eatstoomuchjam

Anything is possible, of course, and I have absolutely no insight beyond rumors, but it still seems a little weird to me. It should be a lot less computationally expensive to handle QB readout (I think this might even be done by circuitry in the sensor itself) than to take a 7K image and downsample it to 6K at high quality. Seems like it'd be a pretty big hit on battery life and heat. Good thing it's rumored to have a fan! Although wasn't there recently a camera that came out and still overheated, even though it had a fan? Maybe Canon's management saw that and got upset that somebody invented a hammer that they never even imagined and they instantly put their best people on it. 😉

I'm glad - I do my best every day to forget them. 😉 (I also forgot Kai and Lok, but less intentionally)

Sure, but if it's not at all hybrid, it's kind of a weird decision to put in a 7K sensor and downsample from it vs just using a native 6K sensor. It's not to say that they wouldn't, just that it'd be a little weird. Similarly, the A7SIII/FX3 are both 12 megapixel stills cameras. While you can find some stills photographers who don't mind 24, a lot more who are OK with 33, and the vast majority are OK with 45. You're really not going to find many who will accept 12.

The new camera is coming out at a similar price point to the R5 II and I know several people who bought R5 series cameras primarily for video work. I'd be glad to be wrong about this one, of course. And as Django pointed out, they might go e-shutter only which would be likely to turn off a lot of photographers. Of course, if RS is <10ms, that might un-turn off some of them. Speaking for myself, the biggest question is whether it would have DGO. I would take 33 megapixels with 2 extra stops thanks to DGO over 45 megapixels. OLPF might also be a thing that would push it more to the strictly video side of things, but if it had one and between DGO and OLPF, it had an image like the C70, but in a smaller body with better low-light performance and more reliable AF, it might be in the rare category of cameras that I'd be excited enough to buy new as opposed to waiting 6-12 months for them to get a 10% price drop on the used market...

The C80 has internal ND and there's almost no way this one does, based on the size. C80 also has XLR, SDI, and about a bazillion buttons that this one doesn't. On paper, the R5C had a number of advantages over the C70, including better AF and 8K shooting. But it also lacked internal ND, XLR, etc. If I were Canon, I'd honestly be a lot more concerned about sales of the R5 II than the C80/C400 if this camera has most of the rumored specs. Especially if it has a DGO sensor, I'd gladly take that over 8K recording and 10-15 more megapixels for still photos.

The rumor that was highlighted said it was "optional" which would absolutely imply detachable. 6K vs 4K, internal raw, and rumored DGO sensor would all be better on a spec sheet. But it's also true that we're in a time of decreasing returns. The FX3 is a great camera. It makes a good image, can work with very little light, has fantastic autofocus, and it's small/portable. Everything about it is absolutely enough for the vast majority of current productions. You could just as easily respond that you don't care about 6K, raw, or an extra stop or two of dynamic range and you'd be absolutely correct. On the other hand, Canon has lost a lot of their video production market share and they need something that they can point to when current users say they want something like an FX3, and ideally a little better than the FX3 so that their users still feel good buying Canon stuff.

So now we know there aren't XLR on the body itself, but we also know that Canon are releasing a first-party XLR hotshoe adapter (maybe it'll be backward-compatible with R5C/R5 II, etc).

And yet, Leica, Panasonic, Sigma, Pentax, Fuji, OM System, and others seem to keep making and selling cameras despite the market dominance of Canon/Nikon/Sony. Guess you know more than the bosses at any of those companies as well. You should let them know about the futility of competing with the big 3, especially Fuji. They only had around 3 of the 5 top-selling cameras at Map Camera in 2024 and should probably quit before they embarrass themselves any further, as obviously nobody can compete with the big 3. DJi would clearly be better-served focusing on the enormous market segment that is... 360 cameras. 🤣

No, it would send the message that the lens mount that they invented for drones in 2017 is not suitable for a general-purpose MILC. And again, to release a new camera with 6 overpriced and mediocre first-party lenses available for it would be fucking stupid and almost nobody would buy it. They'd anger almost none of the existing customers who own those lenses which, again, includes me, a person who would never buy them for any system that I didn't expect to be hurtling through air at 60mph/100km/h. It's not at all clear what would be gained by swapping some mounts and rebranding Viltrox lenses as first-party lenses, especially if those lenses are already available for other existing mirrorless systems. The smart play if they want to have a fixed mount is L mount, a system which comes with great lenses already available from first-party makers like Leica, Panasonic, and Sigma - and a bunch of third-party lenses from all of the usual suspects and which they already support and sell. Other than "sends a message that they don't believe in your system," you have yet to present any sort of even remotely coherent argument for how DL mount would make any sense - or how not including DL mount would impact the sales of the drones or Ronin 4D which are the only cameras in existence that can currently use it. As to their interest in entering the market, it's not impossible to think that the success of the Ronin 4D and Pocket 3 have them considering adding something in-between the two. A few years ago, you might also have insisted that DJI would have no interest in entering the action camera market and competing with GoPro - but now they're 3 generations into that. Or just a few months ago, you might have insisted that they'd have no interest in competing with Insta360 with 360 capture, but yet, they did that too. They also wouldn't be "entering" the market. They are in the MILC market with the Hasselblad brand which they own. And yet, they also probably won't use the Hasselblad mount and that also won't send a message that they "don't believe in their own system."

Nikon wouldn't be supporting RF mount at all if they didn't buy a company already making cameras that used it. And what was the first (or one of the first, I don't track it that much) things they did? Release most of the same cameras again using their own mount. DL mount was invented for drones (I think for the X7), a category where DJI has no competition at all and where they can get away with selling a mediocre 35mm f/2.8 lens for $1,200-1,400 (prices on the others are similar). If DJI management are as dumb as you're implying and think that they can sell cameras that can only use those lenses, then they deserve the enormous failure they're about to suffer. I suspect they aren't idiots, though. The only reason that I have the 24/35/50 is that I got a really good used deal on the 24 and got a kit with the 16/35/50 from ebay for $2,200 and immediately sold the 16 for about $200 - and the only reason that I was willing to spend $1k/lens for the others is that I wanted aerodynamic lenses for when they're on a camera going around 100km/h. If buying a camera for a standard mirrorless camera that I don't plan to hang off the side of my car at high speed, though, if you give me the choice of a mediocre 50mm f/2.8 for $1,199 or an excellent G Master 50mm f/1.4 for $1,298 (current B&H pricing), you've given me the simplest choice of all time. I'd buy a Sony camera and the GM. Most people would. And I don't even like Sony that much (though I did shoot with them for 5+ years). As BTM_Pix already pointed out, DJI have been part of the L mount alliance for a while now and as I already pointed out, DJI already make and sell an L mount for the Ronin 4D. My hope would be, if they release a very small mirrorless camera (and if I want that camera) is that it would just accept the lens mounts for Ronin 4D since I already have them in DL, M, and EF mount (and I'm not opposed to also getting one in L mount)

I just checked and my initial enthusiasm for the cloud option for something like a 48hff or similar faded quickly. It looks like the option is not granular enough for a weekend project - minimum interval is 1 month and it's $30. At that price, I might just deal with the headache of sharing one of my licenses/seats with the editor for the weekend (bought one, got one with the UC12K, each has two seats). I was really more hoping for a thing that would let me toggle it on for the weekend for around $10. At least the free version of Resolve is able to download the proxies from BM cloud that were made when the DIT (which is sometimes me) imported media into my laptop on-site. I'm also kind of excited to experiment with the same with the UC12K's wifi since I think it can sync proxies to BM cloud directly from the camera. Hope they don't change that to push that use case into a $30 cost. FWIW, the rest of my cloud plan (that I am not actively using right now so I should probably cut down on) is $12.50 for 500GB of storage and $5 for a cloud project library. That's the minimum that I've found is needed to create Cloud projects with shared proxies. Wish I could pay a bit less for 100GB, though - proxies ain't that big.

Willing to bet that was a typo and should have said "EF mount."

Do you mean their cinema camera that has swappable mounts including DL mount, L mount, and M mount all coming first-party from DJI themselves? And E mount coming third-party rebranded by DJI? And EF and PL mount from third parties? If you go on any Ronin 4D user group, you will quickly see that Sony E mount seems to be the most popular followed by L mount. I think you're just flat-out wrong on this, sorry. DJi have a total of 6 lenses for DL mount, IIRC. 16/2.8 (APS-C), 24/2.8, 35/2.8, 50/2.8, 75/1.8, and 17-28/4 PZ. These lenses are generally considered mediocre - I have had every one, sold the 16 (since cropping for it is pretty redundant with 24 on FF) and returned the 75 after verifying that it didn't fix the autofocus lag I was getting on a manual mount Leica lens. The whole point of those DJI lenses (except the zoom) is that they are very light weight and designed to be aerodynamic - I use them when mounting the R4D on a car. I like the 17-28, but it's really a focal length that basically screams "use me on a gimbal" and would have everybody instantly demanding a 24-70 ASAP. There two third parties who have made a small number of lenses for the mount, the most interesting being Viltrox who have a set of f/1.8 lenses. This would put them in the position of having to play huge catch-up on lenses since everybody else has a many years-long head start and it'll be a major uphill fight to get third parties like Sigma to make lenses for it, given the lack of market penetration. So it makes perfect sense that DJI would release a new camera using a mount that they already support and offer on their cinema camera. That or that their cinema camera would just support the mount system for the R4D and all of the mounts that go with it.

Part of me wants to knee-jerk against anything even remotely resembling a subscription, but this is also something I've wanted when using BM Cloud on things like a 48 hour film project to collaborate with others. If the studio rental is cheap, I might even do this sometime.

Oof. Good points. Very sorry for both of them.

That makes me sad for both of them and I won't joke about it. I don't see anything about it on their instagrams or youtube, though. What's the source?

Maybe you're on to something... after all, Nikon did buy all of Red's IP... Maybe it's time to finally release long-promised the Red Lithium and fulfill the promise of the Hydrogen One! Or maybe it's time for the Hydrogen Two! 😅 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Hydrogen_One

Casey Neistat and Candice? Matt Granger and his 200/2 Nikkor? DSLR video shooter and his entire camera studio attached to a rolling lightstand? Gerald Undone and his own ego (or Sony?)? Bloomie and his cats? The Camera Conspiracies guy and his most 3d popping lens? Snapchick and Raymond? Cam Mackey and yellow-toned footage of cars driving around in the sand? Pooter McCubbins and ugly poorly-made leather goods? Potato Jet and his FPV drone? Matti H and Pooter McCubbins' leftover views? Mathieu Stern and other peoples' lens adapter ideas? FroKnowsPhoto and his Canon rep?

Tony and Chelsea?

Clearly, it's the DJI camera that they've been on the cusp of releasing for about 3 years now.

If the rest of the specs in the rumor are true, the body has a fan. I think there's no way it's the camera in the photos. But if the one in the photos is a Nikon with Redcode, the take-away here really is that it's a great time to be a filmmaker if we can now get 6K DGO in one tiny body and Redcode in another.

So definitely not an FX30 killer at that price. But 6K FF DGO sensor? That might be in the category of "sell some my other stuff" followed by gif of Frye from Futurama waving around money, possibly with some delay before they hit the used market.

It there's a camera that small/thin and it captures Redcode, I might consider my second-ever Nikon camera... after a Nikon FG that I owned briefly in 2002 or so.

The rumors about a 30ish megapixel sensor when combined with FX30 killer got me laughing out loud since Canon absolutely have a 30ish megapixel full frame sensor that they could put in a small cinema body and sell for a price slightly below the FX30... Putting all of that information together, we quickly arrive at the conclusion that Canon will be releasing a cinema version of the EOS R. Maybe they could even tweak their old stock sensors to be able to read out 4K from the whole sensor. 🤣

Yes, this is how HSS works. I'm not sure why you're describing it to me. I already acknowledged that some people are opposed to it. I also have some not-especially-expensive Godox/Flashpoint strobes that I've used to HSS in direct sunlight before with relatively wide apertures. They're about the size of an extended soda can. It seems like you read about 30% of what I write and and then respond to that instead of reading and understanding fully. I will repeat for you that the 100MP sensor that is used in this camera and the GFX is simply incapable of reading out 100 megapixels 24 times per second. It doesn't matter of Hasselblad want to try cooling it for that or not. It's just not an option. Otherwise, arguments against rolling shutter or alternative sensor readouts are silly. Many vendors do it and many people use their cameras successfully without complaint. And Hasselblad haven't had a reputation for the highest image quality in a long time. That crown went to companies like Phase One years ago. Once again, try reading every word that I say before responding. I am aware that Hasselblad have a small number of lenses that are price-competitive with the Fujinons. My statement was "Do prepare to break out the wallet, though, since many of the lenses cost 20-50% more than the equivalent Fujinon lens" - that's because if I go to B&H right now and search for Hasselblad lenses, I find that many of them are in the $4,000-5,000 range. The most expensive Fujinons are in the $3,000-3,500 range. You can also adapt a bunch of less expensive lenses to Fuji thanks to the focal plane shutter, where the Hasselblad will require the use of the slowest possible rolling shutter for any lens without a leaf shutter.` Are you talking about the fact that some lenses change focus slightly when stopping down the aperture? Because that's easily solved by just focusing at the aperture you plan to use (I also do this with some Canon camera/lens combos because the plane of sharpest focus seems to shift a little bit when stopping down). Otherwise, that sounds like absolute nonsense. I've done a number of timelapses with my GFX 100 and 100 II and the focus stays right where it should. And when using autofocus with GF lenses, when the autofocus hits right (less than people accustomed to Canon or Sony would expect), it's ridiculously razor sharp. This all really sounds like the usual toxic internet crap where somehow one of the best camera systems in existence is deemed "insufficient" by some troll whose only exposure to the camera comes from YouTube.