Leaderboard

Yup, when I saw that green I went wow. But it is even better than you think, because do you see that green line too? And the yellow line. That's the focus plane of the lens itself, makes it so easy a baby could align those two lines together. (ok, am joking.... as there is a certain art to it. Plus you need to anticipate moves, not be reacting to the image) And having the waveform data presented as well, helps gives you insights for when the camera gets it "wrong" and you need to be a bit further in front / behind of where the calculated line is. They need to make this be A Cam standard. If you're shooting on an ARRI Mini / RED V-RAPTOR / Sony VENICE / etc as A Cam, why on earth would you want to use a DJI Ronin 4D as the B Cam for say 20% of the shots? You wouldn't! All of those other cameras are perfectly easy to rig up for a gimbal, they won't even mind having a second camera fully dedicated to that. Thus the Ronin 4D will only be used for very niche usages. But this is what I expect will happen next: DJI will release a DJI Inspire 3 for the X9. And they'll release a non-gimbal system that heavily supports the X9 camera, so it can be used with massive PL lenses or anamorphics. That will be "the X9 in A Cam form factor". Now the math changes, and it becomes much much more interesting. An X9 camera that can quickly swap from being your A Cam, to Ronin 4D, to Inspire 3? Hell yeah! The only remaining questions are: can the X9 be premium reliability? (don't be another RED, be another ARRI) Can the X9 have a premium experience? (no random crippling / "gotchas", don't be like Canon) Does X9 have the premium image quality? (can it compete with ARRI?) Does DJI give premium support? (don't be Blackmagic, be ARRI) if it ticks off all of those checkboxes, then yup, it could be the next #1 A Cam for Hollywood. But you could say that about anything. Those are some high targets! What are the answers to those questions? Will take a while to find out all those answers, the answers are not discovered quickly. And I am definitely not the right person to answer those questions either. (neither are any of the YouTube "reviews" uploaded today! None of those have even 10% of the expertise level to answer those questions definitively)

One more thing that DJI got a lot of manufacturers on the wrong foot: built in NDs. Lot of others lying saying "we did not put internal NDs because there is no room for it" - meaning "if you want internal NDs, pay a lot more". DJI inserted internal NDs in a minuscule camera with a VERY shallow mount. Liars exposed. Lots of outside the box thinking in this camera.

There is a huge market that sits between high end cinema and DSLRs on RS2 Gimbals. The 4D will be perfect for that market. It’s not niche. Again, the Lidar waveform is the feature I’m most excited about. I do a mix of operating and Focus Pulling probably around 30/70 respectively and this Lidar waveform is what I have asked other companies for. DJI’s implementation looks amazing so I’d love for them to release a professional follow focus system based on this technology but with a hand unit that is more in line with ones from Arri, Preston or TeradekRT rather than the dinky systems dji has released in the past.

Yep! I don’t think the price would be considered expensive for what you get. let’s compare : - full frame camera body that records in ProRes or 6K RAW . Shall we compare it to Z Cam E2 F6? That’s $4000USD - Ronin 2 gimbal $900 - Tilta float system (for stabilizing 4th axis) $1800 -5” 1000nit monitor (Shinobi) $300 - Lidar system (the one for RS2 is $200 but this looks much better) $200 So around $7200 for the above which is a much clumsier, bulkier setup. And you would need to spend much more than that to get everything to interface so I’m going lean on this setup by not including things like ND filters as the 4D has internal) The D4 6k is 7199 and it’s a much more complete and easy to use package. The biggest issue really is because it’s an all in one design, if you have an issue with the gimbal that means your camera is unusable as well and vice versa. Also, cameras date quicker than gimbals but it looks as you can replace the camera and gimbal assembly on these pretty easily so hopefully when dji release a new 12k (😝) sensor you can update just it and the gimbal assembly.

I completely disagree. Unless it's got poor IQ (which we haven't seen yet) or you're talking about brand anxiety and status on set, it's actually a superior option in many cases, because its competitor is not a shoulder rig, it's competition is a ronin / easyrig combo because it has a z-axis stabiliser: or perhaps even a ronin / steadicam, depending on how easy it is to do big vertical moves: Amusingly, Hollywood seems to be voting against you, as the default approach for high-end cinema appears to be stabilised unless otherwise required, rather than the other way around, which seems to be your preference. I find that one of the fastest ways to make footage look amateur is to have the cameras location (not rotation) shake. ie, IBIS and gimbals stabilise the cameras rotation so the image doesn't move around, but the cameras position often shakes giving that terrible effect of having the background stay stable and the items in the foreground shake due to the parallax error. Hollywood doesn't do parallax shake because the camera is on sticks / crane / slider which controls the cameras location, or on the shoulder of someone standing still which provides more rotational movement than location movement, or on a steadicam where the cameras location is very fluidly controlled. The only exception is when "hand held" was in the brief, in which case it's appropriate. I film exclusively hand-held for all my projects using IBIS, which is appropriate to their aesthetic, but I try and avoid moving the camera at all while filming to avoid the shaky parallax error. Tragically, this level of innovation is not remarkable. In any other tech sector, this would be normal. The only reason this stands out is because the rest of the industry is lazy and complacent. I include companies like Panasonic in this comment. The industry has lowered our expectations dramatically to the point where the only ones we actually complain about (eg, Canon) are, when compared to other tech sectors, positively comatose. Imagine an app developer coming out with a big release - "here's version 48 or our app - it's got 25% more resolution than v47 but as usual the 16 most significant issues are unchanged, just like every other release since the first version of our app over a decade ago". The camera industry will get eaten by tech companies eventually, and it can't happen soon enough TBH!

One is a video focused camera, the other is a hybrid with good video specs. You can't say the A7iv matches the S1H when it can't do 6k, doesn't have as good IBIS, doesn't support anamorphic recording, doesn't have video focused features like timecode sync, doesn't have shutter angle, doesn't have nearly as nice of a EVF, has worse rolling shutter, etc. All the little things the S1H has that are meant for professional videographers and cinematographers add up.

It really doesn't match the S1H at all, nor should it be expected to at this price point. --- It's a pretty meh release, unless you're already a Sony shooter looking to upgrade from the A7iii, A7c, or one of their APS-C cameras. I guess if you need a b-cam for the A7siii it's a good option, too, though the rolling shutter is not great.

Official announcement date October 27

26ms rolling shutter for FF 4K 30P. Interesting feature - In-camera Lens Breathing Compensation, but only works with Sony lenses.

Yes, the micro incremental updates we get helps to make this look pretty amazing. It’s certainly disruptive and makes some of the offerings from Sony and Canon look like a joke. I always like to see someone trying to raise the bar, it forces the lazy giants to unlock more of the potential from the next camera. But that’s also the forced upgrade path, which also sucks. cheers chris

Yes, there are. But, the substantial differences are not even about the shooters behind or back to the camera... The key differences are all about the ideas and the way the people going with cameras are able to produce ; ) That's where form factor has a role to play : ) As much as budget. Expensive stuff won't necessarily make a film better. Neither money. EAG :- )

No idea what such distinction means... No idea either what Nouvelle Vague filmmakers or Tonino Guerra, I personally heard from his own voice to call (to mirrorless devices or consumer camcorders then) the future of cinema to "these Japanese cameras", would have to add on topic... ; ) But something I know though ; )) thanks to God there are shooters who make art without the need of hefty paraphernalia such 4.67Kg is... to just show off "filmmaking" skills for making Marvel movies... LOL :- )

I still think under the $5000 mark would have been a hit :- )

For video, on an R6, the RF 24-105 is an excellent, versatile, and frankly underrated lens. Pair it with a cheaper RF STM f/1.8 prime for more flexibility (16mm, 35, 50, 85 depending on your needs).

No I get your point, my point is, it does not happen if you use proper technique. The problems you describe are from bad technique or from trying to perform camera movements that are simply impossible to stabilize without a stabilizer (i.e. dolly, crane, truck, etc.), not from the IBIS system. If you maintain multiple points of contact with the camera, use heavier rigs, optimal focal lengths, and properly correct for camera drift when/if it occurs then you stay well within the capabilities of the IBIS system and its corrections are not noticeable. The whole "bounce" that you describe is when the IBIS has to correct for a problem that is beyond its capabilities. For example if the IBIS provides 5 stops of correction but you ask it to correct for a 7 stop jerk you will have problems. If you use proper technique and can keep a 5 stop IBIS system within 1 or 2 stops of correction then the corrections are not visible or they are reduced to the point of being statistically insignificant in the grand scheme of things; this is no different from combining an IBIS system with a gimbal; the purpose of the gimbal is to provide stabilization that falls well within the capabilities of the camera with or without IBIS. A great practicing technique is to turn on the cross hairs of whatever camera you own, turn off IBIS and point it at a spot and practice keeping those cross hairs on that spot while performing different slight camera movements. Your technique will improve pretty quickly. Of course side handles and a heavier rig help here as well. Yes this gimbal has Z axis stabilization, but you can get very close to the same results by using proper technique and using your arms and the ninja walk to reduce z axis instability in a gimbal that does not have it so I wouldn't call it a huge upgrade. A glidecam in Devin Graham's hands shows the art of the possible when it comes to making the z axis bounce disappear without an electronic gimbal. Pixel peepers will always find something wrong with every second of footage that they look at; but the reality is as long as the paying client is happy or if the footage is for personal use and you are happy with the footage that's all that really matters at the end of the day. Overall I think this camera is a cool concept and for someone who shoots most of their footage on a gimbal this might be a serious contender but there's plenty of run and gun shooters like myself who much prefer smaller kits, faster setups, and shoot mainly handheld.

Although I have no intention of getting one, I am curious to see more detailed tests for dynamic range, low light capabilities, how well the AF works in more real world situations etc and of course some sample footage shot with it by working pros not just the campaign videos. Also, I would imagine that due to its weight for longer takes it would still need to be mounted to some kind of rig that moved the weight from the arms to the back and shoulders. I am liking the fact that they will release an XLR module as well, since at the moment it seems to be lacking that. It is way too bulky and ill fitting for my particular use cases, but definitely a really cool concept overall. Also I wonder if it has any focusing system other than the LIDAR one; does it also have CDAF AF capabilities or is the radar unit required for all AF. I think my biggest dislike is that it is just so married to that gimbal. If anything goes wrong with that gimbal you have a perfectly working camera but no way to use it. And with that form factor it just doesn't look very durable to me.

Like others have said, if you are starting from zero you are better going straight to RF. Before I even finished reading all of your use cases the 24-105mm was all I could think of. It is the most hated lens in my collection but if I could only take a single lens on a trip (and I have done just that before), I would take the 24-105mm. The 24-105mm F4 is my most hated lens because the barrel falls down (or up) if you don't hold the zoom ring (EF mount version not sure if RF fixes this) and it is a very boring lens; not fast enough for low light situations, not shallow enough for great bokeh, and not long enough to really reach anything far away. But....if I could only have a single lens it would be the 24-105mm. For lowlight you just have to crank the ISO a bit, for that shallow depth of field you just have to punch into 105mm at F4 and you'd be surprised at the bokeh if you are close enough to the subject, and for those times when you need that wide shot you are really thankful for that 24mm end. Of course the other problem with the lens is it overlaps nearly every other lens which is just as annoying as every other attribute of the lens, but it truly is the best all around general purpose walk around lens out there. I have filmed landscapes, talking heads, detail shots, tourist attractions, car shows (really great for car shows where you want to film the interior then get a shot of the lineup with a single lens), conferences, etc. all with this single lens. If I truly don't know what I am walking into, I take the 24-105mm.

That LIDAR Waveform focus asset is quite awesome, way more advanced than peaking for manual focus.

It can't be useful for any pro project, but many pros would love to use it. At least somebody is thinking out of the box in the industry.

PJ is clearly impressed - has even used it on a paying job.

The ARRI name is keeping it up there. Also the fact that ARRI sensors have barely changed since the Classic so you are still getting that industry standard image. You can find them for good deals if you're patient. The support gear and media isn't cheap though.

Surprisingly there are some pretty big productions that are pretty rushed. I was reading an article that interviewed one of the DPs on the Netflix's The Punisher. He had one day to scout the location and plan for lighting the day before the shoot. This was for a pretty large action sequence as well. Stuff like that seems pretty common in this age of high end, high output, quick turn around streaming shows. But yeah I get your point.

This is the first time I've created a film for anything other than my own satisfaction. No money changed hands, but the 'client' professes to be very happy with the result. This is with the Lumix S1 and a variety of vintagey lenses. Colour grade is pretty much all mine.

Noice. I bet it will replace gopro for cinewhoops.