Leaderboard

As the title suggests, any info about the M3 Pro chip compared to M2 Pro chip? They're both on sale but you can save a little extra going with the M2 Pro... is it worth the savings?

My frontrunner at the moment, the C300 Mk3, is easily switchable between EF and PL. Only four screws.

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 wonder if Panasonic would be crazy enough to bring out a GH5 mk3, that is simply identical to the GH5 mk1 / mk2, but with DPAF added! Especially if they could hold the price the same, or even better drop it slightly to fall under the magical US$1K mark. Could be a smash hit then. (although, I would dream that they make one more addition to the GH5 mk3: add timecode support! At least like the GH5S has) The GH7 can get the kitchen sink at it, but let the GH5mk3 carry on all that is great with the GH5, but with PDAF

Sorry to hear about your medical issues and great to hear you are on the road to recovery. I echo your thoughts about this place. My last few weeks have been spent at my Mother’s bedside as she drifted away to her passing. In times like that of huge change and trauma we look for constants to keep us connected to “normal” life. In that respect, checking into here every now and again to find everyone having the same circular arguments was oddly comforting. And I honestly mean that with love.

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.

By ignoring it and fighting it through the courts.

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… 😉

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.

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.

Preposterous! It would never work!!

Slashcam have also assigned impressive latitude to the GH6, better than a FX30 and R7. @92FIf only the processing for noise and textures for the GH6 and G9 II would borrow from the GH5 II, than both would be a something like a rigged out 4K60p Bmmcc, perfect nerds and image tinkerers dream.

Having this morning taken delivery of a used Sony FS7 at an amazing price and in amazing condition, I'm going to throw a spanner in the works and suggest that getting something like that, initially, would give you the opportunity at little cost to find out if you actually enjoy shooting with a cinema style camera. It ticks most, if not all, of your boxes (especially the FS7 II due to the locking mount which would be great for adapting to PL) yet also gives a taste of the differences between hybrid and dedicated ergonomics etc.

Yeah, who the hell needs 4K 120fps anyway??? Not me

Good point!

With the boom in vlogging and social media it's insane to release a camera without at least a 3.5mm mic jack Hmmm... I should check out the Sony ZV-1 if I'm foolish enough to buy another camera in 2024

That's true for 90%+ of cameras released today that are priced over $1K

I cannot say much but give you two dear forum friends a hug in spirit and from my heart. This forum has been a comforting place for me as well. A puny little camera, nobody took serious back then for video, but you image lovers did, was my rock to hold onto in the roughest of my times, a black small GX85, my dearest trusty video mate. I filmed butterflies with it and my parents garden. I will never make fun of anyone filming flowers, except when they do it with a Leica.:)

I don't care about S5II/X on my own behalf as I am not intending to trade it in for any of my stuff I am going to have to sell. I got too much unused equilment, so a complimentary camera instead for my S1H will be cool. At the moment that would still be my S1, which I would sell. A G9 would offer additional features to find out about, especially Dual Gain, Pdaf and punsh-in preview during recording. Wanna test that Towerjazz magic and new colour!:) I have seen lowlight comparisons with the GH5s where it holds onto resolution and colours better than the latter. I just wouldn't buy into mambojambo affected textures. How could they mess up on that. Flagship cameras, at least from Panasonic, should not have unnecessary image nasties like that. If a GH5 (ll) and G9 do better in that regard it is a step back, which is unnatural by the logic of a succeeding model of the product line. So, Panasonic, do your GH6 and G9II a favour and make them the much better cameras they potentially akready are. Turn off the mambojambo.

Funnily enough, I was mocked on here not so long ago for suggesting any of that trivial shit was required so I was keeping it simple. Not to mention being in keeping with the other thread on here about making a "real" movie with a cheap camera.

I still have my good old NX1 and NX500. Indeed, even at ISO 200, with bad light, details fall apart, very mushy. Back in 2014/2015 I was really disappointed by this mushy rendering in low light compared to my GH4, I was one of the first to point out : This exactly what the S5II is doing with most picture profiles (internal), of course the S5II has much better low light performance so it's much less worse, but when I crop inside the low light videos of both my S1 and S5II, I can see more or less the same difference, the S1 keeps much better details than my S5II (V-Log is really better but details are still not as good as on the S1, mostly because of weird edge sharpening). About the rolling shutter, it is really bad in 4K on the NX1, one the worst I've seen, but the image was and is still gorgeous with the right light, especially with the 16-50mm and 50-150mm NX S. Iirc, the RS is close to 30ms. I also have the NX500 somewhere in my house, but I never really liked the video quality compared to the NX1. In good light the NX1 is full of details, the NX500 much less, probably because of the big crop. Also the NX500 has more difficulty to nail the focus in 4K, and it has no electronic stabilization, which is very handy with the little 30mm and 45mm on the NX1. I used the hacked firmware of the NX500 allowing the 2,5K mode, the rolling shutter was excellent, below 10ms for sure, but the image quality was not good, there was sometimes weird lines and aliasing.

I was just skimming the news this morning and the verdict was: Ukraine vs Russia South vs North Korea Israel vs Hamas...and maybe others China vs Taiwan/Japan/US A straw thatched buffoon vs an old man The United Kingdom. YouTube comments Other assorted fuckwits Random shit I think I'm going to go back to doing what I did during Covid and that is stop looking at the news completely. Because it's utterly depressing.

Not at all true, I'll commonly be suggesting mid range to premium grade cameras. Such as FX6 / FX9 / URSA Mini / etc to ALEXA Classic / Varicam LT / etc (when it is appropriate) The thing though is that there is a much much broader range of camera prices, and the level for "acceptable" reaches down far far lower than for audio. (such as Unsane and Tangerine, which were shot on an iPhone, yet still used a Sound Mixer with $50K+ worth of audio) So there is a huge range of pricing with cameras that could be used, while I'm going to bring a pretty much similar audio package to a shoot no matter if it is being filmed on a P4K/FX3/GH6 or FX6/C70/URSA Mini or VENICE/ARRI/Varicam Prosumer audio recorder will cost about $1K ish, give or take a few hundred. Prosumer wireless will cost around $600 ish. Professional wireless will cost over $1K per channel for the receivers, and about $1K ish to $3K ish per transmitter Professional recorders will cost around $5K ish to roughly double that (except for the outlier that is the Aaton Cantar X3, at over $17K) Professional mics will cost from around $1K ish, to about roughly double that. It's a much tight spread in prices than for cameras and lenses. It's no secret MSM are some of those feeling the most crushed of crushed budgets. But anyway, their sound needs have always been low and basic for many instances of basic reporting. Using for instance just a handheld mic, or a hardwired lav. As you've typically got one (maybe two) people talking on camera, mere feet away. With low expectations for audio quality.

That will probably be the HDMI cable. I had the same issue. Buy something that's rated for 8K, I use this one without problem: https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B0B76YBHPP/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&th=1

Since movies are supposed to be a magical representation of our reality, there's always going to be a place for B&W. The lack of chroma makes it inherently unique and other-worldly. Because there's not as much visual data as with color, the frame focuses the viewer's attention to other aspects of the image. If you like cinema, it's really hard not to like what B&W gives you. I'm biased, I guess, because I've always been a fan of old movies and my dad let me use his darkroom when I was a kid. Developing cheap B&W film was quick and easy. Shooting a roll a day with a high-schooler's part-time-work wages was doable -- and a ton of fun.

I agree that we're making large strides and will continue to do so. I've been into high end audio for over 20 years and I see parallels between the audio analog vs digital debates and the film ones. In some ways digital audio is quite far ahead of film, and if I extrapolate from that then my predictions for digital video are that: Digital will keep getting better Eventually it will reach thresholds where the engineers say that anything beyond that is imperceptible After that there will be people who say that analog is still better, and the engineers will tell them that they're either suffering from bias or that they are in love with the deficiencies of analog Digital development will stop or be severely limited once the engineers suggest things aren't perceptible anymore The connoisseurs will still pursue higher performance digital but they will be a tiny percentage in a minority that make up a tiny industry so will struggle to make headway and to make matters worse for the connoisseurs there will be people who like analog because of it's nostalgia and the engineers will not distinguish between the two groups There are examples of this on this forum already: discussing the benefits of RAW (which are real, but are very very niche at this price point) discussion of things like Motion Cadence which not only can't be measured but no-one seems to understand what might even be involved, so is ripe for the engineers to say doesn't exist and in digital video we're a long way away from the limits of human perception: 14bit RAW might be approaching it but after grading it might not be there 4K is only beyond perception if viewed on a screen occupying a minimum percentage of the angle of vision (ie, only not visible if screens are too small or too far away) and only if they haven't been stretched or processed in post (eg, digital stabilisation) and if used to capture 360 video is woefully inadequate when viewed with goggles 24fps is linked to the minimum frame rate for humans to observe continuity of motion rather than a slideshow, no-where near the limits of human perception which are being explored by computer games and are upwards of 100fps (IIRC)

I tried to like it. The sets, fx and cinematography are certainly first rate. The actors are good, the direction, the editing. I was able to sit through it. Then the scene with the Wallace CEO, head cataract guy, that was NOT a Okay, I was a young guy once and can understand dropping a naked women out of a pastry sack and letting her writhe on the floor a bit. I can even understand the actor with the cataracts blathering the most inane stuff to his replicant! (And we thought Gossling was lonely ) But to knife her for no apparent reason put me into full annoyance mode. Why do we need to hate him, and if we do, why doesn't he get killed at the end like the maker in the first movie? In the first Blade Runner, there is a simple, strong story that keeps that morose movie together. Harrison Ford is in a sucky job, in a sucky city, hunting down merciless replicants. His life is meaningless. Then he falls in love with a replicant and begins to have doubts about his life values. Meanwhile, Rutger Hauer, knows his lot in life and wants to understand why it was made for him. So he searches out his maker. In the end, even though he is bred to kill, he has compassion and let's Harrison Ford live. The original Blade Runner put story first. What is the story of Blade Runner 2049? There is none, there are only pieces of story, none of which connect or make much sense. My fear that it's just a vanity project with too many cooks in the kitchen was borne out, for me. My favorite proof that no one with common sense had any control over the script is when the Wallace replicant kills a police forensics guy THEN the police chief and says to Harrison Ford that they're going to take him off-world where they can torture him. I'm wondering why they can't do it on Earth? I mean, there is no sense of society, government, police power. Again, just a mis-mash of half-baked story ideas. And why kill the police chief. Makes absolutely no sense. I never cared about any of the characters, except Gossling's hologram. Though I keep thinking, if Wallace industries makes her, why don't they know what he says to her? I guess someone got their "let's put in a little bit of 'Her' in BR 2049" You're in trouble when the only good thing about your movie is the little bit you plagiarized from another And the music. I don't care how good it is, it did not fit the story most of the time. There were many scenes that would have been stronger without it. Film-maker children with sound synthesized sound-grenades. I heard a young person leaving the theater saying it was "much better than the first one." On a bright note, I just finished "Trapped", the Icelandic series. Great film-making isn't dead.