Django

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 »

Very likely FX3ii will use the A9iii sensor and have 24MP/6K global shutter.

Sure but why limit yourself to the 8 or 9 film simulations only two of which are cinema film stock? The best for that approach would be LUT recording enabled cameras, assuming you have a favourite/custom LUT collection in your NLE. S9 has as far as I know best implementation with stackable LUTs, opacity etc and a phone app to edit/manage them. I think you can even add film grain to video. you can also use the LUTs on stills which is pretty cool as it even differentiates log from standard sources. I really hope more manufacturers use this approach. Never been a fan of stock picture profiles especially for video.

You must consider most network channels in the US (ABC, NBC, CBS & FOX) still use 1080i; 720p HD resolution. This opens up or rather holds back quite antique video shooting standards versus Europe that has vastly transitioned long time ago to FHD and even 4K with 10-bit 422 requirements. Of course cable TV & streaming services in the US have higher requirements too.

There are more real life tests on YT that show 8K RAW with no NR has much cleaner shadows on R5 mk2 vs noise/banding on R5. But the big DR jump in the cined lab test happens in the compressed 4K HQ/fine modes. Could be more aggressive NR but the main difference imo is Clog2 vs Clog3 alongside cleaner shadows from the better SNR of the Mk2 stacked sensor.

I'm a long-time Canon shooter and my next camera will probably be an R5C or R5 mk2. That said my on-going workhorse camera is an FS7 because it gives me work. Logic would dictate I get an FX3/FX6 but I'm just not a fan of the camera specs / price ratio in 2025: No 6K/8K, No open gate, No RAW, No EVF etc.. with a price tag here in Europe still at 4500€ for FX3. Sony's dominance comes at a price, to me they are the overpriced and under spec'd cameras today.

For me it would be: 1. Workhorse hybrid (R5/R5ii/R5C, Z8/Z9, S1Rii, A7RV/FX3 etc). 2. Compact personal/travel camera (Leica rangefinder, X100VI, Sigma FP/BF). 3. Cine camera for long format / high-end work (FS7, FX6, C70/C80, BMD, Komodo). Anything else for me is a luxury/niche. I do have couple film cameras, including point & shoot favourite Yashica T4 (would love a Contax G2, Leica M7). Old SLR & DSLRs. The dream "art" video camera I want doesn't really exist, basically a new digital Bolex form factor with IBIS & NDs that shoots open-gate. I imagine Fuji could do that although it seems they're going another direction for their cine cam introduction..

Oh I agree with you and not trying to argue R5 mk2 is the best camera in each category nor was I even comparing it to Nikons. I was just pleasantly surprised to find out that in 4K fine mode the DR in Clog2 puts it all the way up to the 6th position in their rankings between Venice 2 and ARRI. In comparison the original R5 is ranked 72nd with 10.8 stops of DR. Quite a significant leap that no one seemed to really notice. I'm not that concerned with exposure latitude tests as indeed I never intend to under expose an image to those limits however usable DR in a well exposed scene is definitely always a plus, especially in backlit situations which can be crucial in certain scenarios. Also from my own tests, Clog2 is just a lot less contrasty and saturated than Clog3. Skin tones are much more natural. So that and the added DR is to me a significant advantage of the R5 mk2 vs mk1. Now comparing it to the Z8 that's a tougher one, different pros & cons. I do really like the Z8/Z9 and was so close to grabbing a Z9 last summer as it ticks so many boxes. But as mentioned I had exposure trouble shooting N-log and grading workflow was tricky versus Canon C-log. Maybe with more time on the camera I'd get to satisfactory shooting/grading level but sadly that just wasn't at all the case for me in my short time with the Nikon. I did love many things about Z8/Z9, namely the ergonomics, tilt display, speed, ProRes codecs, 4K60p oversampled, color science and neutral/flat profiles. What I didn't like was menu/banks system, AF that would often focus on eye lash instead of iris, no LUT support, unreliable log exposure assistance. These things could all be corrected in firmware and the pros do outweigh the cons. In the end its the overall lens ecosystem that'll drive you one way or the other. I'm more invested in Canon so its going to take a lot for me to switch to Nikon. Rumor has it R5 mk2 is getting open-gate. Obviously to be taken with a huge grain of salt, and Nikon could very well add that as well. That would be a significant draw for me.

Actually the R5 mk2 cined lab test reveals some quite interesting results. You can choose the binned 4K for an impressive 9.7ms RS or the 4Kfine option for detailed oversampled 4K in Clog2 with class-leading 13.3 (SNR2) 14.2 (SNR1) stops of DR! That is totally outstanding and something no one has talked about up until now. This places the R5 mk2 in this shooting mode above all other mirrorless cameras and makes it sit in between the Venice 2 & Alexa Mini LF. I was already blown away by R5 mk2 Clog2 files I've played with and now I understand better why. I think R5 mk2 has been overlooked as the specs sheet isn't that impressive but actual test results are and for DR alone I think its revealing itself to be a killer camera.

Sure, Sony lens lineup a decade ago wasn't nearly as complete in pricing & range as was EF. Sony has done a great job building its lens collection with the help of Zeiss, Sigma, Tamron etc. Not to mention all the esoteric/anamorphic E-mount lenses from boutique companies. Today DSLR lenses like EF aren't nearly as popular due to size, weight & poor video AF performance. The C70 wasn't that overpriced in the sense that its an actual cine camera with pro I/O, ND filters, large battery etc. It also had a pretty singular DGO sensor from the top of the line C300 mk3. FX3 was basically a rehoused A7S3. The main issue is that C70 was RF S35 but with zero APS-C RF lenses so you had to get the speed booster to adapt old EF glass. Really convoluted approach.. C80 is what it should have been from the start. Still for solo docu work I'd take a C70/C80 over an FX3 for the NDs, internal RAW, battery life & I/Os. You'd have to step up to FX6 for a fair comparison. FX3's competition is R5C.

I think a big part of why Canon lost to Sony in the low/mid segment is the change of mount & lenses. Canon were super slow to update their cine line to RF and still have this problem were only C70/C80 are RF and the rest is EF. On the Sony side its just E-mount through & through for over a decade. This consistency makes it a lot stronger to build and invest in the ecosystem. Not to mention RF mount has almost no S35 lenses and is closed to third-parties. That whole strategy just backfired on them big time imo. I still like Canon cameras and lenses but it's a much weaker ecosystem than Sony. Now Nikon have a chance to enter this market with Z-mount RED/Nikon cine line. Fuji are attempting with the Eterna but I feel that's going to flop, should have gone with a Fuji X APS-c sensor like the one inside XH2S.

I think it just confirms the on-going trend that in the broadcast/videography world Sony is the leader with Canon still present but trailing behind. Panny, Nikon & Fuji are so far behind they're basically absent although that could potentially shift in years to come. I've noticed the Sony dominance within my own local docu/concert/event scene. Its to the point where if you don't show up with Sony gear, people look at you funny. If you want work in that scene you basically just gotta be a Sony operator. I'm not sure how to explain it other than Sony FX ecosystem is really popular and yeah they have a head start with a FF range from A7 to FX3 to FX9. Also the A7S3/FX3/FX6 sensor is a lowlight champ with super low rolling shutter which helps a lot for run & gun docu style work. Also S-Log3 is kind of the standard in production houses. C-log is acceptable too. Other log formats can be problematic to hand in. For example I haven't even figured out how to expose/grade Nlog correctly so it would be complicated to send N-log footage to a post unit not familiar with it. Might sound silly but its workflow stuff like that that can dictate a brand/format choice from another.. and part of why ARRI dominates the cine world.