eatstoomuchjam

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.

34 minutes ago, Ninpo33 said:

Instead of admitting you were right about exposing more lens character at the edges with MF sensors he moves the goal posts and still says you’re wrong because “not ALL FF lenses look good on MF” You obviously never said that or claimed that but it’s a tactic people use to find ways to “correct you” after making a valid point. eatstoomuchjam won’t ever admit the might not know something and always needs to maintain the belief that he’s right

Huh?  It's not moving the goal posts to assert that the fact that some 35mm lenses expose character, but not all - and it's also not moving the goal posts to point out that the same statements are true if you use an S35 lens on FF or a S16 lens on M43.  I don't need to maintain a belief that I'm right when I am, in fact, right.  In fact, I was the one who brought up Fraser's quote and said that it was based and that indeed, for the lenses that he was using, he was getting more character on a larger sensor.

37 minutes ago, Ninpo33 said:

Either self esteem issues or simple EGO.

Which of us does that apply to, again?

38 minutes ago, Ninpo33 said:

t’s the same tired argument with the “MF Look” or something being “Cinematic”. Terms many of us understand and use but these idiots want to argue on an internet forum about how these aren’t a thing.

Physician, heal thyself.
Terms with no actual definition are useless for discussion or debate.  The true idiots are the ones who say that the music ain't old-timey enough. 😉

39 minutes ago, Ninpo33 said:

Yet they’re on a full frame camera talking about how “technically” you could achieve the same look with Super 16.

That is technically true, yes, but as ND64 pointed out, radically impractical if you're shooting wide open.

But you can very easily achieve the same look with S35 and many people do it by using a simple focal reducer.  And if you don't insist on shooting at T1.2 for maximum toneh all day long, you can also get a similar look on M43, even more so if using a focal reducer.  If you're shooting a 50mm at f/4 on your FF camera and shooting a 25mm at f/2 on your MFT camera, they'll look pretty similar - with the main differences relating to the character of the specific lens in use.  But the FOV and DOF will be similar enough for it not to matter much - and the gradients/falloff/etc will probably look better on whichever camera is capturing at higher resolution, not the one with the bigger sensor, also assuming that the scene is well-lit since the smaller sensor will probably start to get noisy sooner.

3 hours ago, Django said:

This is getting tedious, you’re over-correcting things I never claimed. I didn’t say FF magically changes lens physics, just that for equivalent framing it naturally gives shallower DOF compared to S35, which is why focal reducers even exist in the first place. You basically repeated that back to me, so we actually agree there.

Good, I'm glad we agree.  Sorry if I misunderstood you to be arguing with me instead of agreeing with me.

3 hours ago, Django said:

Same with open gate: yes, 17:9 is technically “open gate” on many cinema sensors, but when filmmakers talk about open gate they often mean 3:2 / 4:3 full-height readouts because those give more latitude for aspect ratios and anamorphic use. That’s all I was pointing out.

Good.  I was mostly responding to the comment about "true" open gate.  I just prefer to use the ratios for clarity.

3 hours ago, Django said:

As for “character,” I never said every FF lens suddenly blooms with quirks on 44×33, just that bigger sensors can reveal parts of the image circle not usually seen, which some DPs (like Fraser) like to exploit. Whether that looks beautiful or boring depends on the lens and the shooter’s taste.

Yes.  For shooting landscape/wildlife, I tend to prefer sharp modern glass, but for portraits/video, I like vintage stuff and for my vintage lenses that work on GF, sometimes the ragged outer edges of the image circle are really nice.  I already said that Fraser's comment was based.

3 hours ago, Django said:

At the end of the day, people are going to pick whatever tool makes sense for their workflow, budget, or taste. I never claimed MF was a magic bullet, just that it offers options and aesthetics some shooters care about. You prefer the practicality of the Raptor, others might be drawn to the Eterna 55. Both views can be true.

Agreed that people can choose whatever hammer they want - and I've also said that I'd consider renting the Eterna for a project if it made sense.  I'm not, in any way, saying that people shouldn't buy or use it.  I'm more suggesting that it's overpriced and that I think most people who are looking in that price range are going to choose an FX9, V-Raptor XE, or UC 12K LF - and that with a somewhat bigger budget, the UC 17K 65 also becomes an option.  Fuji would have a lot more sales (and still plenty of profit margin) if they dropped the Eterna at $9-11k.  Still plenty of competition in that price range, but then they're undercutting the 41mm wide sensor of the raptor.  Since the XE was announced almost in tandem, I am guessing that Fuji's pricing was determined before that announcement.
Suspect it will drop a lot after a little while, but at $16k, Fuji also have to be careful not to anger early adopters by dropping the price too soon.  Maybe 1 year.

1 hour ago, Ninpo33 said:

Funny I’m not seeing any of your posts about the wonders of the GH7 but lots here on the Eterna. Funny that you would waste your time here when you could be getting the same EXACT look out of M43 and save a lot of money. 

I've posted a bunch of times saying that the GH7 is a great camera.  There's not much to discuss with a camera that's been on the market for a wihle, though.  Kye posts frame grabs from he shot alone with his GH7 that I think look a lot nicer than what Chris and Jordan did with an entire crew and an Eterna.

I already said, though, that I have other reasons for liking my GFX 100 II.

1 hour ago, Ninpo33 said:

After seeing your further posts below and remembering our previous exchanges I’m going to decline your invitation for further discourse. Your ego and style of cherry picking various “truths” makes it an exercise in futility.

I'm not cherry picking anything.  I'm just saying the truth, based on 20+ years of shooting with cameras ranging from a 16mm bolex / Pentax Auto 110 to a Gundlach 8x20 inch camera and having done tons of side-by-side comparisons.  What you see as ego is just experience and impatience.  Anyway, have a good one and enjoy your Eterna if you buy one.

44 minutes ago, ND64 said:

FF lenses are now bigger and faster than 44mm MF lenses,

Depending on the lens, sure.  😀

The GF 55/1.7 is enormous for a 55mm lens, but the 63/2.8 and 50/3.5 are both pretty small/light.  But yes, the two fastest first-party lenses for GF are f/1.7 primes (55 and 80) and the 110/2 is the next fastest.  Otherwise, there's not a single first-party lens for the system faster than f/2.8 and only two there (the 45 and 63).

Though to be fair, in classic medium format terms, some of the fastest lenses ever made were f/1.8 and only covered 6x4.5 (Pentax or Mamiya system IIRC) and the I think the fastest that covered a 6x6 or larger was a Pentax 105mm f/2.4 (which is a monster of a lens) - unless Hasselblad made something faster.  But most 6x6 and larger lenses were f/4 or slower.

25 minutes ago, Django said:

Funny enough, the Greg Fraser quote you referenced actually underlines my point. He’s saying outright that moving to a larger format opens up creative possibilities precisely because you’re seeing parts of the lens you wouldn’t on a smaller sensor. The lens itself hasn’t changed, but the relationship between the sensor size and the lens’ image circle absolutely changes what’s captured.

Sure, but you can accomplish a similar thing by using S35 lenses on FF.  Or S16 lenses on M43.

25 minutes ago, Django said:

That’s all I was getting at: bigger formats don’t alter lens physics, but they alter what part of the lens’ projection you get to play with, which translates to a different look/feel on screen. This is similar to when you have open-gate (true 3:2 or 4:3, not just 17:9), you’re also opening up different aspect ratios and lens visibility. Whether you see the extra image area as flaws or character is subjective, but the distinction Fraser is making is exactly the one I was trying to point to.

You pointed to a bunch of other incorrect things too like DOF equivalence as well.  And again, 16/17:9 is "true" open gate on many cinema cameras.  But it's also not true that every lens made for FF has extra character when you use it on 44x33mm.  The Canon EF 85mm f/1.4L covers the entire GFX sensor and has minimal character all the way to the edges.  The tiny Canon 40/2.8 pancake similarly has minimal character while covering 44x33 pretty well.

Fraser wanted to use specific vintage lenses that had more character near the edges of the image circle.

25 minutes ago, Django said:

I know many GFX users like to put certain FF lenses for identical reasons, and the GFXRF & Eterna 55 use that high MP large sensor to open up multi aspect ratios which is why I don't think its irrelevant to the discussion.

Certain FF lenses, yes.  And the eterna 55 doesn't use the high MP of the 44x33 sensor for anything.  Just like the GFX 100 II, your options to use the full sensor width are 4K with decent RS and mediocre DR (up to 60fps), 4K with strong RS and good DR (up to 30fps?  Not sure of the max, but less than 60), 4K open gate with decent RS and mediocre DR (this differs from GFX 100 II), and 5.8k 2.35:1 with strong RS and mediocre DR.  8K goes to a crop really similar to full frame on a 24x36mm sensor and also has strong RS and mediocre DR.

I haven't, at any point, said that the Eterna isn't a completely invalid camera with no uses.

What I am saying is:
1) There is no intrinsic "medium format look"
2) For a vast majority of use cases, the less expensive V-Raptor XE with a 41mm wide sensor, good DR, and a global shutter will likely be chosen over this one by higher-end owner-operators (those who don't just buy an FX9 (cheaper yet) or C400 (even cheaper) - which, realistically, is most of them).

If you prefer the Eterna, you're not wrong.  You're welcome to use any tool that you like.  I might rent it myself if a project came along where it made sense.  I just think that the number of sales that aren't to rental shops will be really low.

6 hours ago, Django said:

Technically a sensor by itself doesn’t have a “look,” but bigger sensors change how lenses behave and how we can use the image circle, which is where the cinematic signature comes from

Sorry, but this sentence makes no sense.  A bigger sensor doesn't change how a lens behaves.  The lens always behaves the same and projects the exact same image circle.  And "cinematic" is a meaningless term so "cinematic signature" is equally meaningless.

6 hours ago, Django said:

FF already gives shallower depth of field for equivalent framing and a FoV closer to classic 35mm photography

This is untrue.  Assuming that you mean compared with S35, to be more specific, FF gives shallower depth of field for equivalent framing at the same focal range and aperture.  You can get an identical image by using a wider S35 lens with a bigger aperture.  This is exactly what focal reducers do when they focus the image circle of a FF lens down onto an S35 sensor.  In fact, when using a focal reducer, a Komdoo or Komodo-X has slightly less DOF at equivalent framing than a natively FF camera (the equivalent crop factor at that point is something like 1.05x).
This also becomes largely an academic distinction if you don't insist on shooting fast lenses wide open 24x7.  And even if you do, do you need shallower DOF than Army of the Dead, that Zack Snyder movie from 2021 that was shot entirely with the Canon 50/0.95 dream lens wide open?

6 hours ago, Django said:

Open gate modes on 3:2/4:3 sensors take that further by giving you the full vertical readout, letting you reframe, use anamorphic, or extract stills without losing resolution.

This is true, but irrelevant to a discussion of whether there is or isn't a medium format look.

6 hours ago, Django said:

Medium format pushes this even more, however Fuji’s GFX sensors aren’t “true” MF like Alexa 65 or Hasselblad backs, but it’s about 1.7× the area of FF, which is enough to reveal more lens character,

It only reveals more lens character in the sense that for some lenses, you see the worse parts of the image circle outside of the standard 35mm film size.  In some cases, it also just means you can't use the lens at all - for example, my Noctilux-M 50/1 only barely covers 24x36mm and already has dark corners and edges.  On a GF sensor, you just get the edge of the image circle surrounded by blackness.  That lens has plenty of character already on FF.

6 hours ago, Django said:

smoother falloff,

On film, yes, but this is related to the inherent resolution limits of film.  On the 100 megapixel GF sensor, this is technically true vs 35mm format cameras that have 61 megapixels, but it's largely an academic distinction that is barely noticeable in practical terms.  But when you're using line skipped/binned 4K off of that sensor, you have less smooth falloff than off of a 35mm sensor recording 8K.  This is also academic and can barely be seen.

6 hours ago, Django said:

different perspective than FF or S35.

At the same focal length, sure.  Luckily, we can change lenses.

6 hours ago, Django said:

So when you pair the sensor with fast primes and open gate capture, the format really does offer creative possibilities that smaller sensors simply can’t match.

It would be true to say that you can capture a different image with the same lens as a smaller format.  So if your goal is to get a different look out of your vintage Nikkor 200mm lens and if that lens has an image circle big enough to nominally cover a sensor that's 44mm wide.  If you're shooting 16/17:9, will that difference be substantially different than the image from a V-Raptor XE with a 41mm wide VV sensor (that costs $1,500 less)?  No.  That or if 3:2 capture isn't a concern, go rent the Ursa Cine 17K 65 with a 51x24mm sensor.

6 hours ago, Django said:

I'm loving what I'm seeing from the Eterna so far by the way!

Yeah, footage from the GFX 100 II looks nice too.  But so does footage from the GH7, a camera with a much smaller sensor.
For video, I prefer footage from my UC12K LF to what I get from the GFX 100 II.

57 minutes ago, Ninpo33 said:

Just curious, if there is no such thing as a medium format look, then why do a lot of the great celebrated filmmakers choose to shoot on it when going for big tentpole films? 

Are you seriously asking me to explain the thought process of other humans?  I'm pretty sure I'm not qualified for that.

57 minutes ago, Ninpo33 said:

The Joker, Dune, Revenant, Dark Knight, etc… Why go through all the trouble of extra weight, crew, expense if there’s nothing to gain over Super 35? Surely they believe there is a benefit. 

None of those films were filmed entirely on medium format.  Are you suggesting that when you watch them, you're suddenly jolted out of your seat when The Joker switches from Alexa 65 to Alexa LF?  Or that you can even tell?

Quote

"What I love about 65 mm is that it removes restrictions for me, opening up so many more lens options. You can work with lenses originally designed for smaller formats, where you see parts of the glass that were never intended to be seen. For me, seeing and feeling those hidden parts is an eye-opener, literally and figuratively. It helps me dirty up the image and give it texture in ways you couldn't do with a smaller format." — Greig Fraser talking with ARRI Rental.

Note that at no part of that does Greg Fraser say "I wanted the medium format look."  Instead, he's talking about how much he liked the look he got from using lenses designed for smaller formats.  It is objectively true that the designers of those lenses never anticipated that the outer edges of the image circle would get used at some point.

This seems like a pretty based and objective take and a reason that somebody might choose to use a larger sensor.

57 minutes ago, Ninpo33 said:

Why do you own a GFX 100ii?

I like cropping, it has fantastic dynamic range, and some of the first-party lenses for the system (particularly the 110/2, 250/4, and 500/5.6) are among the best lenses I've ever seen.

I'll turn this around and ask you these questions:
1) What do you think medium format look is?
2) Is there a FF look vs an S35 look and does a speed booster give S35 the FF look? 
3) Is a sensor size that's just as close to 35mm film as it is to traditional medium format film going to give a medium format look or a full frame look?  Because for photos, at least, 44x33 gives a total area of 1452 where 24x36 gives a total area of 864.  Meanwhile, 6x4.5 (56x42mm realistically) which is the smallest medium format film size has an area of 2,352 and 6x7 (56x72) film dwarfs it at 4,032.
4) To turn around the question above, if there is a specific medium format look, why do tentpole movies like Mission Impossible which have effectively unlimited budgets use smaller formats, even for some of their big, sprawling epic shots?  (And yes, MI Rogue Nation used Alexa 65 for the underwater scene, but the rest was shot on smaller sensors IIRC)

I'd like to see some deeper analysis on it.  Could be that R3D NE is just high-bitrate Nikon raw and it could be that Resolve limits log3g10 decoding to files matching the r3d extension without checking the underlying raw format.

Either way, that's pretty cool.

1 hour ago, ND64 said:

In Z6iii, normal quality NRAW for 6k24p is only 750mbs. Import the file in CineX Pro, and rename the .NEV extension to .R3D, then select log3g10. Thats your REDCODE LQ.

Has somebody confirmed that renaming the file works?

53 minutes ago, Danyyyel said:

I don't know REDraw size, but from some people who have used it, the datarate on the ZR is very high. 

https://imaging.nikon.com/imaging/lineup/z_cinema/z_r/

Quote

6048 x 3402 :
59.94p (3780 Mbps), 50p (3160 Mbps), 29.97p (1900 Mbps), 25p (1590 Mbps), 23.97p (1520 Mbps)

So in 6k at 23.97p, it's 190 megabytes/second which comes to 11.4GB/minute which is about 680GB/hour.  If you're used to H.265 (about 340 Mbps), that's huge.  If you're comparing it to ProRes 422 HQ, it's... very slightly less (PR HQ is 1540 Mbps for 6K at 2397p on the same camera).

1 hour ago, Ilkka Nissila said:

The ZR does accept timecode input via bluetooth and can output TC via HDMI. 

I stand corrected on that - though on most of the sets that I'm on, the sound engineer wants to plug their Tentacle Sync into a port on the camera.  I know that Tentacles communicate amongst themselves with Bluetooth, but I'm not aware of them being able to jam to any cameras that way.  I'd be delighted to be wrong about that too.

1 hour ago, KnightsFan said:

But in seriousness, the broader a term grows, the less valuable it is. If everything is a cinema camera, nothing is a cinema camera.

Now we are aligned.  The term has become meaningless (or always was meaningless).  😀

About the only real definition could be "a camera used to film something that screens in a cinema" and nowadays, that includes iPhones and GoPros.  Heck, a bunch of the best scenes (motorcycle jump, jumping from plane to plane) in the two latest Mission Impossible films were shot on the humble Z Cam E2-F6 and I'm pretty sure it was recording ProRes 422 (HQ?).  On the big screen, it played just fine with their Burano/Venice (or whatever it was) that was used as the A Cam.

If that $3k camera, released in 2018 can play in a megabudget feature film, just about any camera on the market today can do the same - including your phone.  And now that same phone has a dock which will give it things like timecode and the latest version of it can record ProRes RAW internally.  Many of us read the news on our cinema camera daily while sitting on the toilet.  😉

35 minutes ago, KnightsFan said:

I think Gerald got the categorization right, and of all the things you can call the ZR, cinema camera is not one of them.

If you're upset about hybrid-styled cameras with somewhat awkward ergonomics being called "cinema camera," you must have been frustrated since 2018 or so. 

https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/blackmagicpocketcinemacamera

I'd be inclined to say that "cinema camera" is just about as meaningless as calling an image "cinematic."  It means plenty of different things to different people.  "How can you call it a cinema camera when it doesn't even have SDI output?"  "That ain't no cinema camera, it has no mounting points on top or the sides!"  "Cinema cameras don't have autofocus" "Cinema cameras need to be dedicated to ultimate image quality and it's not a true cinema camera without 16-bit raw."

The ZR is obviously not going to be the A camera on a lot of professional shoots.  It has no TC, no SDI, bad HDMI, and bad memory card location.  On the other hand, it might finally be fulfilling some of the promise of the Komodo - a small, light crash camera that you easily fit in small spaces - or that you can easily throw at an AC/second shooter to go get some b-roll or a second angle handheld or with a light tripod and have it be a good match SOOC for what you're shooting with your Komodo-X or V-Raptor.  Lack of a physical shutter lock is a bummer for some crash cam use cases.

Sorry it's not for you, regardless!  I'd be willing to bet that the next iterations of the Z6/8/9/etc start working in Redcode NE too.

Looks like Chris got his dream fishing trip out of it so he has that going for him.

Otherwise, I think the footage from the Eterna looks fine.  I'd have graded it differently.  Otherwise, it looks generally like a professionally-shot documentary - and given their crew size, that makes some sense.  In this case, I'm using "professionally" in the sense of "competent and yet uninspired."

As far as Eterna, there really weren't any shots in that documentary that could be said to look different from what would is usually captured on a full-frame camera or even S35.  Some of the wide shots had at least a little bit of an epic feel, but it was nothing spectacular.  I'm in the "there is no medium format look" camp, but if you're making a puff piece to sell people on a medium format camera, I feel like it might be better to prioritize the sort of epic wides that people associate with medium and large format.

Regardless of any technical aspects, story is king.  "Chris Niccols, professional camera reviewer, started fly fishing as a form of escapism from fatherhood" does not seem all that compelling to me.  The trailer definitely didn't pull me in.  It'll probably get some festival play and collect some laurels.  They can celebrate that.

1 hour ago, Danyyyel said:

But saying this is a camera for content creation when you have multiple Raw formats, and one color science that was only available to cameras costing 7k, but more precisely 10 k when you add the accessories in the apsc red komodo, and about 15-20k in full frame.

To be clear, the OG Komodo was $7k several years ago - but nowadays, it's $3k new (and used, generally around $2,600, but I bet you could find one for $2,300ish if you tried).  And people often make it sound like thousands of dollars in accessories are needed, but you could just as easily add about $100 in third-party rig parts and a $200 monitor with SDI inputs and use it.  That's close to my setup - though I also have a $400 RVLVR handle that I bought for a different camera originally and a $300ish V-mount plate in my setup.  That and the monitor cost a bit more because I have a Pyro 5 on there so that it'll also have wireless transmission.  I'd say $3,000 for the body and $3,300 for a minimum reasonable working setup and $4,000 for a full setup, assuming that you don't already have the monitor, etc.

1 hour ago, KnightsFan said:

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.

Most definitely, but I also say all the time that the $10,000 Ronin 4D 8K is a great camera, but I wouldn't want it as my only camera.

17 minutes ago, John Matthews said:

Maybe it's me, but the ZR seems more like a S9 with a bigger LCD, internal RAW, and a slightly more functional hotshoe in a heavier body, worse IBIS, not as many tools, and roughly for $1200 more. Am I missing something?

That's about the gist of it.  But I'd add that the heavier body is also, from what it seems, a more robust body. Also, less rolling shutter, shutter angle setting, 2 hours vs 30 minutes recording, uncropped 4kp60, much higher resolution on the lcd, headphone port, environmental sealing, and CF express.  Also, ability to get an adapter and use Sony lenses for people who have invested in them.

On the other hand, S9 can do 3:2 recording if that's a selling point for you.  And aside from being lighter, it's noticeably smaller in side-by-size pictures.

I'd also add that at least a nubbin of a hand grip is preferable to a completely rounded body for a camera that I'd intend to shoot mostly handheld (making the ZR preferable)

Latest rumor on the pricing was published today - $16,499.

I think it's going to be a really hard sell at that price.  Red just released a V-Raptor variant with a 40.96mm-wide 8K global sensor for about $15,000 with a global shutter and similar or better dynamic range.  For non-tall aspect ratio use cases, the 43.8mm-wide sensor of the Eterna is not really much wider and unless some change was made for Eterna, suffers strong rolling shutter in many modes including the wide DR mode.
Though 4:3 open gate is certainly a reason that some people might choose Eterna.

Outside of that, for me, at least, I'd almost definitely take 8k with no RS over 4K with strong RS from a sensor that's about 6.5% wider.

I think Fuji said that they were trying to price it in an owner-operator tier, but I suspect that rental houses will be the main purchasers and a lot of owner-operators would go V-Raptor (or FX9 / C400 /Burano) in that price range.

One thing that I'm curious about, and I don't think I've seen it in any reviews yet (though admittedly I've only watched like 2) is whether turning off IBIS comes with a physical sensor lock on this camera as it does on some other Nikons.  Given that the camera has <10ms of rolling shutter, I'm really strongly considering selling my Z Cam E2-S6G and remaining Z Cam accessories toward it.  My main use for that camera is attaching it to my car on bad roads to film the drive.  The ZR could be an ideal and much smaller replacement for that sort of thing - but if the sensor floats even with IBIS off, it becomes a terrible choice.

16 minutes ago, Django said:

I dunno for a camera that’s marketed "Cinema Z" under the RED name, micro HDMI feels like a completely unnecessary weak point. Most modern mirrorless bodies (R5 II, FX3, Lumix, even Nikon Z) have full-size HDMI now. 

I get what you're saying, but I'd also say that almost none of those cameras are a direct competitor for the ZR - either in size or price.  Cameras that I would think of as direct competitors to the ZR would be Panasonic S9 (micro), Sony A7C series (micro), and Sigma fp (micro), or Fuji X-H2S (full-size) - or a used R5 (micro).  It's weak, but no weaker than a majority of the cameras in a similar size/price range.

22 minutes ago, Django said:

It’s not just about rigging the cam but it’s about having a reliable connection for external monitors or recorders when needed. For a camera that’s trying to position itself as a serious compact cinema tool, micro HDMI in 2025 looks like a surprising step backward. That said yes kudos on them for the bright 4" screen!

I get that, but I'd say that the intersection between "times when a monitor or recorder needs to be attached" and "times when the camera isn't rigged" is a small one.  And again, if that's your main use case, you should almost definitely not pick the ZR.  Similarly, even more common use cases like "camera is on a tripod and you want to swap the CF card" are weaknesses.  Luckily, they're use cases that are well-covered by a bunch of other cameras.

48 minutes ago, Django said:

I get that RED cameras don’t offer media redundancy or true Open Gate

My turn to be nitpicky: Red cameras do offer true open gate.  The sensor itself is 17:9.  Open gate refers to using the entire sensor to record.  Open gate on a Micro 4/3 camera or GFX would be 4:3 aspect ratio.  On most mirrorless or DSLR's, it will be 3:2.  Open gate and 3:2 get conflated a lot because that's the ratio for the sensors in the cameras that a majority of people have.

1 hour ago, Django said:

All we have here is micro HDMI not exactly safe externally either

Micro HDMI sucks really bad.  One of the worst connectors I've ever seen.  That said, there's also a very nice 4" screen built into the camera and I'd still say that the camera's strength is not in being built out for cinema, but in being small and relatively inexpensive.  If you're rigging the camera with a cage, you could use a cable clamp to avoid the connector breaking as soon as somebody breathes near it.
If I'm using the camera as a tiny handheld, I'm not connecting an external screen.  But definitely, if your use case is to put an external monitor on the camera without a cage, this camera is a terrible choice and you definitely should not buy it.  FWIW, the EOS R5 also has a micro HDMI port.  I think that was improved in the II, but in a couple of years of owning and casually using the R5 as my small/handheld camera (similar to how I see thie ZR), I don't think it's ever bothered me because I've never connected an external display to it.

Anyway, for me, if I were going to rig up a camera, I'd just use an OG Komodo (available used for not much more money than the ZR costs new).  I have a pretty nice minimal Komodo rig for handheld and it's pretty light.  Still a lot bigger than my R5 which is, in turn, bigger, I think, than the ZR.

16 minutes ago, Django said:

RED team wanted to protect their line and purposely not give the ZR too many pro features like redundancy recording, open gate

Keep in mind that most, if not all of the actual Red cameras from Red don't support redundancy recording.  I don't think I ever saw an older one with more than a single Red mag slot.  Komodo has a single CFast card.  Komodo-X has a single CF Express card.  I'm not sure about V-Raptor.

As far as open gate, yes, Reds do this, but their sensors are 17:9 so open gate matches that.  If they support 3:2 recording, it's by cropping the left and right edges of the frame.  I'm not sure if all of their sensors are 17:9, but again, every one that I've seen has been.

6 hours ago, ntblowz said:

I feel like this is a supercharged version of Sigma Fp

I think that's why I like it!

I loved the fp because it was so small, but I ended up resenting it because using the best codecs involved adding an external SSD which would end up with a camera that was bigger and more awkward to use than my R5.

Internal raw recording and a flippy screen makes this perfect for an everyday carry camera, especially combined with some of the smaller M mount glass (Collapsible 50/2, Elmar 35) and it also should be easier to mount on the inside of a windshield than the R5 since it looks a little less wide.

6 hours ago, mercer said:

Off topic, but nice image. 

Thank you!

6 hours ago, kye said:

If you're talking about the smart behaviour of using some colour channels to recreate a clipped colour channel then I think reducing the saturation of the highlights might do broadly the same thing.

From what I understand, this is how it works for both the types of raw where Resolve has the option.  Maybe sometime, I'll play with those suggestions, but it'd still be more work than just clicking a box for supported footage.  Though it's not a huge loss since the difference is fairly subtle anyway.

6 hours ago, kye said:

I don't really know much about what their highlight recovery actually does, but if you're talking about super-whites (levels above 100) then they might get decoded and might be available in the nodes?  My GX85 records super-whites and in my standard node tree for it I just pull down the Gain slightly and they just get pulled down into the working range.

Yeah - if the info is there, there's also the option of bringing down the ISO/exposure in the raw tab and then using curves or lift to bring up the exposure in the shadows.

$2,200 at B&H.

The memory card placement is definitely funky, and the rumored micro sd second slot is real (why, Nikon, why?), but for me, I think this camera really nails the form factor and the price point.  My question will be whether to trade for a new one in October when they ship or wait a bit for the first wave of returns/sales to hit.

Even though it uses a lesser Redcode, the size of this camera is a perfect match for Leica M glass and full frame makes it a better match for that glass than my Komodo/Komodo-X.  Just wish it had any sort of internal ND to make it easier to use some of my beloved Leica lenses that don't easily take filters (like the 35/3.5).

Also, any of the pictures showing it in a full rig sort of boggle my mind.  It kind of plays against the strengths of a super tiny raw-shooting video camera with a big, beautiful rotating internal screen.