KnightsFan

First where you can flip the filter out of the way entirely, to fully clear, without trays.

I love this. I think there's a lot of room for innovation in merging AF and MF technologies, and this is a cool step. Speaking of adapters, I saw in CineD's coverage that Metabones' EF to E adapter with eND is available to purchase now. Afaik, that's the first adapter with a filter that doesn't require changing filter trays.

Yeah I was looking at the images posted back when I first mentioned the XLR inputs. It was obviously the XLR2D, but it clearly wasn't the analog one since it didn't have the battery pack underneath. I wonder if Tascam is updating it to have dual ADC and 32 bit float, or if it's the one they already have for Canon and Fuji?

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.

Disregarding the use of AI by professional filmmakers as a tool to make serious content, can I just say, fuck those same 2 voices reading garbage AI scripts in YouTube videos, and all generated images of celebrities. And especially fuck AI images of real landscapes and mountains on Facebook. The Grand Canyon doesn't look like that.

It's been a while since I've been able to work on any kind of movie, but here are some recent landscapes photos. I'm not doing anything artistic, just trying to capture some of my favorite places the way they felt at the time. The only edits are very slight changes to saturation and exposure. 90% of my photos are from 10+ mile hikes so I only bring my lightweight 28mm and a CPL, but in this group is a rare photo taken from the roadside using a 24-105.

As much as subscription models suck for us individuals, they are often preferable for businesses, even regarding software like Adobe. Obviously Arri's target market is rental houses, and the comment earlier about a rental house passing those temporary upgrades to customers is quite likely the intent. It's worth spelling out the difference between subscription editing software and camera upgrades, though. With Adobe's product, if you stop paying, you can't open your old projects. In Arri's model, if you stop paying, you can presumably still open files shot with those upgrades. Losing access to the creative work that you've already done is a big difference.

There's a pretty big difference between one person stealing a screenplay or synopsis, and scraping the entire internet to make a generalized tool that billions of people use daily. Both can be unethical, but it's a few orders of magnitude difference in how many people it harms and to what degree. I believe that we should create technology for its own sake. I don't want to halt AI progress. There just needs to be a way to ensure that it benefits all people, particularly the people who (unwillingly/unknowingly) contributed to creating the models.

If you think that it is unethical to copy a commercial movie and personally sell those copies without the permission of the movie's owner, then it's hard to imagine how it could be ethical to use that same movie to train a model that is then sold without the permission of that movie's owner.

At no point in my life could I remotely imagine making a mess for someone else to clean up. I almost don't care about people making some noise in the theater at that specific moment--hey, it's not my type of movie, let the fans enjoy it their way--but people throwing shit on the floor makes me so angry. I think pop culture has shifted sharply towards factual, literal interpretations of stories. Our stories have become more about whether superhero A or superhero B would win in a fight, and less about what that conflict tells us about the characters, or more importantly, ourselves. Characters and stories are analyzed in terms of today's culture, rather than the movie world. It's in vogue to say, "well actually, don't date a guy like Mr. Darcy, because he only helped Lydia to get in Elizabeth's pants" ignoring that it's fantasy. Stories don't necessarily need the same ideology or moral code as real life--fantasy isn't only about a physical setting. The emotional meaning behind an action in a story doesn't necessarily match the emotional meaning behind that same action in the real world. And I think that 20-40 years ago, moviegoers accepted that kind of fantasy to a larger degree. It was normal for a movie to convey themes and values without requiring a literal relationship to modern-day themes and culture. Maybe another way to summarize is that subtext--both in terms of plot and theme--has become less common.

I don't know about that. Negativity is a whole industry that certainly draws in the views. Maybe not cammacky's style, I'm not familiar with him (I think I at least know who he is?), but a video critiquing every little thing about a product would definitely generate views. Gerald got a whole lot of buzz and an entire separate video's worth of views by saying rolling shutter was bad. There are plenty of channels that revolve entirely around saying how bad everything is.