ghostwind

Other than 120fps that is 4k only, everything else I shoot in RAW so is 8k (R5c has cropped RAW too but I don't use it as I prefer to crop myself). I'm a fan of RAW as it can be graded more heavily without breaking apart, good colorists (not like me 😉 ) can do great with 10bit log material, me less so. I also like that I don't need to set the WB upfront especially when I have zero time for setup or mistakes.

I take a lot of stills out both horizontal and vertical, so the resolution helps.
Also with 8k I can frame it a bit more loose and have some safety or is some case adding camera movements when the camera is fix like a fake panning, I add a bit of fake camera shake in Resolve to have it more natural.
  
I normally deliver in 4k. I do archive in 8k. 
 

In my field of work I couldn't get the Z8, even if it wouldn't overheat, but it's the batteries for me that sealed the deal. I used a Z6 for enough time and worrying about taking extra batteries on a 3 hour shoot and interrupting video recording to replace a battery. I was ready to move to the big boy.
I'm not a hardcore professional but even now as just a hobbyist I need the Z9 more and multiple times I've had to switch to the vertical shooting position with my 200-500 and twisting my hands with the same lens on the Z6 was enough for me to realize that there is a better way.
And now I only have 2 18C batteries with me. 1 is enough to cover a day with ON/OFF 8.3K RAW video recording. 

I cover a lot of ice hockey from U20 to pro league.
The 100-300 2.8 is imo THE hockey lens if you don’t shoot through the holes. Here we don’t have holes in the plexiglass, we shoot through glass and/or plexi or if lucky from in-between the benches.
The range is perfect to cover the full field with a 45mpix camera.
 
I started shooting ice hockey with 1Dx + 70-200 2.8, then added another 1Dx + 200-400 F4 and now 1 body only R5 + 100-300 2.8. I always handhold as in hockey there are so many interruptions that I have no problem handholding for the whole match.
 
Interesting fact is that a R5 + 100-300 is only 400 grams heavier than 1Dx III + 70-200 III. 

Here a couple of Saturday game:


Some more examples of the 100-300












 

Which is not a mirrorless hybrid so not even in the conversation.
The Z9 is a MUCH better platform for those lens selections and the OP’s list of requirements and needs.
Personally speaking, if only considering my own needs and if I was looking at a 2 body set up and only a 2 body set up and Nikon, hands down the Z9.
But as someone who has settled on a 3 body approach (if I do go fully Nikon), based on my needs and lens choices, just a single Z8 can be one of my workhorses as part of a triumvirate (had to look up the spelling of that) of:
Z8 40% of my stills work + 10% of my video needs
Z6iii (assuming one appears before end of March ‘24) 0% stills and 80% video
Zf faux vintage camera, 60% stills plus 10% video
If I did my sums correctly, the above accounts for 100% of my stills work and 100% of my video.
Ballpark figures but more or less correct.

I believe with Delkin BLACK (the best performing card and the coolest temp) the almost got 30min before shutting down. With external power, no issues with any cards. 
If really interested, just rent one and push it and see.

Yes, the Z9 doesn't overheat. The Z8 will, at times, unless on external power. It's just the physics of a smaller body, really. Also, the Z8 eats through batteries a lot more. I've been using large bodies like the Canon 1D(s/x) series for decades and prefer them over smaller bodies because they balance better with long lenses, battery life is better due to larger batteries, and the ergonomics feel better in vertical mode (the vertical grips of smaller bodies never seem to quite get the button layout right for some reason). Of course this is individual preference, but the heating is not. For some and their work and workflows, the Z8 battery life may very well be just fine.

Being in a similar dilemma but having actually used both R5/R5C & Z8 here are my thoughts.
R5 pros: Good battery life, IBIS, AF, 8K30p, RAW
cons: h26x, low DR, sub-sampled 4K60p
R5C pros: 8K60p, XF-AVC, dual base ISO, Cine line features (LUT support, assist tools etc), active cooling.
R5C cons: poor battery life (better in latest firmware but still not great), no IBIS
Z8 pros: 8K60p, compressed RAW, ProRes, stacked sensor, lockable IBIS. 2X zoom/crop modes.
Z8 cons: aside from some AF issues nothing major! 
Right now as far as specs, the Z8 is in my opinion the clear winner. Side by side, the IQ on the Nikon is substantially cleaner (less noise) and has superior DR. With ProRes, IBIS and a fast stacked sensor its just a really powerful all-rounder. My only gripe with it is the AF isn't as sticky than Canons and with portrait stills it often misses the eye if you shoot wide open with fast glass.
Color wise, Nikon is more neutral and less contrasty. This is good if you like to grade/paint. Canon is better if you want SOOC results and the skin tones are the best in the game. C-log is more filmic than other logs including N-log but C-log3 on the R5/R5C has less DR than N-log. 
Lens/system wise is where things get specific and personal. Different rendering & price points with native lenses.
But where Z-mount wins is that you can adapt pretty much any glass to it, including EF. RF is a lot more closed so if you wanna adapt, Nikon is the way to go. RF has some fantastic unique lenses but they are so expensive!
FWIW I've been shooting Canon since the 5D mark 1. C100/C200. EOS R, R6. I'm a Canon guy.
I'm seriously considering switching to Nikon after trying out the Z8. The 8K/4K IQ is simply stunning and with ProRes it cuts like butter on my intel iMac Pro. I could adapt all my current lenses: EF, E-mount, Leica M and Nikkor AI-S. And the new S line lenses are pretty great too. 
Either way you can't really go wrong, I got amazing results out of the R5/R5C. You just have to be more careful with exposure because of the limited DR and they aren't low-light champs either. Ergonomics and menus are also better with Canon, its a more intuitive shooting experience. And you can get away with minimum tweaking in post, slap a LUT and you're good if you're on fast turnover.
 

Forgot volleyball and swimming!

I did go by lenses above, but bodies are still important. Nikon also didn't really have video before the Z9 either. They always had lenses for what I do. 
I shoot college sports - football, soccer, hockey, basketball, lacrosse, & baseball. I usually use the 24-70 or 70-200 on one body (depending on the sport) and a 300 or 400 on the other body with a 1.4x at times. With Canon, I could use the 24-105 and 100-300 with 1.4x to replace those 3-4 lenses. Hockey I might still want to use a 70-200 though, as that's what I primarily use and the 100-300 is not so light to hold for the entire game. 
How's the 28-70 for video? My thinking was to use the 24-105 for most other things, with the 28-70 when I want shallower DOF or the light drops. But I would think the 24-105 would be nicer for video with the IS and power zoom. 
 
 
 

I shot a bunch of footage in the summer and the files were wonderful. I haven't tried shooting in low light nor in grey cloudy weather because if the weather is like that then I don't even bother to take the camera out. Every picture tends to look flat and ugly. 
I was able to work with the colors and it wasn't hard to create a faithful look even when I didn't have a correct WB/tint during the shooting because I use a 200-500 and I can't go somewhere to meter the correct values. 
I work with a calibrated PA32UCX and I output SDR. Nothing major just before and after grades and for myself and social media. I have however used a RAW video from an R5 and it was really noisy even as it was shot on a sunny beach. With the Z9 you can lower the ISO to 200 from 800 and in Summer it was really helpful to get closer to the 180deg rule.
The Z9 will be a good camera for years to come. It has internal RAW at 8.3K and its RAW format is natively supported in Resolve. I have my trust in Nikon. Only issue I would have is the lens mount as getting a PL to Z was quite tricky but eventually I found an online shop with 1 in stock.

Forgot volleyball and swimming!

So you have EF lenses… then why you simply just buy a used R5 + adapter and try out, worse case you can resell the R5 for a small loss.
EF lenses works better on R body than on DSLR.
 

You can't really go wrong with both systems. Today Z8 is probably the best bang for the bucks.

I shoot with R5 and R5c since the release I'm very happy, you can search my posts here tons of discussion.
R5 overheating is a thing of the past, this summer I was shooting under the sun 8k 25 RAW with on top an iphone 13 pro max in 4k... and the iphone shut down due to overheating and the R5 kept going...
Having said this I think we will se a new R5 early next year as is now more than 3.5 years old.... so not the best moment to buy it. I think R1 will also show up in first half but who knows.
R3 is an amazing camera but I don't want to go back to 24mpix and non 8k video.
My preferred one is the R5c but once you decide Nikon vs Canon we can go deeper in the differences.

Canon has some unique zooms that you may find interesting for your job:
RF 24-105 2.8 (optional power zoom) with one lens you maybe able to cover most of your need.
RF 28-70 2.0, I love this lens, no more primes to carry around, switching lens, etc. Sold all my primes other than a el cheapo 16 2.8.
RF 70-200 2.8, some love it some not due that is an extending design, but is super small and light weight, I use mine on gimbal quite a bit.
RF 100-300 2.8 cost a fortune but is great for sports.

With two super expensive lenses and a 1 TC you can cover almost everything 24-105 2.8 100-300 2.8

If you even plan to acquire or rent cinema cameras, canon RF mount lenses may be a better choice than Z lenses as both Canon and RED have, and will have cinema camera with this mount.

Not used any of these cameras, but currently transitioning from L Mount to Nikon for stills and maybe the whole hog, depending on whether a Z6iii turns up, what it is and when…because I have a season and once it begins, I will not be making any changes.
My current set up is:
S1H + S5ii + 28-70 + 70-200 video
 Zf + 40 + adapted Tamron 20-40 + adapted Tamron 70-180 and waiting until the new year to purchase a Z8, for stills.
ie, 2 sets of kit, one for video and one for stills.
If the Z6iii comes out and is available before the end of March 2024, I will buy that, get another adapted Tamron, the 28-75 and sell the 4 pieces of L Mount I still have.
Why? 3 cameras plus 4 lenses all with cross compatibility will work better for me, also a one man band, compared with 4 bodies and 5 lenses that are not all interchangeable.
If I had the funds though, a pair of R3’s, one paired with the 28-70 f2 and the other with the new 24-105 f2.8.
Far too much for my budget though at 18k before trade in and lacks a longer lens which I might get away with not having, but probably ought to have, so 20k+
It all comes down to our individual needs and preferences and these are mine.
I think the Z9 is ‘better’ than the Z8, but I’m trading that ‘betterness’ (ergos, battery life, less likely to overheat) for being a more compact and lighter beast plus cheaper.
But take cost out of it, as above, that exact Canon combo. And I used Nikon for 10 years professionally and have never owned a Canon camera. This set up is just the best currently available for my needs. At least theoretically… 😉

By ignoring it and fighting it through the courts.
 

From what I read on this forum, Clog flavours on their hybrids lag behind their counterparts C300 II and Mark III even moreso. R5 in Raw does perform same latitude as S1H in its h264 codec in test by German test site slashcam, but less in dynamic range according to Cined tests.
NRaw has been a bit of a riddle in post to some youtubers due to akward Nlog curve. But an Aces or other adequate workflow should solve that. It has almost the same but even a tiny bit better latitude than a S1H and the same as C70 Raw according to slashcam, bettering also a R5 in that same test.
Colour fidelity is supposely astonishing.
Nikon has put out convincing 8bit video hybrids with the Z6/7. Even their HD Dslrs D750 and 850 have been 8bit video marvels, such as their Apsc D5300, 5500, 7500. So they are no newbies regarding convincing image quality in video. @ghostwind
That is only talking about image quality, not even mentioning full Hdmi, sturdiness, internal Prores besides Nraw.
Nikon had a few aces in their sleeve during their law case with Red. You could find all about that in the insightful Eoshd thread about that topic. @Jedi Master

I haven't shot with either R3 nor R5 but I have shot with Nikon 5100, Z6, Z6_2 and finally with the Z9.
 
I chose Nikon because the Z glass in my mind is the perfect system. You have affordable 1.8 glass that doesn't look, feel or render as a 50$ kit lens. I have shot with the 50mm 20mm and 85mm wide open and can be 100% satisfied with the results. I have also used the 85 1.2 but I only bought it because I need the extra light.
I have also shot extensively 8.3K NRAW, ask me about it. 60fps and 24fps (23.98) clips and graded them accordingly. For me it's the perfect camera, even more as the switch from photo to video takes under a second (in my test case with fast Angelbird media). Also I have shot in H265. If you watch Camera Conspiracies that guy must be editing on a laptop or something because the H265 from my Ninja on Z6 and on Z9 were not a problem and I didn't create proxies. 
Without the Z8/Z9 the R5 would be a no brainer because of the internal 8K RAW but now a basically R5 but with a bigger battery, no overheating and fast switch. I think it's obvious.

I'm finally making the move to mirrorless from my DSLRs for my photography work (weddings, portraits, sports, events, corporate, etc.), as I have some downtime in December and January to do this. For the past 4 years, I've had to incorporate more and more video into my work, and that's not going to stop; it will only grow. But stills are still very important. So, In looking at what system to go to, the Nikon Z9/Z8 stood out in terms of having quite the video capabilities - no overheating on the Z9 especially (Z8 may have some overheating), internal recording of RAW and ProRes, etc. In the Canon camp, I've been waiting forever for that R1 that keeps eluding everyone. I've shot both Canon and Nikon, so am not tied to either, and I don't only own 4 lenses which I want to upgrade to either Z or RF anyway. So what I have now doesn't factor much into the system I'll move to now. 
So the Z9/Z8 look very attractive, as I was saying. In the Canon camp, I've read mixed things about the R3 and R5c. It seems Canon still cripples some features on their cameras, whereas Nikon went all in with the Z9/Z8. Not having as many products and no cinema line, Nikon can do this I guess. So that's a plus, but perhaps also a negative in that they are not as established, and who knows what the future will look like. Canon is everywhere; they have cinema cameras, and they're not going anywhere, it seems. For stills, I think the Z9/Z8 are superior to the R3/R5/R5c for my use, so I am not worried about that, and I'm sure the future R1 will match the Z9/Z8 for that, but it's the video I'm on the fence about. Some folks at the local camera shops I've spoken to seem really high on Canon for video (how C-log is so great, etc.), and they aren't a Canon shop at all. On the lens front, it doesn't matter much, they seem similar (Z and RF quality), and I think the Z mount is versatile enough to use many other lenses with adaptors - maybe more than the RF mount.
I shoot as a one-man band. My videos are usually corporate stuff (interviews mixed with b-roll, etc.) and, more recently, some sports stuff. But I do it on my own, and I'm not collaborating with other folks. It works for me, I like working this way, and I mention it because I don't need to share files with other folks, which makes choosing a system more individual presence. I've used Canon C100/300 cinema cameras before, but I realized it wasn't worth it or necessary, as my workflow is simple. And with the advent of 32-bit audio recorders like the Zoom F3, I don't care about XLR inputs anymore on my cameras, and want/prefer the simplicity of a true hybrid camera system.
I'm just on the fence about Nikon for the reasons mentioned, and I'm also curious about what people here think. I could go with Canon and get an R3 + R5c or an R5 + R5c and use them until the R1 comes out. I feel like the R1 will be quite similar to the Z9 in specs/features, but it will be Canon and shoot C-log, and people will gush about it. There's also some comfort in the fact that, again, Canon is committed to video whereas Nikon may not be. I've read some negative things about N-log, NRAW, etc. too. 
These are just my thoughts that I wanted to write down and solicit some feedback on. I feel the Z9/Z8 workflow will be simpler, and working with the R3/R5/R5c will be a bit more of a headache managing battery life, heating, etc. 
All feedback is appreciated.
 
 
 
 

I'd give a nod to the Z8/Z9.
It ticks the boxes you need, the ones you might use the option of if you had them and even the ones that you are absolutely uninterested in that, you never know, you might develop a taste for.
Loads of resolution and frame rate options, internal RAW and ProRes, very respectable rolling shutter and, most importantly, the most flexible lens mount around.
I appreciate you don't have any interest in AF but if you develop one (either out of choice or necessity such as going further with longer lens wildlife imagery) then it is unique in offering near native adapted AF performance of F,EF and E mount lenses and via the TechArt adapter it will even do AF on MF lenses with any mount deeper than Leica M.
So if you change direction from your current needs then the camera can change with you.
With regard to your current needs, EF and PL cine lenses are obviously able to be used with the added bonus that, with it being a very shallow mount, the Meike adapters incorporate variable ND filters.
 
It also has the MC-N10 grip which offers full control including of the virtual zoom function which is very effective in turning primes into par focal zooms or just extending the reach of actual zoom lenses.

Although timecode sync is not on your lists of must haves, the Z8/Z9 have internal support for the UltraSync Blue wireless timecode system that is used in your wife's Zoom F6 so, again, the option is there if you do require easy sync at some point in the future.
Is it a true "cinema" camera when its actually a hybrid ?
Well, its only a hybrid if you actually decide to take stills with it so its each to his own use case really.
Naturally, if you do decide to shoot the odd still with it then it rinses every cinema camera out there at that particular task 😀
As a cinema camera, its an 8K internal RAW and ProRes shooting one with PL mount and in built variable ND filter with wireless TC sync, EVF and tilting screen for under $3700 which is pretty compelling.
It is also a lot more discrete which I suspect might be an advantage if you are shooting urban cityscapes etc.
Anyway, its another option to consider amongst the 37432 different ones offered up in this thread.
For my part, the only thing I regret more than not buying a Z8 when I had the chance in June is not buying one in October when I had another chance.
I will definitely rectify that the next time one comes up !
Good luck with your choice, although I think the fact that there are so many viable options offered up in this thread illustrates that there are very few - if any - wrong choices these days in terms of getting great image quality.
And then turn the internet off.

I've never owned a more inspiring camera than the OG FP. I bought a C70 to make work a little easier and tried out a Lumix S5 for a week to check out the advantages for anamorphic shooting but quickly returned it. Nothing has come close to the IQ I'm getting out of the FP.
 

24 frames a second, that was the faster speed for us back in high school, when I started with my Minolta Super 8 camera.
Me and my friends were happily shooting 18 frames per second (silent) silly comedies and we loved it.
If I was doing narrative now, I'd have a hard time deciding between 24 or 30. 
For family and nature these days, 60p looks best to me.

The quality of movement in cinema (film) is formed by these characteristics:
Global shutter with smooth in-out Projection Speed 1: 1 (not pull down) Acceptable number of frames (I think 24 is the minimum acceptable. No one creates wine tasting arguments to defend 20fps) 24p and 1/48 expose are standards for projectionists, camera manufacturers and filmmakers to talk each other. If the standard was 30p it would be a little better, but with higher costs for film, development, print, copies ...
In digital, global shutter is possible, and solves movement much better than rolling shutter. The smooth in-out, made by the mirror in a plane away from the film, is another of the mechanical and chemical wonders that we lost when embracing the digital facilities (there are exotic solutions, like the mirror in alexa studio, the old tessive time filter .. .)
Now, 1: 1 viewing is a mess in digital. There was the old standard 24p, but for TVs they created the 60i and 50i. For electronic devices, monitors, phones ... 60p.
Even TVs that can offer the true 24p, depend on the signal being sent that way. I heard that with NVIDIA Shield it is possible to send the 24p signal from applications like NetFlix.
TVs that offer 120Hz, usually like to meddle and alias movement, and sell as if it were “incredible", and often, turning off all features still offers an image with signal intervention.
That said, the 30p manages to meet 1: 1 in almost all cases, except for TVs in Europe (and maybe other places in the world, I don't know). Little cost involved (25% of storage). Improves movement, without making it clinical, like 60p.
1/48 expose, if there is no smooth in-out of the mirror indicating the trend of the next frame, I think very little. It creates a very large gap that the digital with its implacable cuts only worsens. Here I still prefer a bigger exposure (tests in progress). Less than 360o and greater than 180o.
More frames (30p) and a larger aperture (maybe 1/48) also softens the effects of rolling shutter. But for me this is one of the unacceptable characteristics of digital. And I think that's what the friend said that hollywood has less of that jitter effect

I see that too. A mantra, repeating what they heard. Cinema Look Pull Down 3: 2. I also disagree with the dogma 1/48 shutter expose. I understand the 180o shutter for the rotating reflex camera, but today it is no longer necessary, the blur drag is not too bad compared to what it offers in quality of movement, not to mention increased exposure, when necessary.

I know this is probably very controversial, but I ask myself this question every time I see a video shot in the USA at 24FPS instead of 30FPS; why did they do that? I am mainly talking about the USA because I know overseas there is PAL and 50Hz refresh rates and some other things involved in that formatting which I know nothing about. I will assume that if my TV was set to PAL and the frame rate was 25FPS it would look the same to my eyes as my TV set to NTSC and the frame rate set to 30FPS.  So back to shooting at 24FPS  or 23.97FPS in the USA...I just don't get it; I have never seen 24FPS footage (that I am aware of) anywhere other than Hollywood that does not look like its is stuttering badly at 24FPS. If there is no motion, or its a talking head, then sure I can't tell the difference; but most of the time the footage looks great....except it is stuttering along due to the frame rate when there is fast motion.
To me and the TVs and monitors that I use to view YouTube and online content, I can almost always tell when its not 30FPS and there's nothing "cinematic" about it. I even researched the history of frame rates and I know they started out that way to save  tape media, but those days are long gone. Motion simply isn't smooth if it is not shot at 29.97FPS (30FPS) in my opinion. Somehow Hollywood gets away with it, maybe its their post processing, their camera equipment, etc. but every other footage at that frame rate is just a stuttering mess to me if its fast action or a lot of things change between frames. I have also watched a lot of videos on frame rates and they describe the problems that occur when you shoot in 59.97FPS then try to slow the footage down to 50% on a 24FPS timeline....let alone to 23.97FPS. 
Even with Hollywood, playing a movie straight from a DVD, there's been scenes that were hard for me to watch because the frames appeared to be stuttering. So am I the only one that thinks this way? Is it something with H.265/H.264, YouTube compression, LongGOP compression, bitrates, or something else that makes 24FPS look so terrible most of the time when motion is involved?

These things can both be true:
Wonder Woman 1984 was blockbuster garbage. A man crying sexism because one shitty blockbuster (out of how many hundreds?) dares to portray men in an unflattering light is whiney, entitled, pathetic, microphallytic nonsense Do you write internet diatribes every time you see a movie that shows woman as oversexualized? As objects of ownership? As conniving bitches? As ditzy morons? You don’t, because if you did your wrists would break because there are so many of them. 
Look around you, the world is full of awful men doing nightmarish things. Why shouldn’t a clumsy blockbuster get to play with that trope as much as all the tropes about women? The film is absolutely terrible, but loads of terrible films are made by men all year round, filled with cliches and destructive stereotypes. It’s not other people making this an issue about sexism-it’s you. You have drawn a line that says stories by and about women can’t employ the same lazy filmmaking that is rife in Hollywood blockbusters. How is that not the definition of sexism?

Also: I’ve seen literally zero hesitance in the media to call this movie lousy. Not sure what you’re reacting to, but nobody I’ve read is hailing this film as a milestone of feminism. Or even trying to defend its sheer awfulness from a filmmaking perspective.
Like many small men, you’ve made a little internet fiefdom for yourself by spewing anger on a blog. Yawn. Perhaps turning that angry, critical eye on your own perception of women would prove instructive. Grow up, little piggy.