eatstoomuchjam

You can't use the speed booster with RF glass. It's an EF converter + speed booster. This is a good thing because the EF 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 are both perfectly fine lenses and you can get them for a lot less than the RF equivalents. No IS in the 24-70, though.

Secondhand was not mentioned in terms of reliability, but in terms of bringing the cost closer to the CinePi (especially if the Resolve license comes with it). A really solid percentage of my gear was purchased second-hand (which is one of the reasons there's a lot of it). Once there's something shipping, that sounds very nice. Until it's shipping, I will imagine setting it next to the 8K Micro 4/3 camera from Sharp, the full-frame "film cartridge + sensor" for vintage cameras, and any number of other cameras that never actually shipped. I was gonna include the Bosma 8K in the list, but it's listed as in stock and shipping from B&H (?!) (really?)... But even once it does ship, I'm not sure that a niche camera with tiny sensor is really revolutionizing anything. If it's cheap and has a proper C mount, I'd get one because I have a bunch of S16 glass which would be fun to play with again (and C mount adapters for Micro 4/3 need to recess into the body which makes it impossible to fit on like half the lenses). If there were a better way to focus 'em, I'd just go with one of the nicer Back-Bone kits at that point. I'm still curious about the one for the RX0 since it probably has a decent HDMI out with low latency...

Sure, RGB microlenses on the CFA could cause some variance - and I certainly don't have a lot of insight to that. I've generally assumed that they're supplied by Sony since they sell both "color" and "monochrome" versions of the same sensors - and largely, the only difference in a color and monochrome sensor is the CFA. 😃 That's definitely relevant to ProRes/H.265 footage and somewhat with BM Raw, but not for cDNG and ProRes RAW. Perhaps there's metadata embedded in the container that instructs the editor/convertor for which color values to use when debayering? And if so, could the writers of the software allow people to override it?

Is there a new camera module? The current camera module used by cinepi is imx477. It doesn't matter how fancy the raspberry pi is that you connect it to, it's still only a 12 megapixel sensor. If Sony have a 45 megapixel 1" sensor that can read out at 12 bits, it could be cool to see that in a Raspberry Pi camera. Until then, you'd be a lot better off buying a used BMPCC4K - it costs a bit more, but it's a lot more usable as a camera... and I say that as a person who doesn't like any "pocket" cinema camera except for the very first one from like 10 years ago. (Or for just. little bit more, a Sigma FP)

Some of this is also being done at the sensor level instead of in the camera. The GFX 100 series have a full sensor width 10-bit 4K mode (12-bit in raw). They're not reading the entire sensor and downscaling. They're using a 4K readout mode that's built into the sensor and when set for raw HDMI output, feeding that to the recorder. It's "raw" in the sense that it's the exact data that the SOC receives from the sensor. I assume that the implementation is similar in at least some other cameras. No links to share just now - just stuff I've read over the years as well as applying logic that if two cameras have the same sensor, but non-matching raw output, they must be doing some processing. Not all are confirmed, but Sigma fp/Sony A7 III, Sigma FP-L/Sony A7R IV, GFX 100/H2D, Z Cam E2/Panasonic GH5S/BMPCC4K, etc etc etc. If zero processing is applied, any of those cameras should look exactly the same when shooting raw... unless the colors are determined by the raw decoder software - and if that's the case, it should be possible for the vendors to easily transform any of those cameras to any of the others. 🙂

Oh yeah. The only reason that I commented on 8fps was in reference to the idea that a faster processor in the camera would allow for it to do full-sensor readout and downsample to 8K for video. If 8 fps at 12-bit is as fast as it can read out, it's not going to hit 24fps at 10-bit and probably still not at 8-bit (and by the time it's 8-bit, nobody's going to want it anyway - based on another thread, even an action camera which is recording at 8-bit is becoming undesirable for some 🙂 ). When shooting stills, I'm always in single shot - or if it's dark and I think camera shake will beyond what stabilization will cover, I'll fire off a few with the lower-speed burst and at least one is usually sharp enough. I'll be surprised if I ever use the high speed stills mode - it's a pretty weird option (kudos to Fuji for pushing the envelope with it, though). I'm no expert on the X-?? line, but I thought the X-H2S was both BSI and stacked... and the 14-bit mode on it has some of the best DR in video mode of any APS-C camera (cined database says that SNR=1, the only "affordable" S35 cameras with better DR are the Canons with dgo). Anyway, I'm glad to be wrong if stacking the sensor reduces the DR.

I don't think IMX461 is a stacked sensor. Moving to a stacked sensor should allow for faster readout speed with minimal/no impact to image quality.

I'm not justifying anything. i'm enjoying the benefits of having a single system that can do everything I want (except most games). I don't see any advantage in having a separate system that I also need to keep up-to-date with my editor, plugins, etc. "Better performance" only matters if the secondary machine doesn't already do everything as well as you need/want. You like having both? That's great. I hope you enjoy it. I like having one system that I can easily take with me when I go abroad or go camping for months at a time.

It's probably not a question of "processing" (and even if it were, it'd be a hard one to overcome and very expensive for a niche camera) https://www.sony-semicon.com/files/62/pdf/p-13_IMX461ALR_AQR_Flyer.pdf Unless I'm mistaken, GFX 100 and II are both based on IMX461 AQR. The maximum readout speed in full resolution is 10 fps with 12-bit color. Lines up nicely with the GFX 100 II dropping to 12-bit mode when shooting at 8fps. If there's an 8-bit readout mode, maybe they could get close to (or even reach) 12k readout from the sensor at 24fps, but what's the market? People who want enormous files, but shitty dynamic range? The GFX 100 II is almost certainly doing as much as it can with a sensor that is now like 4-5 years old (most of their wording around "new sensor" was really in "new circuitry to read from the sensor as fast as possible"). My guess is that we won't see a dedicated "cinema" GFX until Sony release a newer medium format sensor which is better optimized for video. I'd love to be wrong, but for now, I don't mind having one of the best stills cameras in the world which also features some really nice video modes.

The RS 1" is so good. If I knew they'd stop making the 1" modules, I'd have bought a couple more. (Also, I have one modded by Back-Bone with a passive M43 mount and while I've not shoot anything useful with it, it's one of the most fun cameras that I own - 5.7k with a 1" sensor with a telephoto lens? That's crazy fun - just wish there were a better option for focusing - either an external screen or letting me hardwire my iPhone to the USB port (maybe the RS supports iPhone? Mine still has the original R brain))

Any modern Mac (and I assume most decent gaming/creator PC's) should be able to drive 3 4K monitors. Mine aren't 4K, but I spend all day working from my M2 Max laptop connected to the 3 monitors in my home office. When work ends, I unplug it from the two docking stations (two because I also run 10gE) and use it with the 14" internal screen. The absolute performance of a desktop would, of course, be better (which is why I have a Windows gaming PC hooked up in the next room), but at some point, performance is "enough" for what one is trying to do.

Keep in mind that even a number of cameras still do some processing even on so-called "raw" formats. If they didn't, any two cameras using the same sensor would look exactly the same, but they don't. There's a reason that raw looks different from multiple manufacturers despite that each one is using Sony sensors (for those who do - Sony, Fuji, Z Cam, Panasonic (I think?), and Black Magic (also I think?)). Unrelated to that... As far as whether raw is worth it, it depends on a combination of how much work you want to do with it and how flexible you want the footage to be. For what you're doing, if you have lots of time to set up and prefer a slower pace of shooting, raw is probably not too important. You have plenty of time to make sure to "get it right" in camera. On the other hand, if storage space isn't a concern, there's very little reason _not_ to shoot raw.

I own the original GFX 100 and a GFX 100 II. I don't own a Z8 or a Z9, but I feel confident in saying that if video is your main use, you're better off with the Nikon. The II is a huge upgrade over the original GFX 100 for video, and the image is really gorgeous, but even after almost 2 months, I still get annoyed trying to remember how much any given mode crops and which ones have decent vs which have severe RS, etc. But yeah, for stills, I love it - and I love that it fits easily into a camera bag (and is pretty light) unlike my original 100. 😃

I'm not sure if they'll restock it, but Canon has refurb R5's for $2200 until November 30. It's a hell of a deal. https://www.usa.canon.com/shop/p/refurbished-eos-r5-body?cjdata=MXxOfDB8WXww&cjevent=e91a0e218d5011ee81860f990a82b82c&utm_source=Sovrn+Inc&utm_campaign=13505864

It's a weird decision - that was evergreen content that cost them nothing to leave up and, assuming they're in the YPP, probably made them a small (but non-zero) amount of money yearly.

There are lots of caveats and asterisks there. In Mac terms, the most powerful mini is available with M2 Pro. It comes with a maximum of 32GB of memory. Depending on needs (10gE for a NAS, the more powerful M2 Pro processor?), by the time you upgrade it, it will cost about as much as an M1 Ultra with similar specs and potentially a bit better performance. If not looking at a Mac, as Jedi Master said, there's a lot more bang for a buck in a desktop PC. For about as much as you'd pay for an upgraded mini ($2100-2400), you can get a 16-core AMD processor, 64GB of RAM, a couple of blazing fast NVMe 2TB drives, and a 3080ti or 4070ti (maybe even a 4080?) which has a lot more raw power than the Mac. Though it'll also be big and a bit noisier. This sort of choice may also depend on the price of power in your area, as it's like $0.11 per kwh in Oregon and $0.47 per kwh in Britain right now. At almost 50 cents per kwh, you might want the computer which draws less than 200w when fully loaded (and is totally able to do everything you need) and not the one which draws 700-1000w.

Equivalent in Windows-land? It doesn't really exist. 12th/13th generation Intel has much better performance per watt than 11th generation, but the built-in GPU isn't anywhere near the performance of M1 so you'd need something with a dedicated GPU which won't be low power. If I'm guessing I'd say that an i7-12700 or i7-13700 with the laptop version of an RTX 4060 should be about similar to the performance of an M1 Max while plugged into the wall, but with the caveat that the Windows laptop will pull more power and be noisier (fans to remove the heat from using so much power). However, the second you unplug the laptop from the wall, the performance and battery life of the Windows system will be substantially worse than the M1 Max. You can find Windows laptops with more raw power than even the highest-end M3 Max - and desktops even more so, but the cost is that the power usage will be a lot higher. I'm too lazy to go look now, but I'd bet that an RTX 4090 all by itself uses more power at full load than an entire M3 Max laptop, including the screen. 😃

Even if I knew the difference in price between M2 and M3, I wouldn't be able to say whether it's worth the difference in price. I could say, though, that I have the lower-end M2 Max in my 14" MBP and in Resolve, it's able to handle every type of footage that I bring in to edit, though my color grading is relatively straightforward/simplistic. If you're doing more complex stuff, YMMV. I'll also qualify "every type of footage" with the caveat that 8K raw from the EOS R5 basically maxes it out (a bit more or less depending on the decode options chosen). The fancier M2 Max with a better GPU would do a little bit better with the R5 footage. So it's likely that either the M2 Max or M3 Max would be enough for most things you'd wanna do. I'd upgrade the RAM since it can't be upgraded later. I went with 64GB. That seems to be working out well for me. I expect that it will continue to work well for me for the next few years.

If it pushes you over the edge for hitting the buy button on the C300, lensrentals.com has a pretty sweet BF sale - use code KPRBF2023 for 15% off any used gear. They have a C300 III for $6,240 in "good" condition ($5,340 after code) - which means it probably won't be the prettiest camera on the block, but probably works fine (and they have some sort of return window if it craps out in the first X days). For the C70 I planned to trade for, MPB didn't get me a final quote back yet and don't seem to be running any BF deals - so I grabbed a C70 in similar condition from 'em along with the 0.71 focal reducer - just about $4k for both ($3900 + tax). I don't think MPB do any special extra value for trade-in so I'll just have 'em pay me if that's the case.

I've had a ZV-1 since it was released (and I had a few of the RX100's before it - including the V which is basically the same camera as the ZV-1, but without the flippy screen). IMO it's still by far one of the best vlogging cameras ever made, especially with the remote control handgrip that expands into a mini-tripod. Built-in ND, 3.5mm audio jack, good autofocus, flippy screen, 1" sensor, and a not-too-terrible codec. Weaknesses are skin tones straight out of camera and at its widest, the lens is about equivalent to a 24mm in ff terms which is a little tighter than a lot of vloggers prefer (if only it could zoom out to 20mm). If your use case isn't vlogging, as I mentioned, it's basically the same camera as the RX 100 V which merely has a tilty screen (and the cutest lil' pop-up EVF). I'm sure I'm forgetting some other small differences (the V might be a little thinner because of the lack of flip-out screen), but unless you're trying to record yourself at arm's length, I'd get whichever is cheaper.

Fair criticisms, generally. Keep in mind that focus-by-wire is not always terrible - the Fuji GF series has an option to set lenses to linear mode and with that, the focus throw is almost annoyingly long. Also, "most have focus-by-wire" is only somewhat true. A majority of Canon's EF lenses are not fbw and I think that a lot of F mount autofocus lenses are also not fbw... and both vendors make plenty of nice metal lenses that are very robust. Plenty of inexpensive cine lenses are also flimsy plastic. But of course it's true that almost all of them have electronic aperture and that (almost) none of the lenses have 0.8 gears - and that most of the ways to add gears are cruddy. The best I've found are some (hard rubber?) slip-on rings that are at least better than the janky adjustable ones that leave a weird pigtail on the lens, but they generate their own problems. Also, as far as focus breathing, there are also many so-called cine lenses that have a lot of it - so if you're extremely sensitive to it, caveat emptor!

The C500 has interchangeable mounts which means that I can use almost any non-electronic lens, including vintage ones, if I'm willing to put in the work. Before Z Cam released their M mount and M43 mounts for the flagship cameras, I measured the mount and built a template to 3d print it. Then I figured out the right thickness for infinity focus and glued the existing mount adapters. It worked great. Printed with PCCF, they'll also take a beating (though I don't know that I'd trust them with the full weight of the camera or heavy lenses). Anyway, since the mounts are user-swappable on the C500 II, that means creation of an M mount adapter for it should be fairly trivial. I love my Leicas and sadly, M mount is too short to make a focal reducer for APS-C setups. Also, the C500 has an optional viewfinder (though that's even more money on top of the still-much-higher cost). I'll probably stick with the C70 for the still-wider dynamic range, though that may also depend on whether the used shop I'm using for trade-in finishes the evaluation today and then decides to go big with a BF sale. 🙂

I'm attacking you over nothing. I responded to a different person completely who said that there was no difference in most of the cameras being discussed (even outside the context of landscape) with two examples of differences (RS and DR). You went after RS as not applicable to the OP's concern and I responded that RS was not brought up in response to the OP. Then you brought it up again and said it wasn't relevant to the OP and I responded again saying that it wasn't brought for the OP, but to the third party who claimed that there was no difference in the image between a P4K and a C70, among other things. Anyway. There are obviously small differences in the look of a 35 and 50 for landscapes, particularly in framing things that are close-up, but on full frame, a kit looking something like 20/24/50/(85-100)/200 will be plenty for most things - with optional wider (14-16mm) and longer (400mm). Otherwise, in the context of many landscape shots, no. The difference in a 35/40 and a 40/50 (and to some extent, a 35 and a 50) are small and easily compensated by moving forward and back a few feet. Otherwise, if one wants the very specific control of focal length/perspective, a zoom lens is the most appropriate choice, as a 31 might give more of the desired result than a 34. All of the love for the C500 has me considering it now instead of the C70 for my trade-in. Limited to EF mount is a minor bummer, but I would probably just put the 0.71x focal reducer semi-permanently on the C70 anyway...

FWIW, for landscape especially, I would not buy the 10 lens kit. There's barely a reason at all to own 35, 40, and 50 (unless you want similar focal lengths for a multi-camera shoot and don't want to duplicate). Between 35 and 50, you can take about 1 small step forward and back. Between 35 and 40, you can move the tripod a few inches. 😉 Those zooms seem pretty alright - with only about 2x each, assuming that DZO make a quality product, the quality should be really close to a prime. Another option if putting out $7-10k for lenses would be the Fujinon MK series - but with the caveat that they're S35-only. They're really gorgeous, though, and whenever I see one used for a decent price, it takes incredible willpower not to mash the buy button (repeat to self, "I don't have many S35 cameras, I don't have...")

Already addressed in my previous comment. Stop ignoring the part where I said that wasn't referring specifically to the OP's needs. Where did I say I was powering anything by v mount? Also, keep in mind that powering the camera + monitor from the same battery can risk blowing out HDMI ports on a number of cameras due to ground loop issues. Caution is required. I manually focus almost everything and then let the robot handle the stuff where it's infeasible. Director wants a tracking shot with me running in front of the talent? Can't do it. Director wants a close-up with shallow DOF and the actor wants to be able to move like a human? Hope people are into a look where the focus is always about 100-150ms behind the talent moving around. Multi-camera shoot with only one operator? I wish I could simultaneously pull focus on two different cameras with left and right hands, but... nope. ... and Leica lenses ... and Fuji lenses ... and Sony/Minolta lenses ... and Pentax lenses ... and Panasonic/Olympus lenses ... and Mamiya lenses ... and Hasselblad lenses ... and Cambo lenses ... and Konica lenses ... and Kodak Exacta mount lenses ... and Contax/Zeiss lenses (if I remember right) How many other manufacturers, other than when making lenses for Nikon cameras, follow the Nikkor focus/aperture directions? This is why I say that Nikon are backward - I'm not able to remember even a single other vendor who follow them. 😉 For you with F mount glass and me with me with EF, it doesn't matter too much which lenses anybody is making for RF mount, just so long as there's a nice adapter available. And if Canon's strategy of locking down the mount backfires, the purchase of a different adapter will allow easy movement to Panasonic, Sony, Nikon, Red, etc.