PabloB

2 hours ago, pixelpreaching said:

FYI, the sensor is NOT the old 36MP one in the a7R / K-1 / D800. It's a 39.5MP sensor with 37.4 effective MP and a base 80 ISO. It's a totally new sensor designed by Zeiss

I'd be surprised if it wasn't; having played with the raws the attitude in the shadows is underwhelming. And typically with the same sensor in a Sony body its always a megapixel or two smaller, probably due to the small lens mount. Try shooting with the 28mm f2 on the Sony and when you use the crop tool in C1 you gettthe option to enlarge the crop area as there are extra pixels captured in both dimensions as that lens has the ability to project an image on the entire sensor.

 The Rx1Rii is a bargain as long as the back screen coating is intact. Zeiss should simply do a software "UPDATE" and remove Lightroom and lower the price to $3500

The best thing they can do is use a more modern and efficient CPU. Maybe buy from apple or Samsung their previous generation smartphone architecture.

38 minutes ago, deezid said:

Sony is king when it comes to noise reduction (and sharpening). If that's a good thing or not is highly subjective.

 

I'd rather have a an organic looking image than the digital madness the a7s3, a73, a6600, a7s2 etc. offer.

I don't believe that's true. Nikon when they released the Z6 it had a ton of sharpening on the image. Sony was in my eyes is just very detailed from the downsampling. Canon with their aggressive AA filter give a nice image feel at the expenses of detail which many like and some don't -  just different philosophies.

49 minutes ago, Mikelama said:

If the camera wasn’t designed initially to deal with heat (and sounds like heat wasn't even a primary consideration), a quick fix like adding a heat sink may not be feasible or do the trick even if feasible. The body and logic boards may need a redesign.  This thing is generating so much heat that merely switching to video after an hour of shooting pics can be too much.  I don’t think a puny piece of copper is going to be a some magical fix that makes this the perfect hybrid camera.  It will be interesting to see what happens.  

They'll probably buy an A7SIII and see if they can copy what they've done now it's been released 😉

1 minute ago, mojo43 said:

Did they mention if there is a crop on 4k 60p or 120p?

So far only with the active stabilisation mode that records gyro

Somebody's going to get a slap on the wrist 🤣

Tony and Chelsea Nothrup did a wildlife shoot of just stills and the battery died in an hour! The R5 is DOA

I think Sony has been holding back the A7SIII waiting to see what Canon releases. I think if not for this R5, we would be seeing an incremental update from them.

Sony will have to do even better than the R5 spec wise to stop people from jumping ship and coming back to Sony as if its even level it won't stop a mass exodus.

I'm a current Sony user and have been for the last few years, but for 9 years prior to that was a Canon faithful. The only thing that can stop me from going back to Sony is their body prices. I don't NEED the R5 but i'm looking to buy one, the R6 may well suit my needs better as long as the joystick, dual card slots, EVF and battery remain, and If even the R6 price is ridiculous then I'll stick with my Sony A7III and add an A7RIV. Exciting times ahead 

I wouldn't be surprised if this R5 is the reason Samsung came out the business - because Canon bought/license their tech in order to compete with Sony. It's the only way I see that Canon out of nowhere coming out with a monster of a camera that blows away everyone else when they don't do chips or sensors and don't live on the bleeding edge of Tech, something that Samsung has been doing for so long now

1 hour ago, Andrew Reid said:

The EF mount ZE 35mm F1.4 is also very nice, but much heavier than the 35mm F2 ZE / ZF.

Of the Leica M mount Zeiss, I have the ZM F2.0 but not the faster one. The ZM F2 is superb but close focus limited. I should do a comparison between that and the ZE F2.0 one day.

[The ZM F2 is superb but close focus limited.]

I experience this also though its the norm for rangefinder lenses. I use a close focus adapter on mine which brings down to about 28cm which is great, at 1.4 and minimum focus distance subject may be a bit hazy but from f1.8/2 its back to razor sharp.

[I should do a comparison between that and the ZE F2.0 one day.]

That would interest me

Amazing lens!! Contrasty with high micro contrast giving nice 3D rendering. As stated above its sharp but not clinically so. Some CA wide open. Beautiful rendering.

The only 35s better from Zeiss are the 35mm 1.4 Milvus and ZM 1.4 (My favourite 35 of any brand)

The worst news. Very surprised it stood up.

Apparently 47 megapixels, Cine Mode video and 4K. 

I'll wait until official info comes out before I make an assessment but from a design point of view no tilt or flip screen is a pity.

8 hours ago, Mokara said:

There are two things, there will be a license to use the codec in the first place, then there are royalties due for producing content with the codec. That document refers to the latter, where the manufacturer in essence collects the royalty on behalf of the customer so they are not liable for it themselves.

For example, I work in a high tech industry (pharmaceuticals, not imaging). Basically what we do is own a patent portfolio based on our own research. We then work with collaborators helping them develop products around that IP. We collect a license fee from them for the right to use that IP. That comes in the form of an upfront payment followed by milestone payments as the product proceeds through development. We provide our expertise to them during the development cycle and troubleshoot issues they might encounter along the way (they pay for this service separately, but it is part of the overall deal). Typically they would take out options to develop X number of products, any additional products would require renegotiation and likely a new fee structure.  Over an above that, when they actually start to sell these products we also collect a royalty (which is a small percentage of what they sell the product for). The royalties themselves change depending on how much of the product is sold. So, for the first amount there might be a partial clawback based on the earlier milestone payments. After that royalties return a set value until some higher amount is reached, after which it may drop again.

This is fairly normal practice in industry that deals with IP where one entity license out the IP to another.

If they have a license that cover h.264 at any other frame rate on the camera, surely that covers 24p as well ?? 

So the only reason it wouldn't be on there is to simply cripple the camera(S).

For all that money the rendering does not come close to the voigtlander! Just have to decide wether I'm going to get it in VM oe E mount 

At the price it goes for on grey market its a good deal and justifiable with its failings compared to where the market is in 2019. At rrp price its a scam! 

This lens is very impressive. I was thinking about purchasing the 50mm Canon 1.2 as I've had a few of them in the past and really miss it. It would have to be adapted to for my Sony A7III as would the Voigtlander but this rendering and bonus sharpness has got me thinking!

We really are spoilt for choice these days, so many great cameras at reasonable prices. Basically just pick one that suits your style and off you go. No excuses for not going out and creating good art.

 Look forward to seeing the review Andrew.

4 hours ago, John Jay said:

Nikon Z is to get Prores Raw on NinjaV

That would put Z6 at number 1 for me 

Hope that forces Sony and Panasonic to allow raw recording on A7Siii and S1 

Sony would have to update A7 III not to talk of A7S III! 

Canon, WAKE UP!!

Basically shows the Eos R as soft with the default sharpening at 0 but looking better and matching the x-t3 at 4 and above

12 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

They didn't need to, as the previous obsolete cameras were still selling so well.

?

1 hour ago, Mattias Burling said:

Average Joe definitely looks to Canikon since they are so familiar names. But I also think for many of us brand has very little to do with it. All of these cameras where available when my EOS-R arrived and I still bought it, and so did others. Before that me and many with me choose the 6Dmkii well aware about the A7iii, GH5, etc. And I'm sure I'm not alone in being mostly a Panasonic and Sony shooter. So it was not because of the brand.

Nor was it for the side by side image quality. I was shooting both 2.5K and 4K Raw before 4K even took off. I've had most popular 4K hybrids to date as well as the BMD4K and RED 1MX with 4.5K Raw. In other words, none of the above is really blowing my mind. And still I went for the EOS-R. It wasn't in some naive believe that the Canon will have the most detailed video at 400% in some weird multi cam production.

All I know is that right in front of me on my desk sits a Panasonic G85, a Fuji X-H1 and an EOS-R. I have native and adapted glass plus speedboosters for the two crop cameras. Only adapted EF glass for the EOS-R. I have only a few hours of experience with the Canon but have shot several gigs with the other two.

On today's agenda is a video shoot. No stills, video only. Docu style with lots of handheld. There will be some interviews both "sitting down" and with a lav in action. A lot of fast action and rather large locations. The finished video will be shown at an award show on the big screen in front of a couple of hundred people and of course online.

I'm bringing the Canon. No question about it. Because believe it or not, it actually offers things that the others don't.
And it does it so well that I don't care about the risk of someone hacking the event and showing a similar video shot with a RED Epic side by side and then zooming in 400%  

(The X-H1 tags a long as backup and in case I feel the need for some 100fps instead of just 50.)
 

Mattias, I get you just like the Canon image, but I feel it’s because of people like you that Canon get away with the absurdity they do. In this day and age with the technological advancements made in the field, Canon should be doing more but deliberately choose not to. We could/should have a much richer and detailed image full frame 4K (downsampled 6k) WITH the choice to to turn down sharpening for a less detailed image at the very least! 

Canon with all their money and R&D should be able to acquire the best chips and sensors to fit the purpose. With their large market share and projected sales should be able to negotiate all this at better cost than some of their rivals. They choose to do none of this but screw us and sell us outdated tech for even more money increasing their margins all the while. 

Yes I too like the canon image because it was easy to get good colour but today that advantage is minimal to non existent. Canon really needs to be forced to step up and deliver. I feel they are now feeling the pressure but as we can clearly see with the Eos R, they are still trying to resist. There’s so much wrong with that camera that colour science just can’t cover up but when people like you keep spewing that mantra, or ‘soft is actually better’ nonsense, there is no progression. 

I love magic lantern and what they did for the community and us canon faithful, but I can’t help feel that if it had never happened Canon would have been forced to deliver much earlier. 

1 hour ago, Andrew Reid said:

Well done Samsung!

Turns out its Sony after all

https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sony-officially-announces-the-new-medium-format-full-frame-aps-c-and-mft-sensors/

https://www.fujirumors.com/fujifilm-x-t3-uses-26-megapixel-bsi-sensor-as-listed-at-sony/

They've made huge  leaps and should be commended for their efforts. While other companies are resting on their laurels and drip feeding features, all while capable of delivering more, Fuji make huge strides with every release.

I've now an A7III user having left canon (1dxII last Canon) but have experience with both Xpro 2 and x-t2 which i loved.

Seems there were micro jitters when using the digital stabilisation.