eatstoomuchjam

That's true! I did guess that. Apparently my guess was off, as was my memory of the ZR price. Thanks for the reminder/correction! 😅

Wait, so the very small $1,800 camera has compromises when compared with a series of larger $3,000ish cameras? I think it's useful to understand the characteristics of the camera, but for me, the more useful comparisons would be to other small cameras in the <$2,000 price range - i.e. S9, X-M5, and even maybe EOS R6 II/S5 II (though they're a bit bulkier IIRC).

Of course - the Komodo was designed to be a crash camera for big productions. Red really didn't plan for having a bunch of people using it for A cameras. It's always been an odd one out among their lineup. Anyway, I'd also say that it's pretty impressive that the OG Komodo, a 5+ year old camera with a (supersized) S35 global shutter sensor is coming up about even in those tests with a brand new FF camera with rolling shutter. Though I'd also guess that outside of that sort of over/under test, the ZR will have better apparent/usable dynamic range than the OG Komodo and maybe even vs the Komodo-X which is noticeably better than the OG. I think that there is almost no doubt that the S1 II will win it. 😄

You seem to post nothing but angry negative stuff. Why waste your time with all of us talentless hacks?

(Including SmallHD)

It's also worth pointing out that jpeg is, as far as I know, 8-bit only. It's one of the reasons that modern iPhones (and maybe Android?) default to HEIF instead.

Which, to some extent, just says Nikon is spending more on marketing which means they can hire better shooters/editors. 😃

"Need" is a strong word. It's likely that a lot of the benefits of 12-bit raw could be realized by just using a 12-bit variant of any other codec. I'm told that a lot of productions shot ProRes 4444XQ when they had Arriraw available. That said, PRR HQ is about the same quality as 4444XQ, but with much smaller file sizes. I think it's because PRR is non-debayered which means it's only saving 1 value per pixel instead of 3. A limiting factor, though, is that a lot of processors and GPU's only have onboard support for accelerated decode of 10-bit HEVC - so 12-bit will seem really slow/laggy on a lot of people's systems. Otherwise, people will talk about the ability to change white balance in raw, etc, but I've personally found those things to be a little bit overblown. If you're swinging from 2300k to 5600k, maybe, it's better to have all of the color channel info, but if you captured at 5600k and want to move to 5200k, it's probably fine. And, of course, people will bring up the ability to change ISO in the raw import, but this is asinine. It is convenient as a quick way to change exposure, but is functionally equivalent to just adjusting an exposure slider for non-raw footage (again, as long as the file is thick enough that the all of the details are there). For me, I like having thick files with a lot of dynamic range - so for now, I prefer cameras with raw. That's absolutely subject to change if people start shipping cameras with 12-16-bit HEVC. I think that the popularity of the FX3/FX6 and the sheer number of people making great-looking stuff with them serves as a great allegation against the necessity of raw. It also really depends on your goal/intention. I just got back from 2 weeks in Namibia. I chose to bring my GFX 100 II and didn't bring an external recorder for raw so what footage I shot of animals there will be all 10-bit ProRes 422 (5.8k or 8k). I also had an EOS R5 with me which was capable of 8k raw, but I ended up just giving it to my gf to use the whole time to shoot photos since the animals tended to be more than a few meters from the car and it let her see them (her with the EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 and me mostly with the GF 500/5.6). I don't think that, even once, I thought to myself that I should take back the R5 to capture some raw footage of a giraffe drinking from a watering hole. If anything, I thought "does this really need to be ProRes?"

I don't know about L mount. There are a few for E mount, though.

If "improved DR" means 1/3-1/2 of a stop, I'd be inclined to not worry about that, regardless. But if the S35 mode gets a full extra stop (plus the 1/3-1/2), that's likely to be noticeable. I'd stick with the standout feature of this camera for many modern shooters being the 3:2 open gate recording option. That isn't a thing I care about so I'll continue waiting for Canon to release the camera that makes me think it'd be worth selling my R5. Hint to Canon, it probably involves the letters d, g, and o. 😅

I really like my Simera C's in M mount. I like my Leica M's more, but the M's are a lot less consistent. You might consider going the M mount route, if for no other reason than you can get an autofocus adapter for it - and then they'll be portable to any system that you might move to in the future.

Oh, that's super cool!

With eND, you mean? Or do you just mean the first decent one? Fotodiox has had vND adapters for years now, but they're pretty mediocre in quality. 😃

It could also have to do with readout speed. 14-bit is slower to read out and tends to give worse rolling shutter numbers. If Canon decided they wanted to hold RS at 15ms, they could probably read out the full sensor at 12-bit, but still have <15ms when reading out the smaller 5K crop at 14-bit. It seems like a weird thing to do, but more choices are always welcome.

BM P4K can make a really nice image, but the ergonomics are a bit funky, with the chonky body and the non-flippable screen. It also doesn't really even pretend to have AF beyond a push button that focuses once only and not continuously. The GH7 is an incredible camera and is still incredible. If you don't need the improved AF, the GH6 is also fantastic. And there's nothing wrong with the GH5 or GH5s.