KnightsFan

For context, I went to film school and have worked on many projects with 2-3 people per camera, ones where I managed multiple cameras on my own, 16mm film projects, and everything in between. On the other side, I've also shot live concerts for music videos, which, incidentally, the ZR would be a fantastic choice for. So while I don't have the experience of many of the active pros here, I understand camera use cases. I never said anything about single cards being a requirement. I said that if you use the camera on any kind of support (tripod, jib, car rig, shoulder rig, gimbal) it's going to be a massive pain to change the card, ergo the ZR is designed almost exclusively for handheld, unrigged use. Almost every shot on most (not all) cinema projects uses a support system. The Alexa and Raptor are quintessential cinema cameras. Actually, I consider dual cards to be most beneficial in documentary settings, where retakes are impossible and you don't have multiple cameras for coverage. @eatstoomuchjammentioned the Z Cam F6. Z Cam's original prototypes for the E2 put the CFast card on the bottom, but they changed it because of feedback saying it would be too cumbersome to access. I consider the F6 to be a cinema camera, as a category, because it is designed to be used in a variety of situations that are typical for cinematic capture, and Z Cam discovered that included being able to change the card. Obviously, it's a lower end camera, relatively speaking, and there are plenty of photo cameras with better video quality. Because it's impossible to tell on the internet, I'll reiterate that I'm quite happy to agree to disagree about terminology! And I am genuinely happy when people do things differently than I would.

Everyone knows you can use an FX3, or an iphone, or a 5D2, or a ZR to make a great movie, and they knew it before making clickbait videos about how crazy it is that someone would use the FX3 for their project. Doesn't make any of those into cinema cameras. If the definition of a cinema camera is that you can use it to make a movie, then let me just respond to a few work emails on my cinema camera -- which, btw, has seen use in some of my serious projects as the best tool forthe job in that scenario.

That's my secret, Cap. I'm always angry 🙂 Since you never know on the internet, I'm mostly tongue in cheek with all that. I don't really care what anyone calls anything, I understand marketing always has a dubious relationship with the truth, and I always evaluate purchase decisions based on the capabilities rather than name. (And I said the same thing about the "box" moniker someone slapped on the C50 rumors, so I'm not here bashing Nikon.) But in seriousness, the broader a term grows, the less valuable it is. If everything is a cinema camera, nothing is a cinema camera.

I think Gerald got the categorization right, and of all the things you can call the ZR, cinema camera is not one of them. No reason it can't be used for great movies. There's also no reason you can't pull still frames from a Komodo and sell them as photographs without it being a photo camera or even a hybrid. You don't need to be a photographer or a cinematographer to understand categories of tools. The thing about these comparisons between cheap and expensive cameras is that it kinda works with all cameras. The ZR isn't unique in being indistinguishable from an expensive camera when shot in a controlled environment and viewed in compressed 4K YouTube videos. It's been a few years since I had any concerns about pure image quality from really any camera. I for one have high hopes for Nikon/Red going forward, which is why I'm relatively disappointed that their first camera is not really ergonomically catered to what I'd like.

That card placement is rough for anything other than handheld which is why it screams content creator to me. You can certainly find specific projects where it's not an issue, but if you're like me and only have a single camera used for all projects, that's a complete non starter. No way am I taking a camera all the way off the gimbal/tripod/jib/car rig to change cards, when there are other cameras--including the Z6III--that would save all that trouble. I understand some people really get into Raw, but I haven't cared about Raw ever since decent 10 bit capture became the norm, and you implied a similar thing earlier so we're on the same page for that, I think. I mean of course I agree that 10 years ago, this would have been mind blowing, but that's just how it goes, right? Higher ability leads to higher expectation. And to be extremely clear: everyone who finds this to be exactly what they want, that's great! Nikon just made a lot of strange choices in my opinion.

Is that official? I didn't see it mentioned in the Newsshooter article or Nikon's site, though there is that one picture. If so then I guess at least that one is solved for.

What a bizarre camera. R3D, but dinky micro HDMI. 32 bit float audio, but no XLR module. I'd consider this one the most egregious misuse of a "cinema" moniker of the recent releases. The card slots are on the bottom--have fun getting to those when it's on a tripod. I don't see a mention of timecode input. The only reason I would even call it a video camera is that, without an EVF, it's useless for photography. Edit: and yes, I realize it's relatively cheap, I'm not exactly saying it's a bad value, just contradictory in some ways

I'm looking at the two pictures, and they look like different cameras, whether they are from the same video or not. Clearly they are different adapters due to the word "Viltrox" being in different places. Both could be PL-L adapters, but they aren't the same one.

@ND64 That's a different camera than was posted by @D Verco, though? The lumix has what appears to be an EVF, while the one on the previous page has a flat top. Also the one on the previous page doesn't have the PL to L text on the top of the adapter, like in that top down shot in the other thread. Maybe I missed something. It seems like a bunch of different cameras.

Me too, so no one should be calling that thing a box camera.

Oh sorry, I wasn't clear, I meant the side grip. The thing that looks very much part of the camera and very much not a box.

"Box-style design" does not align with what I am looking at. Either there are two different cameras, or some marketing genius decided to just call it what people want and hope no one notices. Edit: Or--and I'm really stretching here--that handle is detachable. Which would be really cool and I would take back all of my snide categorization criticisms.

If DJI enter the MILC market, I assume they will start at the consumer end rather than professional. There probably isn't a ton of overlap between consumer camera buyers, and pilots serious enough to own a drone with interchangeable lenses. My gut instinct is that basically none of their initial target market already own DL lenses. I also believe the consumer market has a short memory for system support. Canon dropped the EF-M mount one day, and within 1-2 years no one cared anymore. My gut is that an L mount camera will sell better. Either way, breaking into this market is difficult.

I love the trend of designing a slightly less ergonomic mirrorless with a flat top, and calling in a cinema camera.

I'm not convinced that the lower end will "get bored" of their slop, but if ai generation can be priced to include legal training material, power consumption, and carbon cleanup, then we might be able to price some of it out of existence.