MaverickTRD

I imagine they will use the 43mp Sony 8k 12 bit sensor with some form of “x-trans V” and a new processor. 
probably get 8k24 with a limited recording time

6k60, 4k120 and much improved autofocus. 
hopefully unlimited recording in 4k60 and less
those are just my guesses 

On 5/9/2021 at 3:12 AM, IronFilm said:

I'd lean to say it is overkill to use an external recorder with an XT3, you've already got yourself good 10bit from it internally, save yourself the money and get a lighter (both in terms of weight and in terms of power consumption!) monitor instead of a monitor/recorder combo. 

My perspective is about being practical, vs squeezing every last 1% out. 

While I tend to agree and may seriously consider going the route of just monitor, I figure having a recorder will enable me to bypass the 30min recording limit. 
however I haven’t had a single instance where one take was longer than 30 minutes either so I may be looking for a solution to a problem I don’t have 

thank you all who replied with their feedback! 

Greetings! I typically lurk as I’m more of a hobbyist/prosumer user than some…however I do spend a good bit of time reading through the large amounts of knowledge passed on here as well as work on shoots with my camera do gain experience  
I am currently shopping for an external monitor/recorder and seem to be stuck between a couple of options. 
i shoot with a fujifilm XT3 (typically on a gimbal but am building a handheld rig currently) in 4k30 all-i for most situations. Being that the form factor is fairly small, even rigged up I’m focusing mainly on 5” displays. 
I know that Atomos Ninja V is wildly popular however the BMD video assist 12g HDR looks intriguing. 
 

2500nit vs 1000nit display. 
DCI P3 color space vs Rec. 709. 
metal housing vs plastic housing  
SDI inputs on the black magic without additional cost or adapter
2 internal SD slots on the BMD and external SSD via USB-C. 
same Sony batteries on both however BMD uses 2. 
it seems as the ninja allows for fairly in depth color calibration and potentially more accurate colors in general. The ninja has anamorphic de squeeze, focus peaking, and zebra which are not listed on the BMD. The BMD shows only histogram, vectorscope, waveform, and rgb parade 

the ninja has a mic input and the BMD does not. I’m curious on the BMD side if this will cause more time in post on timelines if there’s an audio delay due to camera latency 
overall it looks like the ninja V may be a bit cheaper initially if purchasing one of the bundles that includes a 1TB drive and 2 L batteries with charger 

I’m entirely novice on this front and am hoping some could provide some feedback if they have experience with both, or just simple insight if I’ve seemed to overlook something glaring. or even other suggestions
I just want a larger monitor to view while filming and I’d like to have a workaround for the internal recording limit. 
my PC hasn’t had any hiccups in Resolve with H265 files so I’m hoping that if I record to a different format such as ProRes I won’t run into additional issues 

I understand they don’t want to undercut their premium line cameras but this is a complete Canon move 

it has the same sensor and processor as the XT3 and XT4 and they can’t give us 4k60....and they won’t give an update for us to have 1080p240 in the xt3 

sigh 

23 minutes ago, tokyojerry said:

Thanks much for your feedback Andrew on this just announced M6-Mark-II.  I was about to get rid of my existing (and very humble) Olympus E-M10 Mark-III and 'upgrade' to this M6 Mark-III as my first foray into the Canon world.  I thought, double the megapixels, a larger sensor (m4/3 vs APS-C) DPAF vs CDAF only, etc.  But now, your insightfulness has created pause to rethink matters.  Now, I am thinking to either wait for the upcoming Olympus E-M5 Mark-III and stick with M4/3, or to  go full frame and consider A7-III et el,  Or perhaps I should venture into the Fuji camp and consider X-T3/X-T30, albeit no IBIS (I think) and also owning no Fuji lenses.  I tend to shy away from full frame because of the  added weight, size, and expense for lenses, and at this point in life (age) I really like the relative compactness of the current Olympus or this new M6-Mark-II.  I like the ergonomics and control layout of the Olympus but the menu system is another story!. But size alone is surely not the only factor.  Perhaps the all around compromise might be the Fuji X-T3 / X-T30 but again, no lenses.   Alternatively, just wait and see what Olympus produces with the upcoming E-M5-Mark III.   It is rumored to minimally have the capable sensor of the current E-M1-MKII but with new processor.   Anyway, again, thanks for the heads up info on the shortcomings of the M6 Mark-II 4K specifications  not being true 4K.  It's definitely food-for-thought.  Sheesh!  Even my Samsung Galaxy Note 9 gives me 4K @ 60fps!  ... decisions, decisions, confusion!   (^J^)

I’d hold off on canon apsc as their sensors are technically smaller than Sony and Fuji apsc so the size difference between it and what you have isn’t really that huge. Especially once the canon crops in (if it does in 4K) 

i imagine even a speed booster on ur current body would generate better imagery  

I traded my a6400 and sigma trio for the xt3 16-55 and 35 1.4 2 months ago. I’m truly blown away 

been following this thread for over a year just never had an account 

I’m a noob so the wealth of info and knowledge in here is great. 

Mom excited for new models solely so I can afford a second body xh1 or similar hahaha

Example of the licensing fees from 2011-2015 for example (h264 specifically) there is also no reference of separate fees for 24 vs 30 vs 60p

and if for some reason this doesn’t directly relate to canon devices their other fee structures are similar 

19 hours ago, Mokara said:

In order to use H.264 they have to get a license like everyone else. There is absolutely a license fee structure involved, it is NOT free. You are not going to find any link to it because that information obviously is confidential, but suggesting that there is no license is ridiculous. What you pay for a license depends on who your are, what you use the codec for and how you use it. It can range from nothing to a very large amount of money. The exact amount would be negotiated at the time the license is issued and having some restrictions in return for a lower fee is normal business practice.

That is a reasonable and obvious explanation for why something like 24p is omitted. The suggestion that they left it out on purpose just to make their product less competitive is absurd, but that is essentially what most of you are arguing. It is not like 24p was not in their cameras before, so they were not protecting anything then and are not now. The reason for the omission has to be something else.

I’ve never had an account in here. Just lurked. 

But I finally had to sign up. Some of us grow so tired of reading your repetitive assumptions, theories, and misguided opinions. 

No one in their right mind thinks canon removed 24p to save a bit of money. 

Furthermore the license fees fees have an annual cap. Once a company hits that cap it can’t cost them more. I imagine big companies that manufacture video equipment using these codecs hit that cap regularly 

please stop repeating the same terrible excuse every page