MrSMW

In round figures (because it depends on the sensor) 8k 16:9 = 8000 x 4500 vs 6k 3:2 = 6000 x 4000, so for extracting portrait orientation stills, not that big a difference... As that hybrid shooter, it's my next project as in, in addition to shooting stills and video at the same time, can I also in certain situations, have both the highest quality video but also extract extremely useable stills that are indistinguishable to 'real' shot as photography stills? I have already established in my own mind I do not wish to go over to totally extracting stills from video and never doing photography, but rather using it as a bridge as it were when I need to do both at the same time and reduce my kit from 3 down to 2 units. Kind of limited on which cameras I can use to do this as I still want to shoot 50p for slow mo when needed...which just happens to coincide with when I'd want to extract those stills. I've tried it with 4k and the resolution is more than good enough for video, but not for the level of quality of stills I need to produce, but from what I have seen, 8k looking really good. There are a few 6k options but the only one that really fits the bill for my needs is the R3. The outline plan is to shoot 4k 50p + stills 90% of the time plus 6k or 8k raw 50p the other 10% of the time to have both video and pulled stills from the same camera and sequence. That's a good balance for me for remaining a photographer as much as a videographer but being able to reduce the kit which in itself, has various added bonuses.

?

It's the No.2 combo on my list of 3 options. As I've said before, I could live with this kind of size and weight if it had enough merit... My current combo of S1H + battery grip + Leica 24-90 f2.8-4 is superb except in 2 areas and that is size & weight, plus that lens is a leeeetle slow in low light and I wish it was a constant aperture f2.8. The rendering in combo with the OLPF S1H sensor is stunningly good. The R3 and 28-70 beats it on weight, but not by much, - around 300g or something so 2.5kg vs 2.8kg, not that big of a deal. It will be faster re. AF for sure and probably slightly more accurate and has much better low light performance...but, sacrifices 20mm at the long end and that is a lot as I shoot 90mm a lot. The 24mm vs 28mm at the wide end...I actually prefer 28mm which for me is the point at which going wider, especially with people on the edges of a frame, it starts getting a bit meh for me. So as a combo, it is enough to beat out my current set up, but then it also needs a longer lens such as that compact 70-200 f4...but that then causes me issues during ceremonies when I want/need both long and wide. The bottom line is it could work, but the reality is there is a better option for me and as things stand, that is where I will be going. For me it's always this balance between number of bodies vs primes or zooms and the reality is that much as I prefer primes in principle, the reality is I need a zoom based set up or it's 4 versus 3 bodies. I started this year with 4 and finished (this weekend actually) on 3. 2 is potentially on the horizon...

Another rabbit hole entered…

Is it the 40mm f2 SE? I'm not sure if they are different optically or the SE version is just a fancy retro-ish casing?

But I think only the old Sigmas and Tamrons so nothing like the latest 28-70mm f2.8 from Sigma which I think is L and E only or the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 G2 which I believe is E only? I'm not personally interested in a system where I would need to adapt bigger and older lenses, but smaller/more compact and lighter though can understand why others might due to having the lenses or because older stuff can be bought 'cheap' used. That Canon RF 24-70 is pushing 1kg. I really want to get away from stuff like that. To be honest, I don't know that much about the cheaper/lighter RF primes other than that they are not that highly regarded whereas Nikon's Z 1.8's and Lumix 1.8's and Sigma's f2 Contemporaries are. As it stands, Canon have only 2 lenses in RF that interest me and to be honest, they are MORE than enough to build a system off and it's not totally out of the question; R3 + 28-70mm all day long except C&S flip to that 70-200 f4 and job done. But is that the best option for me based on what else is out there? It's on the list but I need hands on in Paris this Winter...

I really like this lens (on paper) for any fantasy Canon RF set up. I'm happy with an f4 at these kinds of focal lengths as the only time I have any use for such a thing (and I use an f4 70-200 in L Mount) is ceremonies & speeches at weddings which for me are mostly outdoors and if in the evening, I light them. RF mount for me, lack a compact 28-70/75 such as Sigma and Tamron offer. I really do not want to switch one big set up for another going forward. It would have to be something very special indeed to be anywhere near my current 2.8kg weapon system of choice. The Canon RF equivalent pairing this 70-200 zoom with an R3 body is a whopping 1kg less. So great lightweight (for it's size) camera body in the R3 and great 70-200mm f4, huge & heavy 28-70mm f2 and the rest is a bit meh to me. They may be the market leader but imagine how much more share they would have if they had a decent set of native or third party RF glass available...

I think I can feel a Zf, plain black...or maybe the brown...or the grey...or the red, incoming... The 28mm f2.8 and 40mm f2 lens for candid stills / '42 & 60mm' 4k 50p video. Paired with a used GFX100s and a pair of lenses for more considered work, mainly stills. Must. Sit. On. The. Fence. And. Wait. To. See. If. Lumix. Make. An. S2R. But it's so hard resisting the temptation 🤑

Definitely. I resisted having a blog for a long time because I just did not want to follow the herd, but then when I finally bit the bullet and did one, I realised I had previously been a bit dumb. Ditto a 'smart' phone. Every time I'd go to a conference or workshop, all the cool kids had iPhones. I had my Stone Age phone that could make and receive calls. Bit the bullet on that one and err, hello, why I not have one of these sooner?! Also 55" 4k TV after being pestered by the family to not just have my PC monitor as a TV screen. Yup, really. Got it home in I think 2018 and set it up and another, "OK, we 'needed' this in our lives". I am at the point now where I don't need the latest and greatest and still will often by used or the previous gen, cameras, phones, whatever, but also savvy to the fact that living perpetually in the 'good old days' is not always the best course of action in life. Now, pairing a used GFX100s for considered work with a Nikon Zf for candid work. Mentally at least...

My current musing regarding my 2024 stills camera is either 60+mp FF or 100mp MF, set to 1:1 crop mode and shoot ‘landscape’ all day long. Crop in post to whatever I fancy, but having shot the square crop with intent regarding the result. Doable with 24mp sensors? Kind of, but limits the options quite a bit. Even the 60mp does a fair bit as the cameras with that sensor such as the A7RV in APSC crop mode is ‘only’ 26mp, but a better 26mp than the 24mp from a 24mp camera. Not sure what say a GFX100S with 100mp is zoomed in say double, but I guess about 1/3rd? GFX100S’s are not that expensive on the used market…

I’m talking in ‘my ideal world’, rather than real life marketing/cost reality. But I would spend ‘more’ for an upgraded version of a base spec camera. For instance, my two gripes about the S5ii are the rear screen which is ‘OK’ and the sound and feel of the shutter button. If Lumix were to offer a more premium version with updated rear LCD and shutter mech from the S1H, for +50%, I’d buy a pair of them. If I could send my S1H in somewhere and have the sensor replaced with that of the one in the A7RV, I’d happily pay 2.5k But re. the square sensor, all irrelevant if we use the height and not the length as the basis for the sensor dimension, such as chop your 8000 x 6000 sensor down to a 6000 x 6000. I don’t care what the majority would like or think they would like because the majority don’t care or think about such things, but selfishly what I would like and that is a big fat square sensor to match the 1:1 crop mode some cameras already shoot in. Kind of ties in a bit with @Andrew Reid latest musings on 8k sensors. I am very much considering a high megapixel FF or MF camera, mainly for my stills work, so I can set it in 1:1 crop mode, shoot everything err… landscape (or is it in a Christopher Nolan Tenet sense still landscape…) and then choose my crops and orientation in post. Just my opinion however.

I want a red GM5 now… 🫶

And you don’t want the guy who did the Millenium Falcon. Just ONE cup holder. MAJOR oversight.

Just as long as he, she or they (you can never truly tell with Lego people) doesn’t have the standard Lego hands. Which are rubbish.

In terms of pure design aesthetics and handling, I also want this @Davide DB

And, "Hey Siri, do earwig's have arseholes?" . . . Apparently they do. The knowledge that is gained from this place either directly or indirectly...

What, the Arri matte box?

Not a 'problem' as such for me, but yes, would definitely prefer something larger, but how large is possible without increasing the camera size? 3.2" I think is the larger size on even the best FF mirrorless although the MF may have larger and the BlackMagic definitely does, but then it's. much bigger camera. I will take resolution over size any day though, with ability to pinch and zoom in ideally.

I have no idea what the market wants, only what I would like. I'm selfish like that. The S5ii is the closest thing right now along with maybe the R6ii? The only things I don't like about the S5ii are; the rear LCD could be higher res, I don't like the shutter button feel or sound and don't like the files (photo) as much as those from the S1H. Might be an OLPF thing, but I suspect it is more than that... What does their market want? Well quite a few the new Zf, me included.

My recent purchase decisions have very much been lens driven and the R3 has been on my radar for a while as the near perfect body for me as I prefer a built in grip to a detachable one, but at the same time do not care for the weight. So Z9 vs R3 = a win for the R3. But then it falls apart for pretty much the reasons Andrew stated. My favourite lenses are the Tamron; 20-40, 28-75 G2 and 35-150, only available or can be adapted to Sony & Nikon, ie, I could stick all of those on a Z9 but none on a Canon. Also, the Sigma Contemporary line; 20, 35, 65, 90, 105 and 28-70. Sony or L Mount only. I like these for video work as they have both an aperture ring (well the primes do) and a manual focus switch which is part of the overall combo why I shoot L Mount for video. The only lens I actually like in Canon RF mount is the 28-70...but it is monstrous...and if I was to choose the R3 as my next stills camera, although I could live with this combo, it's not a 'one and done' combo because I could live without going wider than 28mm, but need longer than 70 and there isn't that much scope to crop with the R3. But having said that, it's still a near 2.5kg combo when the Sony A7RV + Tamron 28-75 is only about 1.5kg and can be cropped hard. Lenses have been my issue for well over a decade, partly because I have avoided Sony and to be fair, with good reason as until recently, I have found Sony cameras to be a bit meh. The A7RVa was the first that actually ticked the box and the A7RV even more so and I am struggling to see a better option for me for stills than that A7RV + Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 G2 combo as it ticks...well every single box. Canon though, they have never been able to entice me into spending any money with them. Owned probably 50+ cameras but never a Canon.

Those lens are 'only' 10k each. Probably makes a difference 😉

Possibly because it kind of demonstrates that one of the least most important components of movie making is the camera itself? Beyond a certain point. I’m sure they were not using the f4-5.6 kit lens but some 20k$ cine lenses and maybe less than in some other productions, but whatever lighting etc was needed. We know that even just in commercial jobs, the type of camera you have can get you or at least deny you, the job. ’Average’ tool in skilled hands etc… In terms of sensor though, just how far off a Venice is that of the FX3? Barely anything.

Very unlikely though the Samyang equivalent of the 35-150 is supposed to be coming. The only thing about that lens is it is slightly bigger than the Tamron and suffers from awful lens creep.

Logic says this should not be the case, but it does seem to be. At least in certain instances... More on the stills side, but the first 2 Fuji X cameras, the original X100 and then the X Pro-1, produced the nicest files IMO. There was something intangible about them that is difficult to define other than 'organic' and 'filmic'. The cameras themselves were slow clunky though and with each new gen, that got better, but somehow the files worse. There was a brief blip when it came good again, not 'as good', but better with the X Pro-2 and XH1, but then backwards again. I left Fuji after the XT3 so can't comment further re. later Fuji cameras though views seem to be mixed. Similar issues for me with S1H vs S5ii. The S1H is supposed to be primarily a video-orientated camera with decent stills capability. The S5ii, a hybrid. The stills from the S1H are sublime. The stills from the S5ii are a bit shite. For my 17th wedding of the season a few weeks back, I thought I'd give my S5ii's a run out as my stills units instead of my S1H. Same settings, same shooting style, same processing workflow. Shite shite shite. What a mistake. Is it the same sensor just with PDAF? I don't know, but I do know this and that is the S1H is in another league when it comes to stills compared with the more modern S5ii. So was the S1R and that definitely had a different sensor and possibly the best one the full-frame Lumix's have had to date, photo and video. I want to change my S1H because in order to use my lens of choice, the Leica 24-90, I have to use the battery grip and that means 2.8kg or in old money, about 6lbs. I have been looking at all kinds of options but 2 contenders now rising to the top, especially after editing this S5ii shot wedding which I am doing right now, is the S1H and the S1R. I might just get another S1H, ditch the grip, ditch the Leica 24-90 and instead run a pair of the things gripless and with the much smaller and lighter Sigma 28-70mm on one and the Sigma 105mm prime on the other. OK, it means a pair rather than a single unit, but smaller and lighter units which have more range (I have the Sigma 16-28 also) and better in low light. And cheap as chips on the used market now, relative to their performance. Or I could go back to S1R's, but despite the extra megapixels (desired), I much prefer shooting the S1H but did not care fir using the S1R despite it producing extremely fine results. Most folks seem to prefer the video quality that came out of the original S5 over the S5ii. I'm not sure about that one as I am getting better results from the S5ii, but that could be down to current technique and use case... Which just goes to show that at least in my experience, newer stuff does not equal better and in some cases, just plain not as good.

It would be interesting to see a face off between the Zf and the XT5 which to me looks like the closest competitor? Not just on paper specs, but how they actually shoot and the results they produce. Someone I am sure will do that head to head shortly...