mercer

You're no slouch either... I believe it was one of your older 5D Mark iii ML Raw videos that helped me choose to go with a 5D! I think it had "Wolf" in the title?

I hate those videos that try and compare a $1000 camera to an Alexa with a stupid thumbnail that suggests you'll be surprised by the results. Inevitably, you learn that the operator wasn't as good at using cameras as he was at making thumbnails, or they intentionally cripple the Alexa by shooting in ways to highlight the $1000 camera. That said, I agree that probably 9 out of 10 times, nobody will realize what camera you shot your movie with as long as the story is good and engaging, but I do think that a couple of those people may feel like something was off without knowing why. An Alexa costs 50K+ for a reason. And although I believe craft and resources lend to the final look of the film, the sensor, the Arri color science and its thick files are a piece of the puzzle. A long time ago, I got hooked on my Canon 5Diii with ML Raw because it was the first time I had shot something where I looked at it and thought... man that almost looks like a real movie. So there are some "intangibles" involved because I am not that talented, nor that skilled. I have shot with a bunch of cameras since... GH5, GH6, Sigma FP, S5iiX, Canon R7, etc... and although the FP comes close, but even its 4K raw image is no match to my trusty, old 5D3 in gross old 1080p raw.

Is that a Q7? I had one briefly for video about 10 years ago... the image wasn't horrible but it had the worst rolling shutter I have ever seen, but it was fun using old Kern 8mm lenses on it... which I still have. Now that I shoot more stills than I used to, I could see how it may be fun to throw in your jacket pocket.

Who wants to tell her that if she had just turned around and faced the setting sun, she could have continued using her iPhone? Not it.

It's good to know kids are learning that to take good photos, you need light... Science is fun. If society can figure out how history can help their social media creds, there just may be hope for the future.

If you like the 8bit 4K cDNG files, turn them to B&W in post and the raw textures shine and you get a little more latitude overall.

Cool topic! I look forward to seeing what you come up with. As you probably know, I have both the 5D Mark iii and the FP. In a lot of ways, they're redundant. I even use the same process and settings to render the 4K cDNG files to ProRes for editing/color in FCPX. The 4K helps with the FP. Some vintage lenses, most of what I own, are just too soft on the 5D. But I agree that there's some kind of funkiness with the FP's image. I think it's processed a little in camera with NR and/or sharpness. No way to know that for sure, though. I tried using the 800 ISO trick, but I really didn't notice that much of a difference... I guess a stop or so in the highlights. I think the main benefit of the FP over the 5D3, for me, are the two ISOs for night/indoor shoots and due to the 4K it's sharper, so it has a more "modern cinematic" video look compared to the 5D3 which has more of a filmic look. I heard the s35 crop is actually better on the FP, but I didn't really notice much of a difference there either. I've been tempted to pick up a Canon 24mm 2.8 IS and the Sigma adapter and put it in s35 for a better handheld solution, but I haven't gotten around to it. I completely agree about the 8bit 4K in camera raw!!! There's actually something so unique about the image. Anyway, I look forward to some of your tests with the FP-L and c-mounts. I just sold my BMMCC, so I need to find a new camera for my c-mount lenses. I don't have anything too fancy like you do, but I do like them very much.

I'm pretty sure they were announced at the same time and their release dates were pretty close to one another... about 4 months or so.

I was referring more to the companies cannibalizing their own models. The pricing is out of control within their own camera lines. Look at Canon... the R8 full frame camera is cheaper than the R7 aps-c. In this instance, the main feature difference seems to be FF vs IBIS... I'm sure there may be other differences as well but that seems to be the biggest. Panasonic... S5iiX ($1999) vs GH7 ($2199). Full frame vs M4/3. The only other main difference is that the GH7 has internal ProRes Raw and 32bit float audio with the XLR handle and CF Express cards. That's not nothing but does it justify the GH7 costing $200 more? I guess you could argue that the GH7 is the flagship and the iix is not and I suppose the iix has been out for about a year longer. But even still? Maybe it's time that they consolidate their camera lines a little. Does Panasonic really need an S5ii and an S5iiX... released at the same time? But I guess they know what they're doing... nickel and diming their sub-$2500 enthusiast customers generates a bunch of profits with the upsells.

So I had a look at B&H to see what DSLRs they still carry and I was surprised to see that they still have a pretty good selection. Obviously, older models. From Nikon you have the D7500 to the D850 and in between, and from Canon... the T7 to the 1DX Mark iii and everything in between. As others have mentioned, not too surprising... older stock. What I found the most interesting is that B&H has a lot of refurbished cameras and grey market DSLRs for sale. This transfers to their DSLR lens inventory as well. If B&H is selling grey market cameras (they even have a couple refurbished grey market models) then I can only assume that there is still a healthy little market for DSLRs. I also only searched for Body Only cameras, so there wasn't any duplicates in the search. Eventually, even the grey market stock will run out and I assume their mirrorless models will get a bump in sales. Anyway, just an observation that I found interesting. With all that said, I agree @Andrew Reid regarding your original point about the camera mounts. The Z mount has some great possibilities and would probably be where I will go once I upgrade. Of course, I am really intrigued by about 5 or 6 different cameras and they're all in different mounts. So who knows what will happen when I completely get bored with the FP.

You can get a brand new S5 for $995. This seems like Panasonic using old stock. It's a shame what happened to m4/3. I was so floored to get the G7 back in 2015 for $500 and then the GX85 a little less than a year later for a little bit more and eventually a G85. Other than a few Blackmagic cameras, I've also had a GH6 and used a friend's GH5 a bunch of times. I wish I had kept the GH6. The current deal on the GH7 at B&H is pretty amazing... $140 coupon and a free XLR handle (32bit float internal) but it's still overpriced for m4/3 when you consider you can get the S5iiX for less and also with a free XLR handle. The pricing of Panasonic cameras are all over the place. I guess m4/3 sensor may cost more now? Or the cost of the sensor is one of the lowest costs of production and Panasonic is basing their pricing on features alone, adding X amount of dollars for every feature they add to the checklist. To be fair to Panasonic, I think most manufacturers are all over the place.

I may be wrong but the consumer, enthusiast models were Canon and Nikon's bread and butter? That said, I know they still offer a few DSLRs, but I don't believe they're developing anything new? I'm new to stills. I started with video and only recently started shooting stills, but I started at the beginning shooting a little film and the previously mentioned Pentax DSLR. With my limited experience, I do enjoy a good OVF and I'm also interested in the hybrid viewfinders that Fuji has with their X-Pro line.

To clear up some confusion... when an industry is being overtaken by phone photography, I can't say it's a great idea to develop entirely new product lines when the entire market was shrinking. I'm not saying I dislike mirrorless cameras or that there isn't a market for them... of course there is... Sony and m4/3 proved that. I'm just stating it may not have been the best idea for Canon and Nikon to abandon their previous market entirely.

I don't know, if I was only interested in photography on a completely hobbyist level, I'd serious look at getting a Pentax. I have a cheap Pentax film camera from the 80s that is a pure joy to shoot with. I also have one of their old, CCD DSLRs which has IBIS and is a pleasure to take out for a walk. And their lenses... Takumar lenses alone are a marvel of lens design and engineering. I don't see them going anywhere for a little while.

I'm definitely in the minority on this site, but I think the rush to mirrorless by the entire industry was a mistake and I wouldn't be surprised if Canon and maybe Nikon bring back a DSLR line.

Does that require the use of dis? Or will the dis add even more? 2.7x crop should get you damn close to a Kern 10mm. And if you still have the Canon 13mm, that should shine on it.

I have access to an R7, so one of the first things I bought was a c-mount adapter from Amazon. It's a Rainbow Imaging one (unsure if they're available in the UK) but what surprised me was how wide it is. Lenses that required mods to work with m4/3, screwed right on with room to spare. I have been opposed to the RF mount from the beginning, but that wider mount sure is handy in this instance. Still haven't had a chance to test a lens with it yet, though.

Edit: it's actually 3K raw, not 2.7K with a 2.75x crop.

Doesn't the R5C also have a s16 crop at 2.7K? If my memory is correct, that could be an excellent option for your s16 lenses @Andrew Reid

I have the 10mm Zeiss c-mount. I have the mount adapter but haven't changed it out yet. Always liked the look of them from what I've seen online. Still have the Fuji c-mounts as well. Still have the FP but I don't think there's a 3x crop with it... just the S35. The FP-L may have that crop, though. Right now I'm planning on keeping the 5D3 and the FP and a small set of lenses for each. I have an idea for my c-mounts that I may dive into in a few months. I sold that to @kye about 4 or 5 years ago, so I don't remember what the monitor mount was. I didn't have a cage for that one, I don't think, so it was probably just a two sided 1/4-20... one to screw into the camera and one to screw into the monitor. The one I'm selling now is a full rig with a cage, Metabones Speedbooster (Nikon F), side handle, monitor (Focus 5) and hinge mount. It also has the NPF Bridge adapter so you can use Sony NP batteries with it instead of the Canon. I think they're near impossible to find now? The whole set up is pretty compact.

I have way too much gear. More than I can use. And I need some extra cash, so the least used gear has to go. I'm selling some lenses too. Great camera, though. Wish I could keep it. Tested it for a few minutes the other day when I was taking photos of it and I slapped on my Cosmicar 12.5mm f/1.4 lens. The footage of my cat looked great. The crappy part is that I won't have a camera to use my c-mounts with.

It's so cool that people are still using this camera. Unfortunately, I have to part ways with mine. The kit is listed on eBay if anyone is interested. FYI, I sold my last BMMCC to Kye and that's the one he's been using.

Nobody seems to have an issue with DJi, so why care about Atomos?

I saw that the canon site has the RP with the firmware pre-installed for $999. B&H sells the R6 Mark II with the firmware for $2099 on sale. It sounds like you know what you need, right now I'm just curious about the process. It seems with the firmware, the Canon variants will have the increased Live View plus a few other benefits. I would think you'd get better raw stills from a larger sensor, so that may be another reason to go a different route than the G9, plus the crop factor you'll get on your vintage lenses. That said, if you're looking primarily at Live View, then it seems like the Sigma FP/L is the clear winner with 1620x1080 but there are no options to control focus check, magnification. The G9 has some refresh rate issues as well, but I know little about the program and how important/significant that is. As far as the RF mount... it is an electronic mount but it isn't a plastic mount. Canon may make some cheap, plastic mount, kit lenses, but even the cheapest R mount camera, the R100 has a metal mount.

I guess the software utilizes live view and takes a raw still, so the video file seems irrelevant? In that case, the best raw file, that integrates with their software, should be the number one requirement?