Django

I think if we look at the Komodo which is around the price of a C70, uses RF mount and has AF, it gives us basis to speculate that future entry level RED cams with Nikon tech and Asian manufacturing could venture out of the high-end cine market and compete with Canon & Sony C/FX line.  
And reverse wise Nikon high-end cams will benefit from Redcode and other ciné savoir-faire like color science, anamorphic support, open gate etc.. it also finally gives Nikon users an upgrade path to a cine line and creates a more viable ecosystem. 
That is great news for consumers and further increases my desire to switch to Nikon. 

I think if we look at the Komodo which is around the price of a C70, uses RF mount and has AF, it gives us basis to speculate that future entry level RED cams with Nikon tech and Asian manufacturing could venture out of the high-end cine market and compete with Canon & Sony C/FX line.  
And reverse wise Nikon high-end cams will benefit from Redcode and other ciné savoir-faire like color science, anamorphic support, open gate etc.. it also finally gives Nikon users an upgrade path to a cine line and creates a more viable ecosystem. 
That is great news for consumers and further increases my desire to switch to Nikon. 

I think if we look at the Komodo which is around the price of a C70, uses RF mount and has AF, it gives us basis to speculate that future entry level RED cams with Nikon tech and Asian manufacturing could venture out of the high-end cine market and compete with Canon & Sony C/FX line.  
And reverse wise Nikon high-end cams will benefit from Redcode and other ciné savoir-faire like color science, anamorphic support, open gate etc.. it also finally gives Nikon users an upgrade path to a cine line and creates a more viable ecosystem. 
That is great news for consumers and further increases my desire to switch to Nikon. 

I think if we look at the Komodo which is around the price of a C70, uses RF mount and has AF, it gives us basis to speculate that future entry level RED cams with Nikon tech and Asian manufacturing could venture out of the high-end cine market and compete with Canon & Sony C/FX line.  
And reverse wise Nikon high-end cams will benefit from Redcode and other ciné savoir-faire like color science, anamorphic support, open gate etc.. it also finally gives Nikon users an upgrade path to a cine line and creates a more viable ecosystem. 
That is great news for consumers and further increases my desire to switch to Nikon. 

Saw the movie on pay per view the other day, much better film than I was expecting. Think Blade Runner meets Terminator 2 meets Rogue One (also by Edwards/Fraser). Loved the visuals. Mostly filmed on location in remote parts of South Asia and it shows. Very different approach than most sci-fi blockbusters like Rebel Moon and such that make extensive use of green screen , virtual production, the volume etc. 
I still think shooting on the FX3 was a buzz/challenge/marketing decision but hey they pulled it off. Goes to show how mirrorless sensors are so good these days its really everything else in the pipeline (lenses, grading, post etc) that determines "cinematic" image quality.

I saw it almost twice because I have a friend who works at a theater where they were showing it and I went to catch it. The script is nothing much and it gets lost in the end. Just another movie.
Let's face it: it was discussed so much for a very simple reason: all independent filmmakers and the kids (including white-haired ones like me) je***ng off with their little cameras in the backyard thought: if he made a blockbuster with my own little camera, so can I.
But picking up on the thread title "Will The Creator change how blockbusters get filmed?" I venture to say that This was a whim of a very particular director (his resume proves it) but the film industry doesn't give a shit about the camera used for the film and nothing will change.
As I said 8 pages ago, if there is one reason the film will be remembered and may change the way these blockbusters are shot, it is the visuals.
The film is a visual treat. But not because of the camera or the lenses used but because unlike 99% of other similar films they chose not to create everything by computer but to use real locations as much as possible to which, in post production, the necessary modifications were applied (mainly for budget reasons i suppose). There are scenes shot in real Buddhist temples in Nepal, ruins in Cambodia, hotel, train station, and Bangkok airport, to which they added futuristic details. The futuristic lab you see in the trailers is a real nuclear accelerator in Thailand. the result is mind-blowing. The locations are real and fuck if you can see it.
The visuals have a great scope that the Star Wars productions look like South American soap operas in comparison.
In short seeing the total CGI reconstructions of entire landscapes in other much more expensive and famous films you get the impression that perfection has been achieved. Then you see this film and knowing the technique used (I would almost call it augmented reality) you realize that there is still a long way to go.

Here, in my opinion, this will be something that will change the approach of other productions.
 
 

90% of my Canon glass are EF primes and none of them have lens IS. 
IBIS is just great for getting rid of micro jitters and what not. Its a solid feature. Digital IS not only crops but can also introduce other issues. And of course IBIS isn't immune to that either with infamous wobble issues on wide angle lenses.
The beautiful thing about Z8/Z9 is that you can actually lock the IBIS. So it can be on or off depending on lens/situation.
Having options is always better than not having them!
That said, within Canon ecosystem, I would definitely choose the R5C over the R5 even though it doesn't have IBIS.

Probably…
Back in the day, rangefinders for film photography were the thing.
To some they still are, but perhaps these days in a digital format such as the Leica M8/9/10/11, Q2/3 and the rangefinderesque Fuji X Pro-1/2/3 and X100 line.
In recent years, they have become video capable, often to the same level as their mirrorless ‘SLR’ style siblings, but are they the best tool for the job?
Probably not but will either work in a pinch or can be made to work…
I’ve had a string of the Fuji X cameras from the Pro1 to the Pro2 and all of the X100 cameras except the the V, ie, all of them except their most recent incarnations which are the most video capable.
I personally would not choose any of them for video work regardless of capability because unless rigged out, they don’t work very well ergonomically for video compared with their siblings, ie, I’d take an XH2 over an X100V as a video tool every time.
For stills though, either with a built in pancake or interchangeable compact lens system such as the X Pro line or the Nikon Zf, they are nice to use.
For stills, in my career, the two cameras I have enjoyed the most have been the X Pro1 and X Pro2, the second version fixing the somewhat tardy AF issues of the first version.
I never went to the 3 because though I would have welcomed a tilt screen, the one they went for was not for me.
So the Zf is a return to that style of shooting (stills) for me and with a fixed lens approach as another…and perhaps my favourite ever stills camera, was the original X100.
The 35mm focal length was/is pretty good, but 40 is better still. 12mp back in the day was OK, but 24/25 is far better. And it has excellent AF and all round operating speed including start up from cold. And then there is fantastic class leading IBIS and almost the same level of video capability as my S5ii.
Almost because it doesn’t allow for 6k shooting though technically could.
But would it make a decent or even good video camera?
Actually yes, for my needs at least and this is something I will be exploring in 2024.
In standard format, it’s ergonomically shit for holding out in front of you style video, but the Smallrig grip improves things considerably.
I don’t think it’s the kind of body to be using bigger zooms or longer lenses on, but I will be interested to see how it handles with my (adapted) Tamron 70-180mm when it turns up, but again, more from a stills perspective.
But as a pure video camera? Probably not. For one thing, it doesn’t really offer anything you’d want to shoot externally so whilst you could add a cage, handle, monitor etc, why would you? That would possibly be a case of forcing a tool to work better for you than it otherwise might, but more suited tools exist in the first place.
But compared with the Z6ii, it’s moved the game on in the AF and IBIS department so it sits between it and the Z8. Kind of. At least capability-wise, though not ergonomically.
I’m looking forward to using mine more. I never saw it coming but when it was announced ‘out of the blue’, knew instantly it would be a good fit for me.
There’s quite a bit of hype, both positive and negative, around it right now, but that kind of thing doesn’t influence me, - it either works for me or does not and for me, it’s the 2023/2024 version of the Fuji X100 I always wanted.
Criticisms so far…
Only one and that is I would rather it had a tilt screen than a flip out but understand why they probably went this route, - to try and please 2 markets.
Market 1 being the casual video shooter/content creator and Market 2 being ‘The Photographer’ who can turn and close the screen and use the viewfinder only and never use the video function.
It’s not for everyone, but it is for me.
Which topic is this again? Z8 I think… 🤔😉
Still sitting on my fence over that one…
It depends on if Nikon pop out a Z6iii any time soon and how that 70-180 works on my Smallrig gripped Zf, but otherwise leaning back towards the Z9 for the following reasons in no specific order:
A. It’s arguably more ‘pro’.
B. It’s undeniably ergonomically better and a better larger lens platform.
C. Better cooling.
D. Longer battery life.
E. Twin CF Express card slots.
The negative is it costs more than the Z8, is heavier and less discrete, but these compromises do not outweigh the sum total of A-E for me.

You need to go to the custom settings menu and the g settings (video). There is a setting where you can assign the hi-res zoom to a pair of custom function buttons (such as Fn1 to zoom in and Fn2 to zoom out). You can also adjust the zoom speed. In addition to buttons on the camera itself, it's possible to control the zoom from the remote video grip that Nikon makes. The main limitation of the high-res zoom is that it limits the AF area to a central wide area of the frame. You can't move the box off center or control how big it is. So you lose some control over the autofocus. Subject detection is available though. I guess the limitation is because the box sizes are tied to the phase-detection sensor positions and those positions with the zoomed-in frame would then change as you zoom. But other than that I like the feature.

I'm already pretty much set on Z8/Z9 as my next camera purchase but if they add open gate w anamorphic support, this platform will check every spec on my ultimate hybrid camera wishlist! 

Actually if you wanna get technical, a properly mastered high-quality vinyl LP has much more DR than CD or even lossless codec file. That's why audiophiles respect vinyl so much. Take a look at these numbers from the DR database for Daft Punk's RAM album (the reference for mastering):

 
and FYI, if you take care of vinyl, dust it off before playing and use a high-end player and cartridge, you will have zero crackle, pop, wow, flutter. Its like saying that analog film is all noisy and dusty. Vinyl is like IMAX 70mm.. with a proper scan it will be superior to your 2K/4K/8K digital footage. Analog is still very popular in audio production (much more so than in photo/film industry) and for good reason. And while its true that some hipsters buy into analog only for the retro/cool factor, its just as ignorant to claim analog inferior to digital. If you know what you're doing it most certainly is not. 

CD vs Vinyl DR is an old debate and it isn’t as simple as that when it comes down to it. Lossless wars aside, many other variables come into play. Here is a study that comes up with a more nuanced approach to what you are stating:
https://www.audioholics.com/audio-technologies/dynamic-comparison-of-lps-vs-cds-part-4
 
..in any case this is an analog vs digital debate that can be transposed to film but is far less subjective and entirely different than the fps topic started here..

While the C70 is a great compact cine cam, the fact it is RF S35 means you need to buy very expensive FF RF glass that you won't even be fully exploiting, unless you adapt with the speed booster. On the flip side, the FX6 is FF only so that locks you into FF glass. 
I really think both Canon & Sony need to release above +4K resolution FF cine cameras next so you can enjoy both FF & S35 native lenses. Currently the mirrorless offerings are way more flexible in that regard.

Actually if you wanna get technical, a properly mastered high-quality vinyl LP has much more DR than CD or even lossless codec file. That's why audiophiles respect vinyl so much. Take a look at these numbers from the DR database for Daft Punk's RAM album (the reference for mastering):

 
and FYI, if you take care of vinyl, dust it off before playing and use a high-end player and cartridge, you will have zero crackle, pop, wow, flutter. Its like saying that analog film is all noisy and dusty. Vinyl is like IMAX 70mm.. with a proper scan it will be superior to your 2K/4K/8K digital footage. Analog is still very popular in audio production (much more so than in photo/film industry) and for good reason. And while its true that some hipsters buy into analog only for the retro/cool factor, its just as ignorant to claim analog inferior to digital. If you know what you're doing it most certainly is not. 

These things can be done. I just configured my video shooting bank A for Prores 422 HQ 25 fps and 1/50s SDR, and bank B for h.265 4K 50 fps 10-bit 1/100s with N-Log, and I can now switch between banks by pressing and holding Fn3 (which I programmed to act as shooting bank selection button from the video custom settings custom controls menu) and rotating the main command dial. Very handy.

I do that on my Z9. Shooting bank A is 8.3K60p and B is for 4.1K120p both RAW. 

Yeah don’t quote me on overheating, I didn’t push the Z8 by any means so yeah that’s a real valid concern. But the fact it has 2 USB-C ports, one for power and one for data is pretty dope, and if using a powerbank extends battery life and circumvents overheating then that’s killing two birds with one stone. 
 
Z9 is of course the better choice when it comes to battery life and overheating plus it’s lighter than Z8+battery grip. It’s definitely a solid alternative for a pro shooter, and for all I know I may go that route. I’m just afraid of the weight. Z8 is already up there but you can rig it up or strip it down. I guess I’ll have to try a Z9 next but I’m close to pulling trigger on Z8.

Being in a similar dilemma but having actually used both R5/R5C & Z8 here are my thoughts.
R5 pros: Good battery life, IBIS, AF, 8K30p, RAW
cons: h26x, low DR, sub-sampled 4K60p
R5C pros: 8K60p, XF-AVC, dual base ISO, Cine line features (LUT support, assist tools etc), active cooling.
R5C cons: poor battery life (better in latest firmware but still not great), no IBIS
Z8 pros: 8K60p, compressed RAW, ProRes, stacked sensor, lockable IBIS. 2X zoom/crop modes.
Z8 cons: aside from some AF issues nothing major! 
Right now as far as specs, the Z8 is in my opinion the clear winner. Side by side, the IQ on the Nikon is substantially cleaner (less noise) and has superior DR. With ProRes, IBIS and a fast stacked sensor its just a really powerful all-rounder. My only gripe with it is the AF isn't as sticky than Canons and with portrait stills it often misses the eye if you shoot wide open with fast glass.
Color wise, Nikon is more neutral and less contrasty. This is good if you like to grade/paint. Canon is better if you want SOOC results and the skin tones are the best in the game. C-log is more filmic than other logs including N-log but C-log3 on the R5/R5C has less DR than N-log. 
Lens/system wise is where things get specific and personal. Different rendering & price points with native lenses.
But where Z-mount wins is that you can adapt pretty much any glass to it, including EF. RF is a lot more closed so if you wanna adapt, Nikon is the way to go. RF has some fantastic unique lenses but they are so expensive!
FWIW I've been shooting Canon since the 5D mark 1. C100/C200. EOS R, R6. I'm a Canon guy.
I'm seriously considering switching to Nikon after trying out the Z8. The 8K/4K IQ is simply stunning and with ProRes it cuts like butter on my intel iMac Pro. I could adapt all my current lenses: EF, E-mount, Leica M and Nikkor AI-S. And the new S line lenses are pretty great too. 
Either way you can't really go wrong, I got amazing results out of the R5/R5C. You just have to be more careful with exposure because of the limited DR and they aren't low-light champs either. Ergonomics and menus are also better with Canon, its a more intuitive shooting experience. And you can get away with minimum tweaking in post, slap a LUT and you're good if you're on fast turnover.
 

Being in a similar dilemma but having actually used both R5/R5C & Z8 here are my thoughts.
R5 pros: Good battery life, IBIS, AF, 8K30p, RAW
cons: h26x, low DR, sub-sampled 4K60p
R5C pros: 8K60p, XF-AVC, dual base ISO, Cine line features (LUT support, assist tools etc), active cooling.
R5C cons: poor battery life (better in latest firmware but still not great), no IBIS
Z8 pros: 8K60p, compressed RAW, ProRes, stacked sensor, lockable IBIS. 2X zoom/crop modes.
Z8 cons: aside from some AF issues nothing major! 
Right now as far as specs, the Z8 is in my opinion the clear winner. Side by side, the IQ on the Nikon is substantially cleaner (less noise) and has superior DR. With ProRes, IBIS and a fast stacked sensor its just a really powerful all-rounder. My only gripe with it is the AF isn't as sticky than Canons and with portrait stills it often misses the eye if you shoot wide open with fast glass.
Color wise, Nikon is more neutral and less contrasty. This is good if you like to grade/paint. Canon is better if you want SOOC results and the skin tones are the best in the game. C-log is more filmic than other logs including N-log but C-log3 on the R5/R5C has less DR than N-log. 
Lens/system wise is where things get specific and personal. Different rendering & price points with native lenses.
But where Z-mount wins is that you can adapt pretty much any glass to it, including EF. RF is a lot more closed so if you wanna adapt, Nikon is the way to go. RF has some fantastic unique lenses but they are so expensive!
FWIW I've been shooting Canon since the 5D mark 1. C100/C200. EOS R, R6. I'm a Canon guy.
I'm seriously considering switching to Nikon after trying out the Z8. The 8K/4K IQ is simply stunning and with ProRes it cuts like butter on my intel iMac Pro. I could adapt all my current lenses: EF, E-mount, Leica M and Nikkor AI-S. And the new S line lenses are pretty great too. 
Either way you can't really go wrong, I got amazing results out of the R5/R5C. You just have to be more careful with exposure because of the limited DR and they aren't low-light champs either. Ergonomics and menus are also better with Canon, its a more intuitive shooting experience. And you can get away with minimum tweaking in post, slap a LUT and you're good if you're on fast turnover.
 

Being in a similar dilemma but having actually used both R5/R5C & Z8 here are my thoughts.
R5 pros: Good battery life, IBIS, AF, 8K30p, RAW
cons: h26x, low DR, sub-sampled 4K60p
R5C pros: 8K60p, XF-AVC, dual base ISO, Cine line features (LUT support, assist tools etc), active cooling.
R5C cons: poor battery life (better in latest firmware but still not great), no IBIS
Z8 pros: 8K60p, compressed RAW, ProRes, stacked sensor, lockable IBIS. 2X zoom/crop modes.
Z8 cons: aside from some AF issues nothing major! 
Right now as far as specs, the Z8 is in my opinion the clear winner. Side by side, the IQ on the Nikon is substantially cleaner (less noise) and has superior DR. With ProRes, IBIS and a fast stacked sensor its just a really powerful all-rounder. My only gripe with it is the AF isn't as sticky than Canons and with portrait stills it often misses the eye if you shoot wide open with fast glass.
Color wise, Nikon is more neutral and less contrasty. This is good if you like to grade/paint. Canon is better if you want SOOC results and the skin tones are the best in the game. C-log is more filmic than other logs including N-log but C-log3 on the R5/R5C has less DR than N-log. 
Lens/system wise is where things get specific and personal. Different rendering & price points with native lenses.
But where Z-mount wins is that you can adapt pretty much any glass to it, including EF. RF is a lot more closed so if you wanna adapt, Nikon is the way to go. RF has some fantastic unique lenses but they are so expensive!
FWIW I've been shooting Canon since the 5D mark 1. C100/C200. EOS R, R6. I'm a Canon guy.
I'm seriously considering switching to Nikon after trying out the Z8. The 8K/4K IQ is simply stunning and with ProRes it cuts like butter on my intel iMac Pro. I could adapt all my current lenses: EF, E-mount, Leica M and Nikkor AI-S. And the new S line lenses are pretty great too. 
Either way you can't really go wrong, I got amazing results out of the R5/R5C. You just have to be more careful with exposure because of the limited DR and they aren't low-light champs either. Ergonomics and menus are also better with Canon, its a more intuitive shooting experience. And you can get away with minimum tweaking in post, slap a LUT and you're good if you're on fast turnover.
 

Being in a similar dilemma but having actually used both R5/R5C & Z8 here are my thoughts.
R5 pros: Good battery life, IBIS, AF, 8K30p, RAW
cons: h26x, low DR, sub-sampled 4K60p
R5C pros: 8K60p, XF-AVC, dual base ISO, Cine line features (LUT support, assist tools etc), active cooling.
R5C cons: poor battery life (better in latest firmware but still not great), no IBIS
Z8 pros: 8K60p, compressed RAW, ProRes, stacked sensor, lockable IBIS. 2X zoom/crop modes.
Z8 cons: aside from some AF issues nothing major! 
Right now as far as specs, the Z8 is in my opinion the clear winner. Side by side, the IQ on the Nikon is substantially cleaner (less noise) and has superior DR. With ProRes, IBIS and a fast stacked sensor its just a really powerful all-rounder. My only gripe with it is the AF isn't as sticky than Canons and with portrait stills it often misses the eye if you shoot wide open with fast glass.
Color wise, Nikon is more neutral and less contrasty. This is good if you like to grade/paint. Canon is better if you want SOOC results and the skin tones are the best in the game. C-log is more filmic than other logs including N-log but C-log3 on the R5/R5C has less DR than N-log. 
Lens/system wise is where things get specific and personal. Different rendering & price points with native lenses.
But where Z-mount wins is that you can adapt pretty much any glass to it, including EF. RF is a lot more closed so if you wanna adapt, Nikon is the way to go. RF has some fantastic unique lenses but they are so expensive!
FWIW I've been shooting Canon since the 5D mark 1. C100/C200. EOS R, R6. I'm a Canon guy.
I'm seriously considering switching to Nikon after trying out the Z8. The 8K/4K IQ is simply stunning and with ProRes it cuts like butter on my intel iMac Pro. I could adapt all my current lenses: EF, E-mount, Leica M and Nikkor AI-S. And the new S line lenses are pretty great too. 
Either way you can't really go wrong, I got amazing results out of the R5/R5C. You just have to be more careful with exposure because of the limited DR and they aren't low-light champs either. Ergonomics and menus are also better with Canon, its a more intuitive shooting experience. And you can get away with minimum tweaking in post, slap a LUT and you're good if you're on fast turnover.
 

As a Nikon user you really need to follow these two men on YouTube: Hudson Henry and Steve Perry. They're wildlife photographers 99% of the time, and don't shoot video a lot, but they have a tone of info to offer about how your camera works. 
 
 

Just thought I'd mention I've revisited the Z8 with now better understanding of how the camera operates (read the manual beforehand) and of how to work with N-log (using color management bypassing the awful official LUTs) and well I guess all I can say is it is my new favourite camera! 4K ProRes HQ on an SD card edits like butter on my ageing iMac Pro and the IQ gives so much room for grading. Neutral & Flat profiles are also great SOOC profiles and 8K60p is of course top notch and I haven't yet even explored RAW. 
I guess ultimately the switch back to Nikon would be quite effortless as Z mount has smart adapters for my Sony & Canon EF glass and even my Leica M glass. Alongside my old Nikkor AIS, every single lens I own could be supported!
I do have a question for Z8/Z9/Nikon users: does the camera have custom banks like C1/C2/C3 etc where you can have various custom settings like codec/frame rate/resolution settings and recall them quickly?

Yeah well its funny because I initially had mixed feelings about the Z8 but it has really grown on me, especially the files it produces. Really clean footage, easy to work with. Good DR, snappy AF. All kinds of codec options. High-resolution stills. Basically a workhorse camera. Will get even better when the LoISO update gets implemented.
The R3 has imo the best ergonomics. and the video specs are quite nice too albeit not that flexible with either 6K in RAW only or 4K h26x. And 24MP stills. DR on Canons is also kinda mid, especially with no Clog2. 
The Z8 gives you 45MP stills and 8K, 5K, 4K in RAW. UHD & FHD in ProRes & 8K, UHD & FHD in h26x. Plus 2X crop modes and digital zoom. All for about two thousand less than an R3. It's just much more bang for the buck imo. Plus the Z mount opens up compatibility to my entire various mount lens collection. Tilty screen which I miss. And lockable IBIS which I don't think anyone else is doing. It's almost a no-brainer for me personally. Paired with a Zf for more casual shooting, that would be a sick combo.
The Nikon Z f1.8 primes are also super silent and optimised for video with minimal breathing, compact and fairly priced. So after so much hesitation on where to go next I think I'm pretty set on Nikon after all. 
 

Yeah well its funny because I initially had mixed feelings about the Z8 but it has really grown on me, especially the files it produces. Really clean footage, easy to work with. Good DR, snappy AF. All kinds of codec options. High-resolution stills. Basically a workhorse camera. Will get even better when the LoISO update gets implemented.
The R3 has imo the best ergonomics. and the video specs are quite nice too albeit not that flexible with either 6K in RAW only or 4K h26x. And 24MP stills. DR on Canons is also kinda mid, especially with no Clog2. 
The Z8 gives you 45MP stills and 8K, 5K, 4K in RAW. UHD & FHD in ProRes & 8K, UHD & FHD in h26x. Plus 2X crop modes and digital zoom. All for about two thousand less than an R3. It's just much more bang for the buck imo. Plus the Z mount opens up compatibility to my entire various mount lens collection. Tilty screen which I miss. And lockable IBIS which I don't think anyone else is doing. It's almost a no-brainer for me personally. Paired with a Zf for more casual shooting, that would be a sick combo.
The Nikon Z f1.8 primes are also super silent and optimised for video with minimal breathing, compact and fairly priced. So after so much hesitation on where to go next I think I'm pretty set on Nikon after all.