but if you care about 4K, the 6K gives you much better 4K. We immediately cleared out the 4K cameras and replaced them with 6Ks. The metabones speed booster XL on the 4k was deemed not worth it considering it pushes you close to the price of the 6K. With the 6K price drop, it's the same price now.

From Canon USA: "Additionally, the EOS R5’s IBIS will work in combination with Optical Image Stabilization found in many Canon RF and EF lenses."

EOS R was great except for the rolling shutter. So not good for moving handheld shots, e.g., run and gun. Even gimbal movements had to be very slow and controlled. Didn't love the external requirement for 10-bit 422 recording, but the Ninja V did add much more functional (monitoring) and recording (cheap SSD caddy) options. It was also good for gimbals because it was so lightweight and compact. The R with the Weebill-S was a very compact package. Once you figured out how to best mount the Ninja of course. What made it especially tantalizing was the metabones RF to EF speedbooster adapter. Gave me an extra stop and near full frame on all my canon lenses. Hot damn what a cheat code. With the DPAF, the EOS R was close to checking all the boxes. So was the Sony A7III. If Sony adds internal 4K 422 and incrementally improves the other features that made it such a successful camera when it was released, I'd at least take a look. The people who care too much about brands are those uninterested in making life easier for themselves.

Can't get better image quality than the pocket 6k or 4k for the money.

Pocket 8K