aaa123jc

So I’ve bought the Z CAM-S6, hoping it would be useful for some upcoming projects. However, I planned to sell it after finishing those projects, unless I find myself in love with this camera. 
Anyway, I took the camera with some friends and shot a little video. We didn’t plan beforehand because this was meant to be more of a feeling out process and a camera test. I’ve tried very hard to make it a more coherent story, though I must admit it is still very confusing. 
1. Modular design is fantastic because you can build it up the way you wanted, however the cost adds up very quickly. 
2. Very well built, but the metal body makes it a little bit heavy, despite the size. 
3. A lot of codec and resolution options. It’s always nice to have internal ProRes recording and H265 is very efficient indeed. 
4. Image Quality is detailed and organic, and you can always shoot in 6K. 
5. Battery life is quite good, especially if you use a bigger battery.
6. Control needs time to get used to, and it’s still slower than a proper video camera like the C200 and FS5. 
7. CFast 2.0 Card is VERY EXPENSIVE. This forces me to use H265, which sometimes requires transcoding.  
8. AF is just as bad as, if not worse than, EVA1. Normally, this won’t be an issue but…
9. The HDMI Output is very soft, for some reason. Maybe this is due to user error. The image is so soft that even using a 6 inch monitor, it is still hard to judge focus sometimes. This is my biggest problem by far. 
10. Playback is in LOW resolution. Clients may not like feel confident about the footage you just captured.
The whole video is shot in 6K 2.4:1 mode, 23.976 FPS ,with Z-Log2 and in H265. All is shot handheld. I’ve mainly used the Sigma 18-35 1.8 and for one shot the Canon 85 1.4. 
Thank you.
PS. I'm not sure should I make a topic like this. I apologize first if it violates the rules.  

Granted the Mac Pro might not be for mass consumers, but there's a much wider market than just filmmakers. And It's not actually a niche product; it's just a high-end version of a product nearly every home and office uses. Any professional who needs a powerful desktop for any reason might consider it. And many more people with more money than sense will go out and buy it simply because they think "it's what professionals use and I want the best". The real genius of Apple products is in the styling and marketing, not in the design or features.

It's worth noting that if Apple put out a cinema camera they would likely not be able to include ProRes raw recording internally - they already challenged Red's patent in court and lost.

And being Apple, they would probably have a proprietary lens mount with very limited, overpriced lenses. You would have to buy an ipad or iphone as the monitor, there would be no headphone jack, the audio inputs would be some new proprietary type, everything would be touchscreen only, and the mounting threads would be 1/2" instead of 1/4" so that you have to buy a special Apple baseplate for $2499 just to put it on a tripod. Plus it would probably have an internal media and an internal battery that cannot be removed and which does not last for a full 10hr production day (and the charger would be sold separately).

Apple are the last company I would want to see release a cinema camera.

I just wished it took stills as well( with flash hotshoe)

Interesting. I use a phone as a monitor so I'm not sure. I'd expect it to be as sharp as the internal 1080p, for external recording, so I wonder if there's a setting somewhere?
The Clutch is nice. I got one essentially for free as I bought a large package deal, then sold it all individually except the Clutch and came out about even. The more customizable dials and buttons the better, particularly for run'n'gun (which I virtually never do, hence no rigging).
It would be cool if there was a thin, fixed handle that you could bolt on for extreme low-profile handheld shooting with a few ergonomic dials and buttons on it. I wouldn't buy it, but it might appeal to people coming from photo cameras.

That looks great! Makes me want to buy one. (But im going for a hybrid solution for now)

So I’ve bought the Z CAM-S6, hoping it would be useful for some upcoming projects. However, I planned to sell it after finishing those projects, unless I find myself in love with this camera. 
Anyway, I took the camera with some friends and shot a little video. We didn’t plan beforehand because this was meant to be more of a feeling out process and a camera test. I’ve tried very hard to make it a more coherent story, though I must admit it is still very confusing. 
1. Modular design is fantastic because you can build it up the way you wanted, however the cost adds up very quickly. 
2. Very well built, but the metal body makes it a little bit heavy, despite the size. 
3. A lot of codec and resolution options. It’s always nice to have internal ProRes recording and H265 is very efficient indeed. 
4. Image Quality is detailed and organic, and you can always shoot in 6K. 
5. Battery life is quite good, especially if you use a bigger battery.
6. Control needs time to get used to, and it’s still slower than a proper video camera like the C200 and FS5. 
7. CFast 2.0 Card is VERY EXPENSIVE. This forces me to use H265, which sometimes requires transcoding.  
8. AF is just as bad as, if not worse than, EVA1. Normally, this won’t be an issue but…
9. The HDMI Output is very soft, for some reason. Maybe this is due to user error. The image is so soft that even using a 6 inch monitor, it is still hard to judge focus sometimes. This is my biggest problem by far. 
10. Playback is in LOW resolution. Clients may not like feel confident about the footage you just captured.
The whole video is shot in 6K 2.4:1 mode, 23.976 FPS ,with Z-Log2 and in H265. All is shot handheld. I’ve mainly used the Sigma 18-35 1.8 and for one shot the Canon 85 1.4. 
Thank you.
PS. I'm not sure should I make a topic like this. I apologize first if it violates the rules.  

So I’ve bought the Z CAM-S6, hoping it would be useful for some upcoming projects. However, I planned to sell it after finishing those projects, unless I find myself in love with this camera. 
Anyway, I took the camera with some friends and shot a little video. We didn’t plan beforehand because this was meant to be more of a feeling out process and a camera test. I’ve tried very hard to make it a more coherent story, though I must admit it is still very confusing. 
1. Modular design is fantastic because you can build it up the way you wanted, however the cost adds up very quickly. 
2. Very well built, but the metal body makes it a little bit heavy, despite the size. 
3. A lot of codec and resolution options. It’s always nice to have internal ProRes recording and H265 is very efficient indeed. 
4. Image Quality is detailed and organic, and you can always shoot in 6K. 
5. Battery life is quite good, especially if you use a bigger battery.
6. Control needs time to get used to, and it’s still slower than a proper video camera like the C200 and FS5. 
7. CFast 2.0 Card is VERY EXPENSIVE. This forces me to use H265, which sometimes requires transcoding.  
8. AF is just as bad as, if not worse than, EVA1. Normally, this won’t be an issue but…
9. The HDMI Output is very soft, for some reason. Maybe this is due to user error. The image is so soft that even using a 6 inch monitor, it is still hard to judge focus sometimes. This is my biggest problem by far. 
10. Playback is in LOW resolution. Clients may not like feel confident about the footage you just captured.
The whole video is shot in 6K 2.4:1 mode, 23.976 FPS ,with Z-Log2 and in H265. All is shot handheld. I’ve mainly used the Sigma 18-35 1.8 and for one shot the Canon 85 1.4. 
Thank you.
PS. I'm not sure should I make a topic like this. I apologize first if it violates the rules.  

So I’ve bought the Z CAM-S6, hoping it would be useful for some upcoming projects. However, I planned to sell it after finishing those projects, unless I find myself in love with this camera. 
Anyway, I took the camera with some friends and shot a little video. We didn’t plan beforehand because this was meant to be more of a feeling out process and a camera test. I’ve tried very hard to make it a more coherent story, though I must admit it is still very confusing. 
1. Modular design is fantastic because you can build it up the way you wanted, however the cost adds up very quickly. 
2. Very well built, but the metal body makes it a little bit heavy, despite the size. 
3. A lot of codec and resolution options. It’s always nice to have internal ProRes recording and H265 is very efficient indeed. 
4. Image Quality is detailed and organic, and you can always shoot in 6K. 
5. Battery life is quite good, especially if you use a bigger battery.
6. Control needs time to get used to, and it’s still slower than a proper video camera like the C200 and FS5. 
7. CFast 2.0 Card is VERY EXPENSIVE. This forces me to use H265, which sometimes requires transcoding.  
8. AF is just as bad as, if not worse than, EVA1. Normally, this won’t be an issue but…
9. The HDMI Output is very soft, for some reason. Maybe this is due to user error. The image is so soft that even using a 6 inch monitor, it is still hard to judge focus sometimes. This is my biggest problem by far. 
10. Playback is in LOW resolution. Clients may not like feel confident about the footage you just captured.
The whole video is shot in 6K 2.4:1 mode, 23.976 FPS ,with Z-Log2 and in H265. All is shot handheld. I’ve mainly used the Sigma 18-35 1.8 and for one shot the Canon 85 1.4. 
Thank you.
PS. I'm not sure should I make a topic like this. I apologize first if it violates the rules.  

I tried one single outdoor tracking sequence from around 50 feet away (face tracking mode) and it locked on body immediately, went to face as the subject got nearer and then eye at about 10 feet.
Pre new firmware, if that is going to make any difference...
Locks and tracks nicely indoors.
I will give it a proper run this afternoon with one of my unwilling subjects but it’s looking good.
Will I use it for stills?
No, but only because I moved from Fuji to the L Mount system for a reason and that is so I could continue to shoot S35 video and full frame stills in one system.
Will I shoot any APSC stills at all?
Yes actually, but not with any of the Sigma APSC lenses and I will be getting all 3 as part of a single camera/3 lens dedicated video set up.
I made a final decision on my stills lenses late last night after wrestling over every possible combination and came to the following conclusion and that is neither the f2.8’s or the big/heavy f1.4’s (such as the Sigma 105) are going to work for me.
Instead, I am going to weld a Sigma 35mm f1.4 to one body and the new Sigma 85mm f1.4 to another, but when I need to (ceremonies and speeches) flick to crop mode to get a ‘130mm’ in camera crop.
I need small and light and fast and portable as possible and for my needs, I have cracked it now.
Final line up:
 
Static video = S5 + Sigma 30mm f1.4 + tripod + power bank. This unit for ceremony & speeches only otherwise 20-60mm kit lens goes on and unit lives in my belt as my wide angle stills lens.
Filming = S5 + Sigma 16mm f1.4 (dancing), Sigma 56mm f1.4 (indoor) and Pan 85mm f1.8 (outdoor) giving me 4K 50p focal lengths equivalent to: 24, 84 and 127.5mm. This unit lives on the freestanding monopod.
Stills = pair of S5’s mated to the Sigma 35mm f1.4 and Sigma 85mm f1.4 which can be extended in crop mode to 127.5mm. I also have the super-wide 20mm focal width of the first unit all day except ceremony & speeches when I don’t need it anyway.
4 bodies + 7 lenses and it’s all still one backpack and one small camera bag with the monopod in hand, including my tiny folding carbon tripod, light stand, lighting, audio and drone.
Phew. A lot harder than I thought but I remain convinced there is no better system for my needs right now than the combination of L Mount Sigma glass with S5 bodies.

It is a slippery slope!
For only slightly more money than a G5 you could get a G6 😉 Which is a greatly improved camera. 
But if you're going to buy a G6 then why not spend just a teeny bit more for a G7? And get 4K!
But then a G85....

This is a really good point. The firehose approach to content delivery isn't necessarily a bad thing as long as the platforms actively weed out hate speech and disinformation. Unfortunately, they aren't great at it, hence our current and soon to be ex-president's seemingly incomprehensible hold on a tragically large portion of our population.. The catch is as viewers we need to be discerning in what we choose to view and use common sense and rationality in how we make sense of what we're viewing. Unfortunately that takes a level and type of education that is sadly lacking in my country at least,
BTW, Merckx or De Vlaeminck?
Part of the issue is that YOU need to be an active editor and work to train the algorithm to serve you better content, by disliking crap videos you happen to watch, activity using the "not interested" and "do not recommend channel" features to scrub your feed of the types of content and channels you're not interested in, and use the search function to train the algorithm.
As individuals, we cannot change the actions of giant players like social medial conglomerates except by carefully organized mass action on a global scale. But we can be savvy enough to reap whatever benefit these channels offer us while negating as much of the downsides as possible.

But then you'll fall into the same problem as mainstream media has fallen into, why do you think they've declined in appeal over the years? 

Individualized feeds is a *good* thing.  You don't want to see all the Cycling Racing videos that I see in my YT feed, neither do I want to see all the videos about cooking or painting (in Mandarin! Which I can't understand at all) that my girlfriend sees in her YT feed. Her YT feed on her laptop and mine on my PC look radically different, zero overlap. 

Having an identical ("curated") feed pushed onto everyone is also a dangerous path to go down as well, if anything, that gives even more power into the hands of YouTube / The Curator. A "One Size Fits All" approach is not good. 

Yes, YouTube's algorithm is not perfect, and has downsides. But going back in time to having a small handpicked selection pushed on everyone, would be an even worse outcome. 

We have YouTube on the TV and not seeing the toxic comments section makes it ten times better.
However, thanks to that "helpful" algorithm my hitherto discreet interest in the Leica Q2 has been headed off at the pass by the other half, alerted as she was by review videos of it being plastered all over the front page after I'd made the mistake of watching one.
So, yeah, aside from all the sinister stuff,  YouTube is also a grass.
And no one likes a grass.
 

Self-regulation is the answer on an individual level.
I’m not sure which is worse though, Fakebook or MeTube...but probably the latter as for so many it just seems to be a soapbox for people to spout their vitriol. Both my mother-in-law and father have been banned from various groups and I am ‘friends’ with neither. Which says a lot.
YouTube has some really great content. Some exceptional content in fact. But also a million tons of shit and I’m not sure what is worse, that million tons of shit or the misinformation purported as fact from so-called ‘experts’.
 

So I’ve bought the Z CAM-S6, hoping it would be useful for some upcoming projects. However, I planned to sell it after finishing those projects, unless I find myself in love with this camera. 
Anyway, I took the camera with some friends and shot a little video. We didn’t plan beforehand because this was meant to be more of a feeling out process and a camera test. I’ve tried very hard to make it a more coherent story, though I must admit it is still very confusing. 
1. Modular design is fantastic because you can build it up the way you wanted, however the cost adds up very quickly. 
2. Very well built, but the metal body makes it a little bit heavy, despite the size. 
3. A lot of codec and resolution options. It’s always nice to have internal ProRes recording and H265 is very efficient indeed. 
4. Image Quality is detailed and organic, and you can always shoot in 6K. 
5. Battery life is quite good, especially if you use a bigger battery.
6. Control needs time to get used to, and it’s still slower than a proper video camera like the C200 and FS5. 
7. CFast 2.0 Card is VERY EXPENSIVE. This forces me to use H265, which sometimes requires transcoding.  
8. AF is just as bad as, if not worse than, EVA1. Normally, this won’t be an issue but…
9. The HDMI Output is very soft, for some reason. Maybe this is due to user error. The image is so soft that even using a 6 inch monitor, it is still hard to judge focus sometimes. This is my biggest problem by far. 
10. Playback is in LOW resolution. Clients may not like feel confident about the footage you just captured.
The whole video is shot in 6K 2.4:1 mode, 23.976 FPS ,with Z-Log2 and in H265. All is shot handheld. I’ve mainly used the Sigma 18-35 1.8 and for one shot the Canon 85 1.4. 
Thank you.
PS. I'm not sure should I make a topic like this. I apologize first if it violates the rules.  

The C70 looks very interesting. I think Canon finds a good balance between cinema camera and DSLR styled form factor. And I'm happy to hear it performs well. I guess I have to come up with a reason to rent it and try it out! 😉

While shooting an semi long feature film latest days of this summer, I took a breath and one day climbed around and casually recorded some used locations with lovely Pocket 4k.
Maybe it would not be too boring, so just little bit оf reminding of of the beauty of not so distant nature, so happy living out of our - so often desperately and absurdly busy - human world...
 

Just going to weigh in here as someone who switched back to the 'camcorder' form factor with the FS5 (mark 2) after using mirrorless for years.  

The traditional camcorder form factor with its side controls is noticeably easier to use on a tripod.  I never once used the viewfinder on my FS5 and would generally want to use a third party EVF if I went that route - the one on the camera is simply not that good and would be very difficult to judge focus on, and the positioning of the EVF I find fairly awkward for hand-holding (you'd have to lift the camera up to your face.  Generally with a small camera like this, I'd prefer to brace the camera against my chest, which feels more secure and results in less arm strain.  Using a C70 style body in a similar way seems like it would cause the controls to be squished up against the operator.
I know some folks on here are a bit dismissive of client perception, but I do a fair bit of corporate (not glamorous but hey) and doc work.  Client perception is super important to my bottom line and I've had clients specifically call out the video form factor in a positive way, saying things like "oh, what did that camera cost" and "That looks a lot better than my mirrorless that I have at home".  It's not (although specs aside I much prefer the SLOG 2 our of the FS5m2 than the A7s in an unquantifiable sort of way), but that perception goes a long way to justifying my day rate and the money that I spent on the camera.
I miss WAY fewer shots with the FS5 than I did with an A7s.  Don't underestimate the value of internal ND where the colour shift is compensated for automatically, being able to use large-capacity batteries that don't require swapping out every hour etc etc.  It makes shooting on primes much more viable in a quick moving situation and removing colour casts from an ND (any ND) filter from log footage in post is a huge pain, if it's even possible with the limited codecs on these cameras.
All that being said, I'm sure mirrorless ergonomics have come a long way in the last few years, so take my comparison to an aging Sony model with a grain of salt.  Happy shooting folks.
 
 
 

Yep. Money well spent on lighting, lens, and the training or time to master those. Camera bodies really are the least important thing for most people.

In terms of combining the bits together, you would only add the bit depths if they didn't overlap in DR.
For example, if I took two 14-bit readouts, one a stop below the other, then 13 of the 14 bits from each read-out would be duplicate data, and my effective bit-depth is really only 15-bits.  So in order to understand the total bit-depth you'll need to know the overlap range in the sensor.  That would also be further complicated if they weren't offset by a whole number of stops, which would place the values of one readout between the values of the other, providing more bit-depth but less increase in DR.
If you really want to understand this, try modelling things in excel and graphing them.  That should give you a more intuitive sense of what is going on.
In terms of there being a certain quality in the older sensors, this guy has done lots of tests comparing the older BM cameras to the P4K and Ursa.
https://www.youtube.com/user/joelduarte27/videos
My overall impression is that most people don't utilise anything like the potential of their cameras, and that the difference between what images most people get and the images that you see from an Alexa or RED is more down to user skill (in terms of lighting, composition, camera operating, and the complete image pipeline in post) than it is about any camera limitations that might exist.

I'm here if you need to talk.
 
 

I feel like there is a crowd for these videos here. Apologies for the shameless self promotion though.

I don't know what all the negativity is about, this looks pretty good to me. Worse specs than a Z Cam E2, but you gain Panasonic Brand (brands aren't my thing but brands are worth real money), SDI, timecode without an annoying adapter, and you can use that XLR module if you want. Plus it takes SD cards instead of CFast. If Z Cam didn't exist I'd get this for sure.

@kyeI don't think those images quite nail it. I gathered a couple pictures that fit thickness in my mind, and in addition to the rich shadows, they all have a real sense of 3D depth due to the lighting and lenses, so I think that is a factor. In the pictures you posted, there are essentially 2 layers, subject and background. Not sure what camera was used, but most digital cameras will struggle in actual low light to make strong colors, or if the camera is designed for low light (e.g., A7s2) then it has weak color filters which makes getting rich saturation essentially impossible.
 
Here's a frame from The Grandmaster which I think hits peak thickness. Dark, rich colors, a couple highlights, real depth with several layers and a nice falloff of focus that makes things a little more dreamy rather than out of focus.

And the scopes which clearly show the softness of the tones and how mostly everything falls into shadows.

 
 
For comparison, here's the scopes from the picture of the man with the orange shirt in the boat which shows definite, harsh transitions everywhere.

 
 
Perhaps, do you have some examples? For example that bright daylight Kodak test posted earlier here
Has this scope (mostly shadow though a little brighter than the Grandmaster show, but fairly smooth transitions). And to be honest, I think the extreme color saturation particularly on bright objects makes it look less thick.

First outing with the camera. handheld with a 24-105. Loved the camera. I need to adjust a couple things but for the most part a near perfect camera for me. It was extremely dark with the forest canopy. I'll try the Sigma 18-35 next. 
-Dave