kye

I think the smart money is on Rokkor glass. If I could be bothered I'd snap a bunch of As New lenses up now, before they do what FD lenses did over the last few years, and CZ before them. One of the big vintage lens YouTubers I watch reviewed his first Rokkors and the comment was that the build quality made FD lenses seem (IIRC he said "light" but something indicating the Rokkors might be more solid than the FDs). I also saw someone show off their set of Hexanons earlier today, which wasn't something I'd thought people made sets of. The comment about the 40/1.8 (which wasn't in their set) was "creamy". I have two copies of that lens and I found it too soft on MFT wide-open, but if you're using the whole image circle and looking for a dreamy look or will stop down some then yeah, I can imagine a set of those being in a similar territory to USSR lenses and their (desirable) imperfections. Lots of other brands out there for collecting still.

Interesting comparison, but to be cinematic instead of blurring part of the image they should have taken the 4K image and blurred all of it to soften the jagged edges and make it look less like low-bitrate highly-compressed 8-bit 709 footage. I look at the image on the left and think it looks low-resolution and low-quality and the image on the right and think it looks high-resolution and like someone added an emboss filter over the top set to 15% opacity.

Yes, and in the vintage lens FB groups I'm in there seem to be a lot of complete sets changing hands, so it's a route that can save a lot of time and hassle. Of course, it's interesting for me to watch as you see a listing and a few lines of text and maybe part of a photo, click on it as you're curious, and.... WOW $50,000 ono! With that many zeroes it's like the prices jump out from behind a tree at you!

What connectivity options are there from the tape player you're looking at? Probably easier to start with the player and work downstream I'd imagine, as then it's just a case of buying an appropriate interface. Also, it might be easier to have someone else do the transfer? Analog tape machines really benefit from being high-end devices that are regularly maintained and aligned etc, which is what a (good) media facility should be able to offer.

I'd love to see 4444 or XQ implemented on more cameras (well, Prores in general too) as they have 12-bit and so with their higher bitrates become a real competitor to RAW formats, but offer the ability to downscale in-camera which RAW typically doesn't offer. If resolution choice changes the crop factor of your camera and therefore throws your entire lens setup into chaos then it's a PITA, so better to have a codec that's good enough to offer the flexibility of RAW in post but doesn't screw up your kit.

Interesting comparison, that it arrives at a similar total price. I completely agree that it's the modularity that will be the key - as @IronFilm said that if you can just take the camera module from an A-Cam style setup and put it on the D4 for a gimbal+Z setup and then onto a drone then it would be a pretty smooth workflow. Good points about having to offer an A-Cam option, and the various points around the total experience including reliability and servicing etc. DJI is becoming quite mature in terms of being a hardware / software tech company so that's in their favour, but having a large and professional-grade service network is a different kettle of fish. I do wonder if they have one for their high-end drones. DJI have items that approach the $10K mark in B&H, although there are two other manufacturers that go up to $30K so maybe DJI haven't yet had to setup a first-class service network. They do have a new drone listed there, it has no price but it's in the list between the $10K and $12K items (sorted by price) and it lists "Compatible with Zenmuse Cameras" so I think that model might be the drone platform for this line of cameras. https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1560814-REG/dji_matrice_300_commercial_quadcopter.html In terms of not crippling their products, like Canon do, I think the 4D is a pretty big statement that they're not doing that! There are many subtle differences between cinema cameras and video cameras. These typically stem from the fundamental assumptions that when shooting cinema, you will alter the environment to suit the camera, whereas when shooting video, the camera must be able to work with a given environment. ie, controlled vs uncontrolled sets. Some examples: Cinema cameras typically don't have in-built stabilisation as it's assumed they will be rigged out, which is reasonable because you're likely to have complete control over the set. Video cameras are out there in the world, dealing with whatever comes, so frequently offer stabilised sensors and work with stabilised lenses. Cinema cameras typically aren't designed to have good performance at a wide ISO range. This is because the environment can be lit to suit the ISO of the camera. The exception to this is when shooting outside in-build NDs are often used. Cinema cameras very rarely have fast shutter speeds. Video cameras are expected to fit in with the outside world, which means handling low light situations with good high-ISO performance. Internal NDs aren't as common as many video shooters don't care about shutter speed and so video cameras are designed with fast shutters to be able to properly expose with a wide aperture in full-sun. Cinema cameras typically aren't designed to be all-in-one, they are designed to be rigged, and to be modular. This is because the size and weight and appearance of the camera isn't of much concern on a controlled set. As such, cinema cameras often don't use internal batteries (or if they do they are only designed to keep the camera powered up during battery changes on the external power source), often don't record audio natively (or do via a sound module that will accept XLRs and provide phantom power), and often don't have an articulating screen, or any screen at all. Video cameras are designed to be all-in-one, they are designed to function independently and aren't typically designed to accept many modular elements. As such, they use internal batteries and may not even be able to be powered externally, will always record audio (some only support in-built microphones and others offer 3.5mm audio jacks, with only a few offering XLR or pro connections), will have a screen or EVF or both (of varying standard of articulation). There are other differences, but these are the main ones that come to mind. Yes, you can use a video camera on a controlled set to make something that ends up in the cinema. Yes, you can take a cinema camera and use it out in the uncontrolled world. However, there are limits... Video cameras can't always be made to do everything that a cinema camera can do, and image quality is often sacrificed for ease-of-use, whereas a cinema camera is all about the image because the camera is sometimes little more than a sensor in a box. Cinema cameras can probably be made to do everything that a video camera can do, but they can't do it quickly, conveniently, easily, practically, or simply. Therefore, there are situations that can't practically be filmed because they happen too fast. Situations that can't be practically filmed because the camera is too much of an imposition on the environment, being too large, conspicuous, require too much management and too many people. This is why when the Blackmagic Pocket CINEMA Camera was released, the video shooters complained about it lacking a bright screen, longer battery life, good internal audio quality, etc. That's why when the Blackmagic Pocket CINEMA Camera 4K was released, the video shooters complained about the same things again, only they also complained it wasn't pocketable anymore. Same with BMPCC 6K and 6K Pro. This is why I had real trouble getting good images from my XC10 in run-n-gun situations. I treated it like a video camera expecting it to cater to my needs, whereas it expected me to cater to its needs. Thus, I was greeted with poor image quality. This is why when I changed from XC10 to the GH5, my results improved drastically. It's not that the XC10 was a worse camera, but that I expected a CINEMA camera to work well in a VIDEO situation, and surprise surprise, it didn't.

I guess what I'm saying is, it's a CINEMA camera. Therefore, VIDEO shooters will fail to understand what it's for, why it's so expensive, and that it wasn't designed for them. ....Just like every other cinema camera released that was either the size or cost of a DSLR 😂😂😂

Well, mostly for shooters who stabilise the location of the camera, which a gimbal doesn't do, and people who like to move the camera and shoot with only a gimbal for stabilisation also don't do. ie, it's much more for Hollywood style controlled sets than event or documentary style shooters, although they could certainly benefit from using it. It's a bit pricey though - the base package is over $7K on B&H, putting it out of the reach of most gimbal-only shooters.

I think you nailed it by calling it 'elegant'. So simple, especially colouring the face-detect with green, but very powerful. I can imagine future updates having another colour for the other faces detected in the scene and showing them as well, which would be great for focus pulls during dialogue scenes. What do you think of the ergonomics and image? Do you think that there would be people willing to use this on a set that could afford a cine camera and a gimbal / steadicam? I have no idea how DJI is regarded at the ARRI level of film-making. I'm assuming that if you wanted to fly an Alexa Mini or Komodo you'd be using one of the high-end DJI drones?

I think we're mostly talking about the same things, but the terminology is letting us down. Sadly, I find that the level of knowledge out there about cameras is woefully inadequate, which means that things are actually named incorrectly (or at least misleadingly), which then gets in the way of even knowledgeable people talking. The "bounce" I'm talking about isn't when the IBIS hits its limits, its when the person can't do the ninja walk and the vertical height of the camera goes up and down. Anyway, this isn't a camera aimed at people who shoot handheld relying on IBIS, this is a camera for people who shoot with a gimbal attached to a z-axis stabiliser.

Canon: we've released dozens of cinema cameras over the decades, with hundreds of firmware updates - we're really innovative! DJI: releases first cinema camera ever, and first version of the firmware includes LiDAR Waveform, including colour coding the points identified as a face.... Comatose. The rest of the industry is comatose.

Embargo has lifted so heaps of reviews all now on YT..... I have 10 reviews of it in my subscriber feed lol.

You didn't get my point. The problem with IBIS and any stabilised footage is parallax error. This is where the IBIS stabilises the rotation of the camera but not the position. This gives the 'gimbal bounce' when walking, but also means that any time you have something in the foreground it will bounce around while the background is completely stable. This camera has a Z-axis stabiliser built-in, which would be a huge upgrade to anyone using just a normal gimbal. The more I think about it, the more that stabilised rotation and unstabilised location is the Achilles heel of the amateur. Of course, I see it a lot in YouTuber content, but you could argue that professional you tubers are professional entertainers rather than professional film-makers.

I was thinking about the GH6 last week. End of the day a GH6 is a relatively small prosumer camera which, although it produces a wonderful image from a small package was designed for people who don't have much money and with a MFT mount is losing ground now. I use a GH5 and it's pretty good, and the GH6 is unlikely to offer an enormous upgrade for what I do. So TBH I think the GH6 should completely violate the laws of supply and demand and be released at $299.

Here in Australia the top M1Max 16" is about two-thirds the price of the cheapest brand new car. I deliberately bought an Intel MBP in 2020 because I didn't want to beta-test the new M1 and everyones first software releases for a new chipset, and now it looks like things are right on schedule for when I upgrade in ~2022/23 for the tech to be solid and the applications to be ironed out. At that point the prices will have calmed down a little too. I wonder how often they'll be upgrading the chipset.. ie when the M2 will be out.

I completely disagree. Unless it's got poor IQ (which we haven't seen yet) or you're talking about brand anxiety and status on set, it's actually a superior option in many cases, because its competitor is not a shoulder rig, it's competition is a ronin / easyrig combo because it has a z-axis stabiliser: or perhaps even a ronin / steadicam, depending on how easy it is to do big vertical moves: Amusingly, Hollywood seems to be voting against you, as the default approach for high-end cinema appears to be stabilised unless otherwise required, rather than the other way around, which seems to be your preference. I find that one of the fastest ways to make footage look amateur is to have the cameras location (not rotation) shake. ie, IBIS and gimbals stabilise the cameras rotation so the image doesn't move around, but the cameras position often shakes giving that terrible effect of having the background stay stable and the items in the foreground shake due to the parallax error. Hollywood doesn't do parallax shake because the camera is on sticks / crane / slider which controls the cameras location, or on the shoulder of someone standing still which provides more rotational movement than location movement, or on a steadicam where the cameras location is very fluidly controlled. The only exception is when "hand held" was in the brief, in which case it's appropriate. I film exclusively hand-held for all my projects using IBIS, which is appropriate to their aesthetic, but I try and avoid moving the camera at all while filming to avoid the shaky parallax error. Tragically, this level of innovation is not remarkable. In any other tech sector, this would be normal. The only reason this stands out is because the rest of the industry is lazy and complacent. I include companies like Panasonic in this comment. The industry has lowered our expectations dramatically to the point where the only ones we actually complain about (eg, Canon) are, when compared to other tech sectors, positively comatose. Imagine an app developer coming out with a big release - "here's version 48 or our app - it's got 25% more resolution than v47 but as usual the 16 most significant issues are unchanged, just like every other release since the first version of our app over a decade ago". The camera industry will get eaten by tech companies eventually, and it can't happen soon enough TBH!

Have you shot these things, or other things, before? If so, what did you shoot, what gear did you use and how did it work for you?

Any footage out yet?

...and the average forum poster also has very different needs than wants!!

Laowa made a 9mm f/2.8 ZERO-D Lens for that mount, but I couldn't find any adapters. These were drone lenses up until this camera so adapter-related shenanigans makes a lot less sense when your camera is a mile away and you're pretty much only filming landscapes. This page has some MTF charts that show the lens performance. Buyer beware as they're from the manufacturer, but they seem reasonable and making a S35 f2.8 prime isn't a major challenge if you're a huge Chinese camera company these days. https://www.dji.com/au/zenmuse-x7 (you have to scroll down to the lenses) Making a S35 cinema camera without support for existing lenses (even just a single other format like EF) would be product suicide, so I can't imagine them not doing that. If they went the way that Canon did with the C70 and provided an offical speed booster then it could adapt to any EF mount FF lens then that would be a pretty good way to provide that flexibility. I'm going to go out on a limb here and predict that it's probably not going to have PL support. I know. I'm making big calls today!

It's a mount used on their X7 with is a S35 camera. Looks like it's a proprietary mount though so not sure about compatibility, although it's likely to have a short flange distance so maybe they'll provide adapters?

I don't think it looks like a fixed lens... That looks to me like a 24mm focal length, in fact, it looks like the 24mm in this set... Which is here: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1373413-REG/dji_cp_bx_00000039_01_zenmuse_x7_part_14.html Certainly, they have lots of other ILC cameras, so it's not a new thing for them.

Aren't their drones (the big ones at least) completely modular? You can buy the X3 and X5 and X5R separately, right? So, maybe this thing might be compatible in some way that isn't obvious? If they could make it so that as a wedding photographer or adventure photographer or event photographer you could buy all your equipment from DJI, that would be a pretty sweet kind of lock-in. In this new world where every brand wants you to get locked into their eco-system, DJI are the natural choice to go first. Much more likely than Canon or Panasonic or Blackmagic are to release a drone... DJI have been in the camera business for a long time already, and already make cameras and lenses. This includes: the X5S which is an interchangeable MFT camera which shoot 5.2K 12-bit RAW CinemaDNG and Prores internally the X7 which is a S35 sensor and shoots 6K CinemaDNG and claims 14 stops of DR the Z30 which is a 1/2.8" with fixed lens with a 30x optical zoom These are not specs to be dismissed, and if they go all-out then there's no reason they couldn't make an impressive camera, and with a 30X zoom drone camera already released then maybe it could also have stabilisation that no-one could touch.

I'm in a number of FB camera groups across a few different camera brands/models, and every one of them gets a post every week about which gimbal camera X fits on, and which lenses will balance. FB group posts typically last about that length before they're buried, so I suspect that this conversation is continuously being had, probably for every camera, probably in every language, around the world. For contrast, I don't think I can recall a single thread about sliders, cranes, easy-rigs, or dollys in those groups. Gimbals, for whatever reason, are a big deal. Yeah, it doesn't look particularly ergonomic!

All these are relevant, but there is much more to something looking cinematic than just 24p with 180 shutter with a bit of background defocus. To elaborate on my comment about resolution, the answer is that videographers tend to think in simplistic terms (eg more is better) and film-makers have a much more nuanced perspective that quickly moves from talking about resolution to sharpness and texture, and how to adjust all the various parameters through the signal chain to hit an optimal look. Videographers who are obsessed with higher and higher resolutions typically don't talk about texture or 'looks' (other than talking about LUTs), and would NEVER talk about deliberately lowering the sharpness of the image with lower-sharpness lenses.