Davide DB

Mark my words TicoRAW is a dead dodo
Nikon is all about R3D from now on and it will be on all their cameras in place of N-RAW which is going away.
I don't know if it has already been mentioned earlier in the thread but Adobe has already put on hold support for it.

I'll chime in with my usual advice about colour grading.
The simple fact is that colour grading has a much more significant role in getting great looking images than the camera does.  I'll also re-enforce the points above that what you point the camera at is more important than anything else.
When we look at something shot on ARRI or RED or the high end Sony cameras, the reason they look great are 70% the scene, 25% the colour grading and 5% the camera.  I know this is a bold statement, but I stand by it.
Colour grading is the elephant in the room of all online discussions about cameras.  Everyone is looking at sample videos and going "wow, this looks great - I want to get that look without doing any colour grading or work in post at all!" and it's just not true.
If you need more convincing, here are a few things to look at:
The BMPCC 4K can match the Alexa almost perfectly...   So, why don't all P4K videos look as good as Netflix shows?  It's not the camera! The image from the GX85 is more flexible in post than you think...  @John Matthews I haven't forgotten about doing a follow-up with skin-tones in it. Simple colour grading > Camera colour science...  I compare a few examples of the 709 version of some professional grade images with the final colour graded image, and it's pretty obvious that the 709 version looks quite plain - a lot like the images we get when us mere mortals shoot The best film-making advice I ever got was to do with colour grading, but it helped me improve my shooting, editing, sound design, etc etc, the whole lot. Here are a bunch of GX85 shots SOOC that I took in Korea last year..  this just goes to show you that not only is the GX85 a very capable camera, but that it's the subject that you put in front of it that really makes the difference.  Of course, colour grading will elevate these beyond that level. High-end TV shows and movies look nothing like the standard images out of a camera... In this thread I compare some standard images from ARRI with real images from TV shows and movies and it's pretty obvious that not only are the colours significantly changed, the real images aren't sharp and clean like the videos that camera YT seems to idolise.  The goal isn't technical purity, the goal is creativity, and this means taking your sharp and clean images and giving them some character.   I could go on (many will wholeheartedly agree on this!) but long story short...  the camera is a minor part of the journey that the image takes from finding / creating something cool to point it at, to all the work done in post.
Also, learn to edit.  Well edited bad-quality clips are better than boring high-quality images every time.

I don't know what's going on in your world, but I can tell you it doesn't matter how you fiddle the menu on a camera that leads to good shots.
All the real work that happens with a good shot starts outside of the camera.  The camera is honestly one of the LAST things you should fret about.
I swear to God, you can be a better shooter by visiting a museum full of Romanticism Artistic movement paintings.
Study how light affects a scene, and you'll become a more sophisticated videograper that way.
If you can't train yourself to "see light" you're always gonna struggle.
I'm not being flippant here.  It's the cheat-code.  Skip all the tech BS and learn light.  Take a classic art appreciation class.  Learn composition skills.  These are the things that actually make a difference.  Train your eye to be a shooter and a person that can paint with light. 
Sure, you can be a pixel nerd, but that has a low ceiling of accomplishment and, honestly, advanced tech makes those acomplishments not a big deal to begin with.
And look, when you study art, you'll learn more about the human condition along the way, maybe even some philosophy.  Win-win.

You can adapt pretty much adapt anything and everything to Z Mount except L Mount and even convert what are otherwise manual focus Leica lenses to become AF lenses.
OK, regarding the latter, it's not amazing AF, but at least something...though not something that especially interests me and I prefer the native manual focus options for Z that were previously primarily L Mount only, from Voigtlander.
E Mount lenses on Z bodies with an ultra thin adapter is great though! Nikon have a range of 'native' lenses that are essentially rebranded older gen Tamron E Mount lenses, but I prefer the newer gen myself.
 

I think it's because Z-mount has the shortest flange to sensor distance of the common mirrorless mounts. So it's possible to make a (2mm thick!) E-mount to Z-mount adaptor e.g. the Megadap one, but not the other way round.

Would Nikon go to such a small niche market like this, that is PL mount lens. I personally think they envision a Sony like lineup from red in the future. Option one would be to start just above the z9 price bracket with a new Komodo directly in competition with the Sony FX6. A 6k global shutter camera with a video camera form factor with XLR input, timecode etc. but this time it would include Nikon super good autofocus, Stabilization, CFexpress memory, Z mount and if possible internal ND. I don't know if their is enough space for the later. 
This type of camera, will be the type of high volume camera, that Nikon can use to make with little change some Cine like Z mount lens, because lets not forget, while the Z mount are the most adaptable lens mount, the Z lens are the least because of this.  

My signature in another forum is: "your new gear will not make you produce any better art than you already do"
Maybe it was something someone wrote here years ago. I only i could remember, I would credit him 

The biggest thing for me, using it, is the realisation that a huge proportion of the features we pay extra for in hybrid cameras are really just workarounds for the problems caused by using a completely inappropriate form factor for shooting video.

Same for a lot of us, ie, more idle chat and musing than anything.
Some folks immediately think that because you have an interest in such things, you are unhappy with your current situation and simply believe ‘The Next Thing’ will fix all your issues.
I don’t think that is so much the case here where a lot of our musings are more, “if I was not invested in X, I might be looking at Y or Z” and nothing wrong with that in my book!
And ultimately it’s all harmless!

Panasonic does tend to implement and do video a bit better in their versions of the cameras than Leica's 

Greater resolution comes at the expense of every other spec.

The S1R and the SL2 are the more stills focused units and perhaps the SL3 and any S2R will also be leaving the option for lower res more video focused versions?
Full frame 6k 50/60p over 8k 25/30p internal all day for me.

Well I hope these are not the features of the future Lumix FF flagship.
The specifications for the video look very basic. 8K@30p 10 bit but only 4:2:0 internally.

Well I hope these are not the features of the future Lumix FF flagship.
The specifications for the video look very basic. 8K@30p 10 bit but only 4:2:0 internally.

It is economy of scale, baby!
I see nothing mysterious in this. Nikon just before the move to mirroless was almost given up for dead (it had just lost a very important piece of its business in lithography of electronic components). Now it's out of the picture, but I don't think its Z line has changed things all that much.
So in a very high-tech market with a very small (declining) number of units sold, it is increasingly difficult to find the funds for the necessary technological investments. Sony has a diversified business and can rely on revenues and technologies from so many other markets.
Red in my opinion did not fare any better. It remained a mystery to me how such a small company could make a living in this industry. Where was it getting the money for technology investments. By the way, in Europe Red was getting progressively gnawed off the market by Arri.
So big fish eat little fish. It's a win-win deal for both of them even while keeping their respective brands separate.
The exchange of technologies will be there. Even without fantasy Red by Nikon stickers or the like.
Nikon acquires several patents and technology (raw and global shutter) and enters the cinema market.
Red accesses Nikon's technology and more of its production capacity.
If in a few years we essentially have a Nikon camera inside a Red cube marked Red no one will ever know. Then of course there are a whole series of probable ripple effects in the patent war and on trade agreements with other brands.

Here's an interesting video regarding the purchase...
For those that don't have the time, or inclination, to watch, he basically says that this purchase was so Nikon could get into the high end cinema market. He also claims it has nothing to do with the patent, but then kinda contradicts himself. Either way, it's a breakdown of what probably occurred over the past 2 years between Red and Nikon...
Trigger Warning: if you despise Red and believe their patent is complete BS, then you may want to skip this video.

It's definitely cute, but I think it's probably not good.
I couldn't find any reviews or sample images, so I suspect it might even be a low-res sensor that just upscales to 44M in software.  It's probably the same sensor and firmware as those first generation 40+MP smartphones.  If retro is in, then a bit of blur is part of the style, not a failure of lens design or MTF curves!

We all know the camera and imaging industry is being disrupted heavily, first with the move to digital that sunk Kodak, then with smartphones slowly eating the whole industry from the bottom up, and now right at the start of generative AI.  In situations like this market consolidation is an enormous game of 9-dimensional chess, so this move will be the result of more analysis than a person could read in a week, even if we had post-graduate qualifications in corporate law, economics, and accounting.
It's not like Nikon was sitting on a huge pile of cash to begin with - in this phase of a market disruption where the manufacturers are literally fighting to stay alive if this wasn't a great match for the two companies across many/most factors then it will be a mistake that might cost them everything.

Would be funny if the Z-mount Komodo gets launched as NIKOMODO.

I agree - the RED cinema cameras will keep the RED branding - it would be silly to dilute/erase the RED brand image.
(pure speculation) From a branding point of view, maybe Nikon might add some subsidiary RED branding to few video-orientated hybids e.g. 'RED Cinema' or 'Video by RED', in the way Panasonic and Sony use the Leica and Zeiss branding on some products?

I'm reminded of the pattern in automobile manufacturers where the fancy sportscar brand that isn't profitable is purchased by the mass-market manufacturer that is profitable, and then in exchange for the sports brand being propped up the high-powered engineers get sent on excursions to the parent company to talk about how to tune the suspension and tweak the engine for a new hot-hatch variant.
But, in this case, I'm really not sure who is profitable and who isn't...
Simultaneously I'm optimistic about the RED tech trickling down to Nikon, but also pessimistic about that because now Nikon has a cine line their first job will be to protect it with a cripple hammer.

This is a ridiculous post.
What is the context? There are some situations with some camera/lens combinations in which AF is undoubtably superior. Indeed, AF can make shots which would be hard if not impossible with MF straightforward. There are, equally, some situations when MF is perfect. I prefer MF lenses but I regret that preference time after time - there are things I’d like to do but don’t have the talent or skills or resources to do with MF.
To make a blanket statement about your experience with no context is nonsense. 
Your scoop is possibly better used to serve mashed potato.

Hey,
check out this little music video i shot on the Sony a74 with the helios 44 and sigma 18-35. Helios for Run&Gun - not sure i can recommend. Also did not manage to create the swirley bokeh so far. On the other hand it takes the digital edge of the sony footage which helped tremendously.
In the night scenes we also used the Tiffen Black Promist Filter 1/8.
I realized  i definetely need to learn more about lighting. If you can recommend any youtube channels i would be very happy. Of course i would also be happy about general feedback - and the artist would be happy if you would like or comment on youtube...
 

I will be using the Sony VPL-GTZ380 in the presentation when pleading my case to the wife regarding the €2100 LG Cinebeam that I've got my eye on.
"Listen, it could be a lot worse love".

That bit pretty much sums up about any hobby.  People that buy 20 guitars but can only play three chords.  A dude that has a 40 year old Cessna airplane.  The grandma that does scrapbooking.  Model trains. Race cars.  Dirt biking. Jet skis. Bowling. 
It's all 1st world luxury that even affords us the ability to "waste" our income. 
Beyond that, I make a living (somehow) doing this stuff for corporate so I guess I could be considered a pro at it in a way, but I still feel as if I'm a dilettante within it's sphere.  The technology and techniques always outpaces my understanding.
And the fascinating thing to me about making movies is that the people that truly excel in the business don't really chase the tech, they focus on the storytelling --and they let the technology specialists dig most of the rabbit holes.  
Wanna talk about "fundamentals" with all this motion picture stuff? Perhaps it's best to consider the notion of Art vs. Craft.  
Have any of y'all ever taken art classes during undergraduate studies?  In my experience there was that there was always a person that's a marvel at drawing incredibly realistically...but sucks at making that work interesting or engaging beyond "oh, that looks real."  Then there were people that could do one brush stroke on a canvas and somehow make it mesmerizing.  Then the exceptional creatives do both.
My issue with any kind of fundamentalist in a discipline is a narrow perspective that curbs imagination. It gets in the way to create something surprising.
Like a Robert Kincaid, y'know?