ac6000cw

(My bold) I agree - I'm often taking video of moving vehicles where I also want the background reasonably in focus to provide context for the image, so shallow DOF just doesn't work for me/isn't the 'look' I want. (I also often shoot wildlife stills and video - the inevitable shallow DOF due to long lenses is a real pain to deal with when you might only have a few seconds to get the shot and there are tree branches/twigs in the way - which the AF prefers to focus on of course...) One reason I often prefer the Pana 14-140 F3.5-F5.6 over the 12-60 F3.5-F5.6 (which I also own) is that the aperture drop off with focal length is slower over the wide to mid range - though the 12-60 is a bit smaller and lighter and much cheaper used.

For me, out of the first two shots, artistically the upper/brighter shot is the better one - the 'bright lights' are properly bright (even if some are a bit burnt out) and the people are visible enough to add more interest to the scene. The lower/darker shot personally I think looks too dull (and less attractive as a result), even though I suspect it's a more accurate representation of the scene. As ever, it depends on how 'accurate' or how 'attractive' you want the shots to be (after they've been tweaked/graded/edited) i.e. the artistic choices...

I'm thinking about replacing my old Pana 20mm F1.7 (with slow and noisy AF) with the Oly 17mm F1.8. I find I commonly use around 18mm as a focal length on zoom lenses, so having a fast (and quiet) prime at that length makes sense for me.

My combo is usually the 14-140mm plus 25mm F1.8. On my last 'serious' trip (almost two weeks of railway video/stills photography in Southern California), I took a G9 + 14-140mm + 25mm F1.8 (for low light), used hand-held, with G80 + 12-32mm used as an occasional tripod-mounted 'B' cam. I took the G80 instead of the (smaller) GX80 because it has a mic jack. If I were doing a similar trip now I think it would be OM-1 (main) and ZV-1 (B-cam), but lens choice for the OM-1 would be harder as I recently bought a used Oly 12-100mm F4 IS Pro. It's much larger and heavier than the 14-140mm Pana, but it supports Sync-IS on Oly/OMDS bodies and the overall stabilisation performance is fantastic. If you buy a used Pana 14-140mm F3.5-F5.6, be careful about which version you are getting. Panasonic sold the Mk 1 version (H-FS14140) in two different markings - white, gold and red 'HD' lettering (earlier lenses) or all white lettering (later lenses). Then they updated it to the Mk 2 (H-FSA14140) with weather sealing and all white lettering. AFAIK all are optically the same, and support Dual-IS and Dual-IS2. I've come across dealers who've mixed up the white-lettered later Mk 1 and the Mk 2 versions in their used listings...

If you're not so bothered about the lens length when the camera is off, I'd seriously consider the non-pancake 14-42mm 'Mk ii' kit lens (the H-FS1442A, in the 3rd photo). The change in length over the zoom range is only about 10mm, it's got proper zoom and focus rings, supports dual-IS (with FW 1.1 installed) and is cheap used. Yes it's quite hard to beat the combination of size, performance and flexibility the GX85 (or GX9) offers. Main reason I bought a ZV-1 was to get a compact camera with better audio - versus the GX85 it has much better sound quality from the on-board mics plus a 3.5mm mic input. But otherwise the GX85 is nicer to use, and paired with say the Pana 14-140mm becomes super-zoom travel cam, which is smaller than 1" sensor cams like the FZ1000/FZ2000/RX10. Which is the main reason I still own one...

I think Pana versus Oly/OMDS lenses having zoom rings that operate in opposite directions is really annoying... Anyway, here are pics of the Pana 12-32, 14-42 PZ, 14-42 kit and Oly 14-42 EZ on my GX80 (all with filters on the front), with the zoom set to give maximum lens length (which was max wide on the Pana and max tele on the Oly - minimum lens length was in the mid zoom range). Also the ZV-1 set to maximum lens length, and a GX80+Oly14-42 and ZV-1 side-by-side. Note the 10cm mark on the ruler is approx. aligned to the front of the body, so the all the lens lengths are between 55mm and 60mm i.e. around the same... (The ZV-1 has a JJC filter adaptor stuck to the front of the lens tube - https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B07GWQ6CXL )

I've got the Pana 12-32, 14-42 (non-pancake) and 14-42 PZ lenses, plus the Oly 14-42 EZ (power zoom) lens. No LX10 (or GX800 anymore), but my ZV-1 might be an interesting size comparison. I'll take some photos of the extended lenses on my GX80 with a ruler alongside. Note that of the pancake lenses, only the Oly has a focus ring, but it doesn't have any OIS - swings and roundabouts...

I agree - Sony will be doing image processing before the H.265 encoding (e.g. noise suppression, de-Bayering, sharpening etc.), whereas you might expect less of that happening with N-RAW - isn't it meant to be raw sensor data, warts and all? H.265 is a sophisticated codec, so I'm not that surprised 4:2:2 10-bit 8k video at 500Mbps from the A1 looks really good, especially on a static image like Andrew used in the N-RAW vs H.265 vs CDNG comparison article.

...which is why most non-enthusiast users would buy a decent phone and use it record video (the cost of an AX53 would pay for a pretty decent phone). The phone is very likely smaller than a camcorder and you definitely won't stand out in the crowd (even with a phone on a small gimbal). Camcorders have their niche, but it's been squeezed from both ends for years - at the lower end, phones and compact cameras getting decent video, MILCs at the other end. The AX700 has a modern 1" stacked BSI sensor with PDAF, but it's 116×89.5×196.5mm (W x H x L) and about 1 Kg. The small sensor AX53 is 73x80.5x161mm and about 600g. They're not especially small and light.

It's because if you have larger sensor the optics get larger as well - the sensor in the AX53 is 1/2.5" size - this is very small and allows an internal 20x zoom to be fitted inside a small (but not tiny) body. Put in a 1" sensor (which is about 4x the sensor area) with an internal x20 zoom lens and the body would get much larger and heavier. The next level up in the Sony range is the AX700 with a 1" sensor but only a x12 zoom - it's around 2x the weight and 2.5x the price. That takes it into the price area of a good MILC with a superzoom lens e.g, the A6700 with 18-135mm lens bundle is about the same price as the AX700, but has an APS-C sensor with 4x the area of a 1" sensor, weighs less and can record 10-bit 4:2:2 4k60p & 4k120p video.

I doubt it - for example, AFAIK including MPEG/AVC/HEVC in a product requires license fees to be paid to the patent holders (normally via a patent pool licensing organization). As end users we don't usually see those fees directly, because they are paid by the companies selling the products i.e. the fees are included in the purchase price.

intoPIX and Fraunhofer IIS are the two major contributors to the JPEG XS patent pool - https://www.jpegxspool.com/ and https://www.jpegxspool.com/s/JPEG-XS-Patent-Pool-Licensed-Patents-01-Oct-2023.pdf and https://www.tinynews.be/jpeg-xs-intopix-belgique/ As JPEG XS uses a wavelet transform, there is a reasonable chance TicoRAW uses a wavelet transform in its implementation, especially as JPEG XS has built-in support for RAW Bayer/CFA images - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG_XS#Sensor_compression But as intoPIX is a developer of video compression technology, TicoRAW unlikely to be "just another branded version of something that someone else wrote."

Yes, their raw image sensor data compression system. Do you know what intoPIX actually use inside the TicoRAW implementation? Discrete cosine transform (DCT) isn't a compression algorithm, it's just a mathematical transform (of a block of pixels into spatial frequency coefficients) that's particularly useful for 'natural image' compression systems. It doesn't compress the data (in fact it increases it, as the output coefficients are usually higher bit depth to maintain precision), just transforms it into a different representation. That makes it much easier to discard/downgrade the coefficient data afterwards while minimising the impact on image quality - how clever you are at doing that (and the subsequent lossless data compression) is basically what determines the compression efficiency (data reduction versus perceived quality) of the image compressor. DCT is far from being the only game in town though - there are other front-end transforms in use as part of image compression systems. But I agree it's very popular (for very good reasons) in natural image compressors.

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.

It's TicoRAW from IntoPIX - see https://www.dpreview.com/news/9624409613/nikon-is-licensing-intopix-s-ticoraw-technology-for-its-z9-camera-system and https://www.intopix.com/tico-raw

I think he was talking about N-RAW versus h265. The bitrates for N-RAW are here - https://onlinemanual.nikonimglib.com/z9/en/06_video_recording_02.html#id226OJ0Y0V5Z - 4.1k at 24 p is 350 Mb/s in Normal quality mode.

Capital M = 'mega' = x1000000 Lowercase m = 'milli' = /1000 So megabits per second = Mb/s.

Maybe they should introduce Z-mount versions of their (low-end, for RED) RF-mount Komodo cameras, branded 'Nikon RED', 'Z-RED' or 'RED-Z', with maybe switchable color science compatible with either Nikon hybrids like the Z8/Z9 or other RED cameras. That might provide upward and downward paths between RED and Nikon cameras without diluting the RED brand.

The Chris & Jordan Peta Pixel review is a bit mixed (especially for video) - poor battery life, some IBIS jerkiness and of course high rolling shutter...

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?

The SL3 is released - https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/leica-sl3-initial-review From the review:

IIRC, that included RED being able to use the Canon RF-mount on their cameras - so I guess in theory a Nikon-branded RED camera could have a Canon lens mount on it... but the Canon-RED agreement might not allow that if RED were taken over by another camera company. So are we going to see some Nikon Z-mount cinema/video lenses eventually to go with a RED-designed camera, or is this takeover primarily about REDs IP/patents and high-end video processing knowledge?

Those are exactly the issues I have with the FP or FP-L - I like the small form-factor, but a camera without IBIS for video is basically ruled out for me, as I film almost 100% hand-held (and stabilizing in post is sometimes very difficult with the subjects I film, as well as being time-consuming).

I've also thought about trying/buying an A6700 a few times for the same reasons... pity it doesn't have a higher-res viewfinder than 2.36M-dot (having a 5.76M-dot EVF in the OM-1 is really nice, as is the 1.62M-dot rear screen)

Just added a graded, 8-bit Rec709 version of some of the clips to the folder - 'OMLog400 test graded 8-bit Rec709.mov'