eatstoomuchjam

It's absolutely really, really average. I'm not sure that even Panasonic would object to that characterization. I'm not sure if the S5 II sensor was new when that camera was released, but even that model is about 1.5 years old. So this is a budget version of a camera that could hardly be considered cutting edge. Almost everything about the S9 screams that a couple of years ago, someone in Panasonic management asked "People really seem to love that X100 V, what's our answer to it?" And there's nothing wrong with any of that. It's kind of fantastic that there's now a $1,500 full-frame camera capable of 6K (including open gate) which includes PDAF. It could be pretty great with Leica M lenses for now. I'm admittedly not super familiar with the options out there for L mount, but one really hopes that it inspires a bunch of decent small f/2 or f/2.8 FF lenses for the system - and not just a kind of shit 26mm f/8 which will probably be a reminder of the Olympus body cap lenses for M4/3 (and not in a good way).

10 minute recording limit in 6K modes, 15 minute recording limit in 4K modes. Completely lacks all-I, ProRes, and external raw. Has PDAF and IBIS. Uses the same sensor as S5 II/S5 IIx. Could be great for casual use. Maybe people will convince Panasonic to add a better codec in a future firmware update.

Also PetaPixel: https://petapixel.com/2024/05/22/panasonic-s9-initial-review-small-pretty-and-confusing/

So-so "review," but it was the first that I saw go live. Size is actually pretty reasonable. It's probably about as small as a usable FF camera is likely to be any time soon.

This is a really weird paragraph. APS-C is popular in the filmmaking community because it's a really close match to the size of Super 35 film. A majority of films made for decades were done on that film and there are bazillions of lenses that support the format. Since the lens is generally much more important than the sensor, S35 continued to be popular in the video world. Also, the real-world differences between FF and APS-C/APS-H are not nearly as big as people make them out to be. One thing that hinders APS-C adoption in the still photo world is the lack of high-quality lenses optimized for the format. As somebody mentioned before, Canon barely make any of them for RF mount and barely made any for EF-S mount. On the other hand, Fuji APS-C bodies are growing in popularity and have a fantastic line-up of great lenses to support them. It has nothing to do with rolling shutter, fwiw. There are full frame cameras with global shutter. Readout speed is only partly based on sensor size.

For a dedicated video camera, the C70 also has great DR, internal ND, and decent audio - and it has RF mount. Put on Canon's focal reducer and your lenses will look almost exactly like they do on FF (though then it will be EF). I'll do a side-by-side with my R5. I never noticed raw video having a lot less DR than stills, but I never did any formal test. I mostly just thought it seemed pretty mediocre/blah for both. 😄 As time goes on, I care less and less about having full frame for video. I bought two dedicated cameras for video work in the last year and they were both RF mount with S35 sensors (though the K-X is more like APS-H than APS-C). I've liked everything I shot with both, except for self-inflicted technical problems (which were no fault of the cameras').

The R5 seems like it would be a really weird choice for the ML people since it already shoots 8k raw - and I haven't noticed the DR in raw on my R5 seeming all that different from the DR on still images. Whatever differences there are, IMO they wouldn't be enough for me to use ML raw and have to convert each clip before importing into Resolve vs just being able to directly open the Canon raw files directly. Better for ML to target bodies like the original R6 which didn't include any sort of raw video - or even better, flesh out support for the M series which is tiny, cheap on the used market due to being a dead system, and has some models that are at least 4k capable. At least, if I were on the project, I'd be more excited to tell people "Now you can shoot 2.5k raw (or 3.2k or whatever SD card slot can support) on a $400 M50" than "Now you can shoot otherer more differenter raw on your $2,300 camera that already has raw."

I'd be glad to add something with my recently-acquired Komodo-X or my C70, but there's no way I'm ever going to refer to my camera as a "beast." I shot a 48hfp thing with the K-X this last weekend and I definitely want to have more excuses to shoot with it and get comfortable before my next planned shoot in June.

You should really post examples of what you mean. I don't think I've noticed a decent IPB codec (like most modern H265) look that much different from an all-i codec for what I'd think of as slow panning. I have noticed differences between cameras with higher and lower RS, even when doing what I'd think of as slow panning, but it's not out of the question that some of that was entirely in my head. Anyway, using vague and heavily subjective terms like "slow" and "looks jumpy" is going to just result in a bunch of people arguing without anybody even really being sure what the other one is arguing about.

I hope there are some pretty decent small/light lenses for L mount. With that (lack of a) handgrip, that thing is an ergonomic nightmare for any sort of handheld shooting with a lens over 300g or so. If that size comparison is accurate, adding a handgrip pretty much puts one in a "just buy an S5II which puts an EVF in the little bit of extra vertical height" category. (If it's decent resolution, it could be a dream camera for M mount lenses)

For me, the "only one camera" answer would be GFX 100 II. But thankfully, I don't need to answer the "only one" question. 😅

The only way to upgrade the GPU on a MBP is to buy a new MBP for another $4k. Not the best plan unless you're independently wealthy - and if so, then you might as well just spend the extra $300 for the better chip now. 😃

The above is exactly why I say there are asterisks and "it depends" in the answer. Will either computer be able to play back 12K braw in Resolve without dropping frames? As long as the storage is fast enough, absolutely. Will it be able to play back in Premiere without dropping frames? 🤷‍♂️ FCP? 🤷‍♂️ As I said before, my M2 Max (the weaker version) w/ 64GB is just able to play back 8K raw from my R5 in Resolve. If I put on a grade where I tweak a few raw options, add FilmConvert Nitrate, and tweak some curves/color warper stuff afterward, I still get 23.98 on it as long as I'm not doing anything else in the background. Canon raw is a nightmare codec in terms of performance. Braw is easier. One other thing to consider is that I'm sure that the local Apple store (if there is one) has some M3 Max models on the showroom floor. If you're nice about it, they might be willing to at least put FCP on one (or let you download Resolve) to load a sample project file and some footage. Since the UM12K has been out for a long time, I'm sure some nice reviewer/youtuber has put some raw files online for you to download. You could just give it a try with one of your sample grades to understand if it performs as needed.

There are a lot of asterisks and "it depends" in any answer to that, but overall, I'd say that if you're spending $4k on a MBP (which updating from the base RAM and SSD would do), if you plan to edit 12k, it might be worth the extra $300 to jump to the bigger chip. It partly depends on how many effects/how much noise reduction, etc. I'd also say that if you're like most people, if you're gonna spend $4k on a laptop, you're going to want it to last for a while. You might factor that in too. Speaking for myself, I bought the lower of the M2 Max chips in my MBP and it's just barely enough to handle 8k Canon raw in Resolve and once I add noise reduction to the clips that need it, export times get pretty slow (like 40 minutes for a 15 minute short). Would having the system be 30% faster help a lot? Not really. 30 minutes to export the clips wouldn't be life changing. You might also consider whether M4 is coming soon - M2 was released in June 2022 and M3 in October 2023. If the M4 is coming, it'll probably have about a 10-15% speed boost over M3 - that or you might be able to get a nice deal on an M3 at that time. Depends on when you're planning to start shooting 12k, I suppose. 😁

From the videos I've seen on Film Look Creator, I think subtractive saturation and split toning are the things that stuck at to me as most interesting - that and I'm going to need to spend a bit of time with their grain generator to see if I like the output.

Slight digression from the topic, but unless you really need the flippy screen, you might consider the RX100 V over the ZV-1. The V is even smaller, but weighs just a hair more (probably due to having more metal and less plastic in the body) (and I think the V is cheaper on the used market). The flippy screen was just about the only difference between the two cameras.

Congratulations on completely missing the point. That was really impressive and you should be proud. The pricing I listed for the 300D was representative of all of the lights that I have. For example, I also got a 600X during their BF sale last year. It was $1,691 and included barndoors + fresnel (and a free MT Pro). Looking at lensrentals.com, it would be $193 for a 7-day rental (light only) and an addition $28 for the fresnel/$24 for the barn doors. I've also used it on 2 shoots since I received it in December. If I use the light on 8-9 shoots over the course of owning it, I will have paid less than renting it, even if I never had a need for barndoors or fresnel. And again, in a few years, I'll also be able to sell it and recoup some of the investment. If I didn't wait for a sale to buy the light, it doesn't really change much - just the number of shoots that are needed before "own" beats "rent." Beyond that, in your example, for the two shoots I've done with the 300D, I'd have spent twice as much as I did and had more light than the shoots needed (if a 300C was enough, I didn't need a 1200D) (also, at least one of the shoots used RGB mode on the 300C which would have made the 1200D a stupid choice for that shoot). So the point, once again, is that if you actually use the gear on any sort of regular basis, it costs less to own it than to rent it - even before you factor in the cost of your time to keep driving to and from the post office or rental house.

That depends. If you use your lights daily, renting is far less affordable. If you'll use them only once every 5 years, renting is far more affordable. Somewhere in-between those two things is an inflection point (which shifts around depending on sales). My Amaran 300C was $455 for Black Friday last year and it came with a free medium-quality light stand. At lensrentals.com, the Amaran 300C goes for $87 for 7 days. So after I've used the light on 6 shoots, I will have saved money vs renting. Since it arrived in December, I've used it for 2. After the shoots ended, I didn't have to put it back in a box and drive it to the post office so it's also saving me some time. If I don't want it in a few years, I'll probably be able to sell it for $100-150. Plus I have that extra light stand going for me. That's pretty nice. 😄

Self-indulgence? 😉 Entertainment is probably an overly-broad category, but that's splitting hairs.

If you just want footage with no commentary, markr041 who is a user here has a YouTube channel and he tends to try a pretty decent number of the cameras that come out. They're usually decently shot and I don't think I've ever even seen one where he talked about the camera (or even showed his face). 😃

One of the things I find hilarious about YouTube is that a lot of the big camera influencers talk about leveling up channels and increasing production value, etc. A lot of the bigger names have between 50-200k subscribers and a lot of them had the advantage of being early to starting camera channels. Newer, theoretically popular people like Cam Mackey have like 65k. Meanwhile, a friend of mine decided to do something with his YouTube channel a couple of years ago after the news did a story about his having purchased the monorail for $1/car from our local zoo when they stopped running it and turning it into a private campsite on some land in Wisconsin. He mostly repurposes junk that he finds at garage sales and thrift stores into things like push-pull carts on railroad tracks and satellite dishes coated in aluminum foil. The cameras he uses are mostly potatoes - like 25-year old camcorders and Hero 3-type stuff. He has a pretty decent natural grasp of editing and story, though, and he's a funny guy. He also would freely admit that he neither knows a lot about cameras nor cares to know any more. Last I checked, he was at about 187k subscribers (including me - I like watching his stuff). So if the goal is just to grow a YouTube channel, the quality of the camera is probably the least important bit. Making half of your video be slow motion slideshow garbage so that you can put "cinematic" in the title doesn't really get views if the rest of the content is garbage. I buy too much gear for my own mediocre talent, but that's partly just because I want it and after a lot of years, I can almost always find something to trade in to make stuff more affordable. I have no illusions that buying a Komodo-X will substantially improve anything I do, but I might do it anyway. If I get it, I'll probably like it a lot for a while and then after a couple of years, I'll probably trade it in toward something else. Anyway, another thing to remember with these YouTubers that are in the business of making day 1 review commercials for various channels - when they're showing "what this camera can do," go watch their older stuff with a camera from last year. Most of the time, it looks almost exactly like whatever they're doing with the new camera because they're really not that different. One of the most laughable things that people say on various camera forums or YT comments is "I can't wait for (creator name here) to get it so we can see what that camera can really do." Wanna know what that camera will look at when your favorite creator gets it? Go watch the review they did of the camera before it. It'll look pretty much like that.

Ouch. I love the cameras that I have from them, but they're going to need to clean up this shady garbage if they want my continued business. It's not that hard to spot the shills, regardless of sponsorship disclosures, but I still don't want to patronize somebody who is trying to hide it... partly because it's insulting to the intelligence to think that somebody with a day 1 video doesn't have a relationship with the company. I'll also note that iphonedo is hardly innocent in this regard as well. While his agreements with companies like DJI don't specifically remove his editorial independence, he also knows that if he's too critical of their products, the sponsor dollars will dry up. One can definitely see that he tries harder to be positive in his reviews of their gear than he tried, for instance, with the Karma drone that he mentioned. It's not a bad quality, necessarily, but just another data point to keep in mind when watching any of the reviews on his channel.

There's a lot more to the question than just which lights to use. If you're indoors and feel like you're fighting the sun and if the windows will be mostly out of focus in the background, you can just put ND gel over them - it's fairly cheap and fast. If they'll be in focus, IMO ND gels look a little bit like shit so that might not be your best option. If you're outdoors and fighting the sun, especially for close-ups, a collapsible reflector or two (or three if you have one which can give some negative fill) is often a lot better than trying to compete with the sun with your light. You can get a pretty big reflector for about $30 from almost any photo store in the world. Otherwise, short of going with really big lights, if you're trying to blast a light through a window and have it compete with the sun, it's going to have to be a pretty big light. In those cases, I'd probably try to find a way to shoot the scene differently. 😄 These days my main kit consists of 1xAputure 600X, 1xAputure P300C, 1xAmaran 300C, 2xAmaran 150C - as well as the B7C lunchbox, MC4 mini-lunchbox, and a few scattered MX's. It's more than enough for almost anything that I shoot. I'll probably continue adding some stuff here and there when Aputure have huge sales (their Black Friday sale is legit - I got a huge discount on the 600X plus a couple of bonus things). If I need to go bigger than that, I'm more likely to rent it or to just hire a gaffer to roll up with a box truck full of stuff. For shooting on the go, I just also put together a kit with 3xStellaPro's with their Bowen mount - they're tiny and run off of USB-C so I can plug 'em into a V mount plate or even a battery bank. Only disadvantage? Above 30% or so, the fan runs constantly. I'm excited to actually do a shoot with 'em. I also picked up a Molus X100 for the cases where I want somebody to hand hold a light. It's alright, but the reflector in the Bowens mount seems to do some funky things with my softboxes.

My guess is that the difference in actual user experience of a system receiving a 923 and one receiving 893 will be negligible. Between the two, I'd choose the one where I get a better deal.

By the time you add the size and weight of a converter box, you should probably just get the Z Cam EVF or the Portkeys OEYE and save money.