independent

In terms of comprehensive features, as I had stated. Can you think of another camera at the time that had a more complete set of features?

Sony definitely will first. They were close anyways with the full featured A7 III. You have to give them credit for going all out (including price). Once they implement the internal pro codec, they’re back.

It’s hard to imagine how 8K won’t be crippled. It’ll leapfrog the c500 II? No, the key for the R5/R6’s viability is not omitting the features that were missing in the past: internal recording of pro codecs, IBIS, full frame, acceptable rolling shutter.

Sony will definitely be putting out their 8-bit, high rolling shutter equivalent soon.

But it'll be 8-bit with 30+ ms of rolling shutter

For the record, I'd take either internal 10-bit 422 or RAW in this camera. I just hope Canon offers more than 8-bit internally. The external HDMI output is definitely a potential for handicapping, which I hope they avoid. Either way, these specs are approaching the C500 II and 1DX III's, and in certain ways surpassing the C300 II and C200's. And offering IBIS that none of those cameras have. So you have to figure something has to give.

This is the Sony A7S III.

Regardless the point is that internal RAW seems more appropriate and likely for Canon’s R6 20MP sensor for full frame than 4K 10-bit 422. I’d be suppressed if they downscale from 5.5k to 4K and process it into 10-bit 422 in a small body for $2500. RAW is less demanding in a technical sense while appealing to independent creators. Price point and features-wise, this would appeal to $2K-$3K market. This also protects the professional lines. Precedence.

The C200, C500 II, and the 1DX III would beg to differ! Canon's flavor of RAW (Cinema Raw light .CRM) is slipping through. I'm guessing they might be doing something similar to BRAW to get around the patent.

Those specs would severely undermine the $9,000 C300 II. RAW wouldn't be any less impractical than the RAW on the 20MP 1DX III. The less demanding RAW is more likely than 10-bit 422 on an estimated $2500 R6. Historically, it's the internal 10-bit 422 processing that has been at a premium - not RAW. Thus, the success of Atomos. Also, as far as I know, there are zero cameras that are: full-frame DPAF or equivalent autofocus IBIS internal 4K 10-bit 422 16ms rolling shutter All of those will be unprecedentedly available in a $2500 R6?

I agree, but I reiterate there are some understandable reasons why canon would not. For one, they might want to protect the higher models (such as the 1DXIII and possibly the R5). They did this in the Canon C200 to distinguish it from more professional, broadcast-ready C300II. Second, this could be a physical limitation. The EOS R is a very small body. The added processing for 10-bit 422 might exceed those limits. I’m not an engineer, but the DPAF that’s unavailable in the higher frame rates of the 1DXII implies there is an added burden of that feature. Add in-body stabilization? It might just be too much. I’d take internal full frame raw as a compromise with precedent.

Atomos Ninja star. If you need 4k, then no. Another reason why the EOS R's HDMI out was so goofy; the Ninja V is almost as big as the camera itself. So you need to get a cage to rig it up, SSDs w/ caddies, a gimbal and tripod because the rolling shutter was so bad, and it's more trouble than it's worth.

The lower specced R6 model has great potential to be a goldilocks indie filmmaker's camera. But some key features would require the right kind of compromises. 20 MP full frame sensor = Raw 12-bit 5.5K @ up to 30 Internal recording is key. Nobody wants the burden of rigging an extra Atomos monitor. The flip touchscreen is functional and convenient. The 1DXIII showed Canon's willingness to finally put internal recording in a DSLR. They can do it in mirrorless with some adjustments: The camera should be bigger to accommodate for heat dissipation and IBIS. The original R is a small camera. No need to cut important features to prioritize a tiny body for filmmakers, especially when the added features preclude the necessity of a rig. 10-bit 422 processing is demanding, which is going to be an issue with a full frame stabilized sensor. Offer it via HDMI. Or Canon can pull a C200 move and omit it for higher models. Take out 10-bit processing out of the equation. 4K60 can stay 8-bit. Make the camera bigger. Offer the core features for the increasing number of independent content creators: full frame, internal raw, IBIS, DPAF, and reasonable rolling shutter.

I think it would be a misstep to go back to 8-bit after showing the goods in the 1DX III.

I’d imagine the IBIS the new feature to be marketed in a new R.

Any confirmation on rolling shutter?

How secure are transactions on Taobao / WeChat, say from a U.S. buyer?

At that price, why not just go for the S1H?

At the same camera position and the same framing, of course the 6K will have more detail than the 4K. That's the obvious advantage of having more pixels. If you have the 4K and want more detail in your subject, get a tighter shot! On the other hand, the 4K w/ speedbooster has remarkable advantages (until the aforementioned 6K adapter becomes viable). The 1.22x crop offers a field of view that exceeds nearly every raw camera except the top end large format Arris and Reds (and canon c700). That offers much more flexibility, and in some cases the wider FOV is very handy in tight interiors such as cars and bathrooms. And the extra stop can be critical. Especially while maintaining the deeper depth of field, thanks to the smaller image sensor. That offers a very good combination; it can help get shots in challenging situations, i.e., keeping focus in low light. Also, the ability to take sips of bootleg CinemaDNG in the 4K...mmm.

I can see BM offering a 4K Micro. That would help penetrate the gimbal market, since the pocket 4k doesn't balance well or easily.

So far this looks like more of a wireless focus system, without need for a external focus unit. Kudos! However, for continuous autofocus, I seemed to have missed it. This looks like a straightforward rack focus between two set points. If you’ve in fact developed continuous autofocus, is it happening within the center frame or is tracking a particular focus point (presumably through touchscreen)? Great work either way.

Why don't you integrate this into your EVF prototype

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1472974-REG/portkeys_oeye_3g_evf_oeye_3g_electronic_viewfinder.html 1080p OLED, accepts DCI 4K, $1200

Looks great for photographers. I like the leveling ball-head, but I wonder how stable it would be with a fluid head and camera setup. I had a similar combination with the gitzo cf traveler and arca Swiss P0 ball head, but I didn't feel confident putting a fluid head on top of all that. But weights on hook and legs should help. No experience w/ the Millers, but I used Sachtler aluminum tripods before. They were OK, but a little fiddly with a bit of play due to the mediocre locking mechanisms for the legs. Ronford Baker makes rock solid alum tripods, but they are heavy. CF itself is much more rigid for the size/weight. Gitzo has very reliable locks, but they're not fast (like sachtler flow tech) and they're expensive. I just carry my Gitzo as a monopod though, it's that light.

A decade ago when I shot on RED, Mark Toia extensively (exclusively?) shot on a monopod. Those Red Epic setups were fairly hefty, yet he got great results. He shot outdoors in exotic locations with rough terrain, and I think he was a major proponent of the monopod's suitability. I myself used a Monostat monopod with a manfrotto 701 head. I upgraded to the Gizto CF traveler tripod because it was nearly as light (2 pounds?) and maneuverable but obviously much more stable and flexible in use, and I've used that tripod more than any one camera, lens, etc.