Andrew Reid

It could be said that mirrorless cameras don't actually cannibalize pro video camera sales. Sony don't seem to think so. Neither do Panasonic. Canon clearly has a different opinion. But if you look at their Cinema EOS cameras at the moment, they're not even that hot either. I think Canon is behaving tired, almost. Depressed, even. They need new top-management. The current bunch are just too elderly and too risk averse to truly allow creative freedom across each product line.

Tommy Wiseau shoots both digital AND film. What a way to go.

If a Hollywood movie looks good, it's almost certainly not down to S35 sensor size as the main factor, and even Hollywood is heading towards full frame as a 'want', even if it's not yet a must have.

Fuji should have a full frame option. Yes, medium format is very nice, but none of those cameras have proper video... yet. X-T3 is a small fish APS-C in what is about to become a sea of full frame sharks. When you can buy an A7 III for only a BIT more money, you have to question if high-end APS-C has much of a future.

That's the thing. We're paying for FULL FRAME lenses. A very nice one, in the case of that groundbreaking 28-70mm F2.0 (Although I am 99% sure Sigma is working on one as well, for EF, Nikon and Sony E mount). What's the point if we can't use them? May as well put a Speed Booster on it and use something else. Do Canon want to sell their mirrorless lenses, or not? I really thought the high-end full frame mirrorless would be when they woke up to what modern video users need. Apparently not. They are still more interested in segmenting the stills and video market with a big wall. Who is going to want to shoot 1.75x crop (worse if you calculate diagonal as well), with no IBIS, on a $2k+ zoom that has no wide angle end? Especially when you can choose a Nikon Z7, Z6, A7 III, A7R III or wait for the upcoming Panasonic monster cam.

Oh yeah, because THAT's what you buy a full frame camera for! SILLY ME!! I don't know how in your head 1.74x crop or a 1.9x crop = 1.5x S35, by the way. Why the hell should it not be? It's probably going to cost upward of $3k!! And I'd be surprised if that 28-70mm F2.0 was less than $2k.

You haven't bothered to factor in the vertical crop as well. Either way, who wants it? It's 2018. Full frame for video, or go home.

At least you can put a Speed Booster on the EOS R. If one will ever come out.

480Mbit is similar to MJPEG. It's inefficient. Per frame, no quality increase over the 120Mbit IPB.

Yeah there won't be any C-LOG or 10bit, or it would be in the specs sheet. Full sensor in 16:9 is 6720 x 3776 Crop 3840 x 2160 from that and you have almost 1.9x crop.

NX1 is actually more advanced with H.265, 6K readout, 1080/120fps and it is 5 years old.

Yes they are official. Sorry to disappoint you. https://drive.google.com/open?id=1CAZOijAyrUJcOMWNHbjFpGq2CznrIAoN

If it can't even do 120p pixel binned at better than 720p, I wouldn't expect the sensor to do a near-7K readout for that. It's not fast enough. Fear the crop. Gonna be worse than 5D IV. More like 1.9x now, as it's not even 4096 x 2160.

Nikon Z7 has it for breakfast. About the only improvement over the 5D Mark IV seems to be substituting MJPEG for H.264. Not that it was overdue or anything! https://www.eoshd.com/2018/09/here-are-the-official-video-specs-of-the-canon-eos-r-full-frame-mirrorless/ About only thing I can hope for is that the 4K is somehow full frame and not a crop but I honestly just think it is a 5D Mark IV in a mirrorless body, looking at the specs sheet, rather than anything really new.

I know which one I'd choose for stills. That 50mm F1.2. Not so sure about video... because if it's 1.74x crop that F1.2 look is lost entirely. Canon have a great strength on the optics side. 28-70mm F2 is frankly amazing. But their sensors are a laggard and their management are fucking idiots for letting the body specs drift along. Nikon F1.8 to keep the size down is silly. These are not cheapo lenses. Lastly, look at the video button placement. Tells you everything

Well it works for Sony! EVA1 = Sony FS7 Full frame Panasonic = Sony A7R III And Canon, Nikon, Panasonic all jumping into the A7R III / A7 III territory, says one thing... Sony strategy is working. Canon however I don't think will let their full frame mirrorless get as close to the Cinema EOS cameras. No sign of the leopard changing its spots anytime soon. Makes sense for Panasonic, Olympus and Leica all to use the same modern mirrorless mount. That will give them a big advantage on Canon and Nikon. 3x the native lenses. I think we've already seen a Panasonic full frame mirrorless. The Leica SL! They have the technology ready, just a matter of going after the wider market. I would say you're pretty much on the money with the pricing. At least with the first model. Sure there will be a cheaper lower-end version in future, but they will start high. I don't think I have any need whatsoever for 8K. RAW would be great though. However Sony need to look beyond specs to keep the Sony A7 series relevant in the face of sudden 3x increase in competition. Ergonomics need to change. Electronic ND needs to go in there. Venice colour. They need to up the game.

Link?

Interesting point. Put the sensor as far back into the body as it will physically go. Problem sorted. It wouldn't leave very much room for the circuit board though.

Haha.

RF 28-70mm F2 anyone? Read the full article

Those are quite interesting. He starts the drone at pretty much the same place in both the HQ and FOV shot. The FOV is a bit softer, definitely a lot wider. It's a big crop to HQ. However the quality looks OK in FOV, despite the pixel binning going on which DJI kept under the rug. So the idea of a nice lossless 4K two focal lengths is on, with the Mavic 2 Pro, I think. It would be nice if you could actually digitally zoom between the two modes in-flight when rolling, but I doubt that is possible. Can you even toggle instantly between FOV mode and HQ mode when rolling? Or do you have to stop recording, fiddling with settings, etc. Onto the Air samples he also has on his channel. I am impressed. The 4K holds up well on that small 1/2.3" sensor. Small sensors have got a LOT better in recent times. Even smartphones now do usable ISO 1600 (in RAW at least). Looks just as detailed as the Mavic 2 Pro, somewhere in-between the HQ and FOV modes but very subtle differences. The Air should give us an idea of how the Mavic 2 Zoom holds up, as it's similar sensor. I dare say Zoom has a advantage - H.265 at same bitrate as Air's H.264, but I think they will end up similar enough. I'd say it looks like the Pro 2 is the one if you shoot a LOT of low light stuff. 10bit will also help with the shadow detail. I'd say the Zoom 2 is more versatile creatively. It's a dilemma and a half. For stills, I think since it acts as a tripod in mid-air and you can do 10 second long exposures, the difference in high ISO performance is less of a factor. Zoom will be able to do some nice photography in near darkness. As long as it isn't windy Despite the slightly dishonest marketing... What great tech this is.

Did he have an early shipment, or a pre-production cam? Got a link to the files?

A review by a Hasselblad sales executive, basically. I do like Ming, but it's like Atomos Jeromy reviewing his own monitor He's a superb photographer but not impartial on this.

You don't need Pro Color for shots with no colour. Just your usual 8bit wall shot. It's not RAW so yes you will get some compression and banding. Shoot something better and then you'll see the difference vs Movie.

There I fixed DJI's marketing material! I have now ordered both the Zoom and Pro so we'll do a shootout next week in Berlin and I'll send the loser back to DJI's warehouse. The Zoom has H.265 as well, just 8bit not 10bit and CineLikeD instead of D-LOG. But that is equivalent to H.264 200Mbit and easier to edit than 10bit. We'll see how CineLikeD holds up colour wise. Maybe dialled down flat and with a LUT in post it can be quite nice (like on Panasonic GX9). Not sure if posted previously... Entertaining to watch but there is a mistake at the start on the chart. The Mavic 1 is not a better image than the Mavic Air. It's more compressed and softer. The Zoom shots of the rollercoaster and beach are really cinematic.