Leaderboard

I've got a bunch of Samsung T5/T7 drives for the Fp and Pocket cameras and, as small as they are, they are still a bit cumbersome and in the case of the T5s I've had a couple fail on me. This is not exactly a unique or challenging DIY project to make my own alternative to the T5/T7s but thought it might be useful for anyone looking for something similar that is both faster and, for my purposes, a bit more ergonomic. Enter the Sabrent NVMe enclosure and the WD SN770 NVMe drive. The Sabrent takes both SATA and NVME in sizes 2242/2260/2280 and is tool-free so you just pop it open and then insert the drive. Once you've done that, simply snap the case shut again and you have a ready to go drive which, for me at least, is a far better form factor than a T5/T7 for mounting on a camera and is easily swappable in the field for another NVMe if you run out of space. To be able to mount it to a camera, I decided that the most appropriate and versatile route would be via a standard 1/4" 20 thread so I designed and resin printed an adapter that will take a screw and which is then bonded to the bottom of the drive case. With that in place it can now be mounted to the camera cage horizontally or in the case of the Pocket cameras, directly into the thread on the top of the camera. For my own use, I much prefer mounting it in this orientation but, of course, with it now having the 1/4" 20 mount it can be mounted anywhere. In terms of price, the 1tb drive and the housing came to around €125 so it is certainly very competitively prices compared to the Samsungs. Oh and there is the small matter of the quoted write speed being 5,150MB/s which makes it significantly faster than even the gen2 T7's speed of 1,000 MB/s. In terms of actual real world performance, I shot all day with it on the P4K earlier in the week at 5:1 BRAW and it didn't miss a beat. As I say, not unique, not challenging and not for everyone but it fills a need for me. Some better cable/cable management required now though.

The Sony doesn’t record though, let alone in ProRes or ProResRAW It can monitor and stream but in that respect it’s no different to adding a $10 HDMI converter to any Android phone. As opposed to it needing a $2400 one. Even if the iPhone had an input (which Apple have zero interest in adding as they want people to buy them as cameras) it has fixed (expensive) internal storage which makes it impractical as a recorder. Again, that’s before the other stuff that something like a Ninja gives you such as audio input, expansion for timecode and SDI etc Even if Apple did decide to add all that, the financials wouldn’t add up either when you can get a Ninja V now for $399 and the 8K capable V+ for $599 as opposed to the $1500-$2000 that a theoretical iPhone with the same capability would be. The threat that phones present to camera manufacturers will actually indirectly cause phones to be responsible for the demise of products like the Ninja V though. Not by replacing them like for like but by forcing camera manufacturers to include internal ProRes to compete with phones and therefore make the external recorder redundant by default.

That is super clean video, the whites are white, the black print is black...eh well eh... 😵

Depends on the camera/cage and situation but for me personally it would impede the quick release plate that I would generally have on for monopod/tripod/gimbal mounting. Will likely end up with flat or coiled but as either of those would need a few different ones being bought to test with (USB C cables that look pretty can often be flaky as I've found out to my cost) so I wouldn't rule out the existing cables with plastic cable ties looped through the cage holes !

Great stuff... Mounting it on the bottom might be slightly more ergonomic and a bit more stealth perhaps? And keen to see what you come up with for cleaner cable routing. It seems that with my BMMCC it doesn't matter how snug you get the camera and screen, the cables still triple the size of the whole thing, giving it that "look at me!" vibe when shooting in public.

DIYish for us noobs.:) I bet the Sigma looks realky cool with that setup. Or as Don aka webrunner would say, hotter than applepie. 😊

Most of those people are probably dead by now.

1h 29m 17s This is in 4k 60p LongGOP with DR boost. Static scene exposed at +0, camera on tripod, IBIS off, LCD flipped out with backlight at 0 brightness.

I've just pressed record!

No expert on the subject but from what I have seen most cameras are worse in video than photo DR wise. You have to figure most photo stuff is 12, 14, even 16bit raw. So that gives it an edge over video. Now maybe in HDR video but that has to be in 10bit a least.

This is it. All the other language about "greater than 23fps" and "4K or higher" or "internal, visually lossless" is all written to broaden the patent intentionally as a, in my opinion, blatant "idea" smash and grab. They only came up with a method and instead they got a patent for essentially: "visually lossless compressed bayer data in a camera at greater than 23fps and 4K and up resolution". Ford invented a novel form of locomotion via a box ("vehicle") with 4 or more wheels, powered by an internal combustion engine (as described in prior patent XYZ), moving at speeds greater than 23mph. Ford is calling it a "motorized vehicle" and will sue anybody that tries to use wheels and internal combustion engines to go faster than 23mph.

10.5 stops isn't world-record territory, but there's a chance that the camera can encode the full DR of the sensor isn't there? I thought that most cameras with log profiles would capture the whole DR, it was just in the picture profiles that they'd lose a stop or two.

Exactly. Looks to me that the tech is there.

Yeah, but like I said above the cost alone for several really nice lenses is easily half the price of the camcorder. And are you even then going to have a 15x range on them? If you bought a Canon R5 and the kit lens you would be as much as this camcorder. Camcorders of this type now are the go to camera for all the newspaper, TV stations where I live. They only use the big ENG stuff for super special events, sports in a fixed position now. You could totally make a living with that camcorder.

I can run a test for you if you tell me the parameters you're interesred in. I can run record on a full battery and see how long it lasts.

I really like what's coming out of this camera. The video above is beutifully shot imho and with a fantastic image, as I gave my reasoning about before. Best test video I have seen in a long time. If disagreement is a reason to see you post again, I must say I am very happy about that.😊 @kaylee

I imagine, Panasonic could cash in with a GXTen, just delivering what the GH5 does but in its beautiful form factor and with its built quality. Except, the back dial lost its function after two years of usuage and I read I am not the only one with the back dial issue. Imagine a GX Ten with great PDAF and 10bit GH5 quality and a swivel screen. It would sell like hot cakes I imagine.

We have the GH6 for work. The lack of anamorphic shooting options frustrates me as we have a slew of anamorphic lenses. There is no 3.3K (which desqueezed would make a nice 4K image). Instead, we got 5.7K anamorphic and 4.6K anamorphic at 48fps?!? I can only reason was to shoot anamorphic in high resolution and slow motion as high of a resolution as they could (4.6K). The issue I have is the 3.3K 4:3 desqueezed gives it that nice textured Super 35mm look. 5.7 is too clean for anamorphic for me. I’m confused as to why that was omitted. Not to mention all the anamorphic modes are 10 bit 420 Long GOP with no ProRes options at all. The GH5 is a Anamorphic beast IMHO.

Well, I made a total liar out of myself and went and bought another Panasonic GH5 with V Log in it. And to make it even more crazy I bought a Canon FD 300mm f2.8 lens, the big white one, with it, and the older 14-140mm Panny lens, the black and gray one. With the newer firmware updates the GH5 has gotten a lot better than when I had mine before. Pretty hard camera to beat used even today. The 300mm ought to be good for birding and well why not. I am going to use it with my EF to M4/3 Speedbooster so will be interesting. So now I will have even more stuff.

Speaking of the G7, I used one for a while and shot a bunch of stuff with it. Here's a little c-mount lens/FilmConvert test from 2017: I still love the look of this.

Andrew, let me describe two of the biggest issues with RED's patent, ignoring how insanely stupid it is to patent compressed RAW above 23fps: 1) Their patent was filed over a year after the camera was on the market. It is invalid on that basis alone. 2) The patent should never have been granted because it is SO GENERIC AND BROAD. It covers not truly lossless RAW video, but visually lossless RAW. What is the definition of visually lossless in the patent? That the average person can see no difference. That's literally it. None of RED's RAW video is actually lossless. If it were, why would you have options of 3:1, 5:1, 8:1, 12:1, 18:1, whatever they are - or now I believe they're just HQ, MQ, and LQ. None of those are truly lossless RAW like you can shoot in most stills cameras. They are lossy RAW. So, by being granted a patent for visually lossless (to the average person) RAW, they have effectively been given domain over both lossless AND lossy RAW. Lossless and lossy RAW existed in stills form prior to RED developing a single thing. They took that and said "ok give us a patent on this except at 24fps or higher" - which, by the way, a number of cameras do now (there is no defined limit of time in RED's patent for how long it can shoot, because again, it's as broad and vague as you can possibly get). It would be fair if they had a patent on REDCODE RAW, just as I'm sure BM has one on BRAW and Canon on C-RAW and so on. But to patent something that already existed - and simply taking it to the next logical extension - and then being granted that patent with excessively broad language is simply wrong. It would be like if someone had patented all forms of audio compression. Instead, patents were filed on audio compression formats, like DPCM (the first) and coding standards (AAC, MP3, DC3, FLAC, etc.).