independent

I just think the easyrig doesn’t do enough and is often more trouble than its worth. Want steady shots with pans and tilts? Sticks. Four points of contact and a dynamic look? Shoulder mount. Redistribute weight and get smooth shots and movement? Steadicam. Sure, there are some (very specific) situations where they make some sense, and a few DPs and operators do like them. But in my opinion, there are generally better, tried-and-true options. Hell, Christopher Doyle shoots with a pillow, so whatever floats your horse in the shed.

The dodo might be just the right bird to catch a 200mph hare.

Watch those doorways! Yes easyrigs do take the weight off, but...that's essentially it. They don't do much to cut out jitter, shake, or vertical movement. I do hear good things about the Serene arm, but at that point, I'd go for steadicam. If your setup isn't too heavy, and I'm always looking to go lighter as a single operator, I greatly prefer shoulder mount with built-in stabilization. Just more intuitive, greater control. But if you're way north of six feet tall...you should probably quit the camera department and do sound 😉

You guys also left behind the 1DX III.

I don't think the C300 crowd would really demand RAW or 6K (cumbersome workflow, storage requirements), those would be more for narrative, creative projects. That crowd would prefer efficient codecs to accommodate news gathering, live events, reality/docs, etc. I also think that's why IBIS would be key for them. Goodbye easy rigs! And the full frame would be important for light-gathering in uncontrolled environments and flexibility for focal lengths in tight locations.

Canon should update the C200, which unlikely was a hit, with 10-bit codecs. And add IBIS and the RF mount. At around the same price (or maybe slightly cheaper). I think they would move some units.

However, there is a gap at $10K market, the C300 II, Sony FX9 for documentary, news gathering, etc. I bet: 4K full frame (supersampled 6K like the Sony FX9 ) with high frame rates at 10-bit codecs to protect the c500 II. RF mount, which will push the pricey lenses while still being easily adaptable to EF. IBIS they've been working on in the R5, which will keep it competitive with the FX9's gyro.

So people want a c300ii for the price of a c100ii and call it a c100iii.

Sure. I got mine from powerextra's distributor out of California. https://www.ebay.com/itm/2x-6-6Ah-NP-F960-Battery-For-Sony-NP-F970-NP-F975-NP-F960-and-Smart-Phone-w-USB/264401969297?ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT&_trksid=p2057872.m2749.l2649 I forgot to also mention an even easier option that doesn't require an added battery sled: If you're using a monitor that uses Sony NPF batteries (most do), Just insert this battery into your monitor, and use a DC to Weipu cable to your Blackmagic 6K. There's several cables there, but this was the cheapest one from B&H (happens to be from Tilta): https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1490898-REG/tilta_ta_t01_dc_pc_bmpcc4k_5_5_2_5mm_dc.html?lsft=BI%3A514&gclid=CjwKCAiAhc7yBRAdEiwAplGxX5GicoBgFbqupXftJu6FVUTH8u1sX77KOUconCCKg48txkKYubcqOBoCEN4QAvD_BwE

I've found the best (cheap, light, etc.) solution is the Tilta Sony F970 battery plate. I mount it on the top right side of my SmallRig cage, above grip (buttons are still accessible). I use 6600mah "Powerextra multifunctional" batteries that are $20 each on eBay. I bought four and I don't think I ever used a third on a shoot. These particular batteries are useful because they have a USB-out and DC-out, which can power a monitor. I also got great audio straight into the phantom powered mini-XLR and 3.5mm audio jacks. Curtis Judd has a video on it. I've used wireless receivers, shotgun mics, etc. all with clean results. Make sure your settings are right and you feed it a hot signal (the new Rode NTG5 is great: light weight and hot). That is a major plus, to not have to mess with a separate recorder or mixer. If you have a relatively simple shoot, you can keep the package compact, light, and cheap.

The pocket in a cage just makes it a box. From there, the retardedness is on you.

Sony was close with the A7III. All they need to do is add internal 4K 10-bit 422. And incrementally improve all the other features. Even if their next model A7IV or A7SIII doesn't offer 8K, it can compete on price ($2K). The Canon R5 might retail close to double that. All things being equal, image quality is close enough among camera brands of the same class. The difference is features. Internal quality codec, autofocus, IBIS, rolling shutter, articulating touchscreen all have to be good enough. Unfortunately, right now, everybody has to pick his own poison. For example, Panasonic S1H is an exceptional camera in many ways, but the $4K price, inferior autofocus, L-mount make it a nonstarter for me, and I'm guessing, for many others. Whether it's R5 or the R6, Canon seems committed to offering a complete package, and other manufacturers will undoubtedly follow suit if they want to survive.

Of course, everybody has different priorities. But I specifically stated the A7 III was remarkable at the time for how complete the feature set was - including price. The A7 III was successful for one innovation only: comprehensive features. Every camera will have its fans who prioritize or fetishize a feature. But the most successful will have the complete shooting package, because that's what the general market is looking for: utility. The R5, 8K marketing gimmick aside, will live or die on the same.

There's a good chance. Precedence in the 1DXIII, which oversamples the 5.5K sensor to 4K 10-bit 422. 8K will be heavily marketed, but likely 8-bit, 24/30, cropped, and perhaps some features disabled as in the 1DXIII.

Maybe too incremental. 8K is definitely next for Blackmagic. Unlikely they'll be able to keep up with the competition in terms of autofocus and IBIS, but they should be able to put in an articulating screen and redesign the awkward body. It seems all roads are leading to a boxier body that is more rig-friendly. They should still have their competitive advantage in recording formats, resolve, and price. 8K BRAW/Prores for under 4K, optimized to cut and color in Resolve.

In terms of comprehensive features, as I had stated. Can you think of another camera at the time that had a more complete set of features?

Sony definitely will first. They were close anyways with the full featured A7 III. You have to give them credit for going all out (including price). Once they implement the internal pro codec, they’re back.

It’s hard to imagine how 8K won’t be crippled. It’ll leapfrog the c500 II? No, the key for the R5/R6’s viability is not omitting the features that were missing in the past: internal recording of pro codecs, IBIS, full frame, acceptable rolling shutter.

Sony will definitely be putting out their 8-bit, high rolling shutter equivalent soon.

But it'll be 8-bit with 30+ ms of rolling shutter

For the record, I'd take either internal 10-bit 422 or RAW in this camera. I just hope Canon offers more than 8-bit internally. The external HDMI output is definitely a potential for handicapping, which I hope they avoid. Either way, these specs are approaching the C500 II and 1DX III's, and in certain ways surpassing the C300 II and C200's. And offering IBIS that none of those cameras have. So you have to figure something has to give.

This is the Sony A7S III.

Regardless the point is that internal RAW seems more appropriate and likely for Canon’s R6 20MP sensor for full frame than 4K 10-bit 422. I’d be suppressed if they downscale from 5.5k to 4K and process it into 10-bit 422 in a small body for $2500. RAW is less demanding in a technical sense while appealing to independent creators. Price point and features-wise, this would appeal to $2K-$3K market. This also protects the professional lines. Precedence.

The C200, C500 II, and the 1DX III would beg to differ! Canon's flavor of RAW (Cinema Raw light .CRM) is slipping through. I'm guessing they might be doing something similar to BRAW to get around the patent.

Those specs would severely undermine the $9,000 C300 II. RAW wouldn't be any less impractical than the RAW on the 20MP 1DX III. The less demanding RAW is more likely than 10-bit 422 on an estimated $2500 R6. Historically, it's the internal 10-bit 422 processing that has been at a premium - not RAW. Thus, the success of Atomos. Also, as far as I know, there are zero cameras that are: full-frame DPAF or equivalent autofocus IBIS internal 4K 10-bit 422 16ms rolling shutter All of those will be unprecedentedly available in a $2500 R6?