Django

R series is stills oriented, V series video oriented. Meaning a FF V version could include the R8/R6ii/R5ii sensor inside a R50V type body with hopefully Clog2 / RAW etc. No EVF, mechanical shutter etc should mean more affordable pricing as well.

Is it me or is the GH7 a recent camera release no one speaks about? Every Panny user seems to have jumped over to the FF S line. Anyways surprised OP hasn't purchased the LogC3 license considering how many posts about ARRI color science etc! My pipeline usually involves CST to LogC just to benefit from the excellent ARRI look/LUT library. Would be cool to be able to skip this step in post and access it straight in cam a bit like Fuji film simulations. Definitely one of the highlights of GH7 for me personally.

Yeah my guess is Canon will can the R5C line and maybe shift focus to an R5V to compete with FX3ii and whatever video centric cameras Nikon & Panny have in store.

Yeah its pretty exciting as a Canon shooter myself to see a new product line emerge, especially one dedicated to video. First flat top Canon design ever. I don't know about no overheating as this is an entry-level product aimed at social network content creators so usually very short form content but the video below states they worked hard to avoid it. In any case rest assured this is the first product of an entirely new V camera line dedicated to video so its pretty much a given pro FF version will come. Here is a rare glimpse into the R&D folks at Canon HQ talking about it: R50V also has filters, custom LUTs, false color, aspect markers & 2.35:1 cine mode. Pretty cool for a $695 camera!

Pretty cool design actually. Finally something new from Canon. Takes cues from the FX3 for sure. Vertical thread mount makes sense. Hopefully a more "pro" level FF version is in the making with IBIS, Clog2 etc to truly compete with FX3/FX30. R5V?

Like I said RS is the cherry on top. Real benefit is having that internal 16-bit R3D code. With the Fuji you have to add a Ninja V+ just to get ProRes RAW so tag that on to the cost plus annoyance of an external recorder. But yeah if/when Nikon cams get R3D code that'll be a different story. Still not convinced that will happen though as Nikon now have a cine line to protect! N-Raw might still be what you get on mirrorless. Wait & see! I could pull up some footage but that wouldn't help you much. I strongly advise downloading or shooting R3D code yourself and push it through Davinci cuz that's when the robustness of that RAW codec shows its superiority imo. I will link here some test footage of a film student who's about to release a Davinci power grade suite. He's actually a XH2S user who now also owns a Komodo and has this to say comparing the two: "I fall in love with the komodo more and more each time I use it. The image is just on another level. Enough to warrant the money over other cameras such as the fujifilm xh2s? Probably not, but the footage is definitely better and working with red raw is marvelous." Obviously the pricing comment was made before the current cost slash. Nothing crazy here but the DR, color science, highlight rolloff and detail is pretty great considering a speed booster and vintage lens is being paired on. Again though, nothing beats actually working with the footage to truly get the benefits of R3D RAW..

I'm not personally in the market for a cine cam but this is fantastic news for whoever is. Komodo was already fairly cheap by cine cam standards but this is a significant price cut. To have access to global shutter & R3D code in such a compact form factor at such a low price point is really something. RED has a well known compressed RAW patent that still gives it the edge vs other RAW codecs. R3D code allows 16-bit lossless with up to 8:1 compression. ProRes/BM Raw have other compromises such as partial debayering in-cam and maxing out at 12-bit. Same for N-Raw. This may be subjective but having worked on Komodo footage I found the "magic sauce" was indeed there. In short the IQ feels filmic/organic for lack of a better term versus mirrorless. How the footage handles grading in Davinci, LUT response, even the motion cadence. Probably thanks to the 16-bit true RAW. Think 5D3 14-bit ML RAW mojo but even better. Global shutter is the cherry on top.

Saw Soderbergh's Presence the other day. Immediately noticed it was shot on mirrorless with gimbal, and turns out its the A9iii with Sony FE 14mm F1.8 GM. Interesting choice for a full-feature, it makes sense since the POV is a floating ghost inside a house: "We shot this on the [Sony Alpha 9 III], which is, as you know, a digital [mirrorless] camera. Its primary mode is as a still camera, but it also shoots really good video. It’s small, and this new version has a sensor that was never used in [this kind of camera] before. I did experiments with all the digital cameras that I’d worked with before and ones I hadn’t. I stripped them down as much as I could, then put them on the smallest stabilization rig that would support them. What I discovered was that there was just a couple of pounds’ difference between the camera I could use and stabilize and be able to back into any space I wanted to, and the next step up made that impossible because of the weight. We did all these tests with the Sony and this one rig. And I’m like, 'This’ll work. It’s not heavy.'"

Fuji often come up with great concepts but miss on their first gen products.. X100, Xpro, XT, GFX etc. The Eterna cine also got lukewarm reception. I still think GFX100RF is a great concept, shrinking the GFX body and bringing the fixed lens X100 rangefinder design to medium format with some really cool ergonomic additions (the aspect ratio / crop front & back dials, the custom front lever). Only real bummer is the lens & IBIS. I could imagine a GFX50RF with a f2.8 lens & IBIS. 6K. Open-gate. Now that would be a smash. I can understand the price point objective of under $5K. Fuji wants to undercut Leica as they should.

Fuji says it was a compromise between size and price. They had a strict goal to keep the size and thickness around X100 series. In fact they are hoping to apply the X100 "sold out" viral success in an upscale segment. Price had to fit under the $5K mental barrier. So that explains it, wether they achieve commercial success is another story though. I'm guessing the thinking for low light situations is to go with a flash, since the leaf shutter allows super high sync capabilities. I would have loved it if they had included a flash like on X100 series, but again size and price. I can see this camera working great for certain applications. But I can also see it being frustrating at others and the overall IQ is just not what you'd expect from a camera at that price point imo (unless you really like slow wide lenses). If they unlock the aspect ratios and crop factors for video it may make it slightly more interesting as a fun cool hybrid but I still think there are better options in the compact fixed lens universe, including their own X100VI that has IBIS, NDs, flash, 6K, hybrid OVF/EVF, f2 lens.. at a third of the price. The GFX100RF feels like more of a luxury statement camera with mid specs. Probably the most Leica product from Fuji. They could have called it the GFX100BF.

I've watched a lot of reviews and even downloaded some RAW pics and came to the conclusion that this is not going to be the cam for me personally despite how much I wanted it to be. The bottleneck is really the lens. Its not so much that its an f4 but a 28mm equivalent pancake f4 just gives a very dull iPhone look and totally counteracts the huge sensor and kills the medium format look imo. No mojo, no 3D pop, super flat/compressed bokeh/blur. I've seen smartphone pics that look better than some of these GFX100 RF shots. Maybe for architecture, landscape this could work thanks to the high MP & DR. Obviously street photography is what this rangefinder type camera is about but yeah f4 isn't really great for low light situations. Not to mention the crop features will not even make it an f4 as far as DoF. The aspect ratio dial is the coolest thing about this camera but it isn't actual aspect ratio like in medium format film. Its just a sensor crop here, you're not actually getting extra width like on XPan. FoV won't change, less DoF control and significant drop in resolution (not a huge problem with 102MP but still a big drop). So in the end its really more of a framing gimmick. Finally the video specs while suitable are nothing exceptional. Especially without IBIS or 4K60p. Also a big shame the cropping and aspect ratio options aren't there in video. I still think its a gorgeous camera and maybe in the right hands its inspiring. But the actual results I've seen so far seem quite boring/dull. When you're going with a fixed lens it better be good and the one they chose just doesn't excite me one bit. At this point I'd probably prefer a Q2, Sigma BF with fast prime, X100 VI or my M9 with Summicron 28mm. Oh and of course any GFX interchangeable with a better lens.

I’ve watched a couple reviews, no indication that the aspect ratio dial and crop modes are active in video, so I’m going to assume they’re not there. Missed opportunity vs the Q2/Q3. The lens is imo the big question mark. I’m not seeing anything mind blowing or that even screams medium format look. But it’s still very early..

I was going to say the X100 & Leica Q series but hot damn the leaked GFX fixed lens camera looks insane! $5K isn’t really that expensive for a top quality medium format camera with a compact leaf shutter lens and ND filters. At first 35mm f4 seemed like a miss but that converts to 28mm f3.2 in full frame terminology which isn’t that bad. Basically very close to a 28mm f2.8. The aspect ratio wheel is cool beans. In fact aspect ratio settings seems like the cool new thing, saw a review of the Bf showcasing how quick and effective it can be to frame shots. I hope that feature works in video mode too. Shame there is no IBIS but other than that this could be my dream « art » camera!

Rules are meant to be broken and Von Trier & Vinterberg did so by the early 2000's. Their first films under Dogme95 were shot using MiniDV and they later quickly embraced RED/ARRI digital cinema. Breaking the Waves was shot on 35mm but digitally scanned to process it in post and give it an aesthetic. Basically early modern color grading. All movies shot on film today are scanned digitally and graded. 35mm usually scanned at 4K-6K and 65mm/75mm 8K and beyond. Projection is also digital. Its a fallacy to think film is super soft with lack of detail. People romanticise old 35mm movies but they were usually scanned at 480p/720p for TV, VHS, DVD. Most of the time from from second or even third gen prints not even original film negatives or masters. Maybe you are into soft grainy contrasty Lo-fi analogue aesthetic and that's fine but you can emulate that look pretty well today in Davinci. Personally I embrace digital cinema and how its democratised filmmaking on a lower budget. And while I do have a deep appreciation for analogue medium in general (especially as a musician, engineer) I recognise it is more about the tactile experience and workflow than sound/image quality which can be closely emulated today in digital.

« Color Grading »