independent

Try Resolve. No issues w/ the Raw light files on Mac mini M1.

Some of you guys are getting way too caught up in dynamic range "numbers" on tests. All the recent cameras have similar dynamic range, although the processing will manipulate those numbers obviously (see Sonys w/ blotchy NR - is that worth it for you?) For the R5, shoot raw, protect the highlights. Use clog2. When you downscale from 8K, most visible noise will be gone--any remaining will be a fine, film-like grain that's quite nice. No better image south of the C500ii or fx9 in my opinion.

Just updated. Wow, game changer. Must test recording time. Overheating a thing of the past? If the only recording limitation is the 30-min recording time, practically speaking, then overheating might be a concern only in hot environments. The RAW LIGHT (a bit awkward to navigate so many options in the menu now) - I'm genuinely surprised. The regular raw bitrate is proportional to cinema raw light, so I doubted Canon could somehow decrease the bitrate-but they did! A new format that is nearly 40% reduced, even below the C500ii's 6k raw. This has a major impact on storage costs in the post-production chain.

Still 8-bit internal? What’s the point of a compact camera that needs an external monitor

Be aware that the SLR Magic II is bulky and may interfere with your lens hood. The Schneider is very slim and won't interfere. Very few reviews out there, but I believe they own B+W, which is more photo-oriented. The Schneider has a much greater ND range too, with minimal color shift.

Yes, you have to take mic recommendations with a bag of salt, especially from people who have strong opinions about what microphone is the greatest. That's nonsense, because a microphone's particular qualities compose only a subset of factors among many others, including the recording environment or, as you mentioned, the talent's voice. As you see in YouTube reviews, microphone comparisons are often not that helpful, because they're limited to that location, speaker, etc. And even then, you'll get different opinions about what sounds better. Microphones have different pickup patterns, frequency responses, sensitivities, etc., that make one more suitable than others. All things being equal, if you're considering mics with similar characteristics, very few will be able to tell the difference between brands or models. This is why real sound guys aren't gear heads. There's no magic mic. Skill and knowledge are 99% of it. They'll look at the space, see what needs to be treated, look at the script, microphone placement, and pick the mic that makes sense. This is why they have a variety of mics in their bag. Beware of any sound guy who talks too much about gear or who pimps a specific mic. He does so to make up for skill or knowledge.

Tom. You got DP in your name but the only depth of field that's affected is in your game. Focal reducers do not affect DOF. They reduce focal length and boost speed. Thus the descriptive names. They are not called depth-of-field reducers for reasons that have clearly been explained on the metabones website and of course, mathematically. If you check the DOF formula, the boosted f-stop is cancelled out by the reduction in focal length. Of course, this is also obvious in practice. You seem so sure of yourself...have you actually used them? If so, so why don't you put a 50 1.4 on your full frame camera and compare it with a speedboosted S35. The enhanced cropped sensor will display a similar field of view and depth of field, but the image will be exposed a stop brighter (f1.0).

What is comparable between 8k RAW and 4k 8-bit motion jpeg?

All the non-internal NDs come with compromises. Matte box and filters=$ and bulk. The tangerine ones are pretty good on a budget though. The canon vari-ND adapter is excellent, but the downside is forgoing RF glass. I tested a variety of screw-ons, including the Tiffen, SLR Magic, and Schneider vari-ND ii. The Schneider was the only one that worked with standard hoods, had front threads, and had minimal color shift. I bought three of them in 82mm to cover my usual three-lens kit, so I don't have to deal with screwing filters on and off on a shoot.

The 1dxiii’s internal raw is still a compelling reason to buy it and the R5. There are no other true internal raw hybrid cameras. Canon almost certainly paid the toll troll for Red’s hole.

Why, how much do they pay at a Wendy's these days?

In comparing the two, I think the Canon focal reducer/ speed booster needs to be added to the equation. Not only would that make it more equal in price, but it makes the c70 essentially full frame. There is a technical difference of course; while the focal reducer increases field of view and brightness, it doesn't change the DOF. Personally, I think that's a plus. I'd prefer the unique flexibility in gaining a stop in light without the accompanying razor-thin plane of focus. Just more practical.

I don't have experience w/ the Fx6, but the noise difference between log v. non-log (Cinetone) in low-light is a phenomenon clearly described by Sony Ambassador Alister Chapman: This isn't just a phenomenon with Sony log, this is across the board. Here are some tests that I did with the Canon 8K Raw, shot log v. non-log. These shots were pushed from 800 to 6400, as I was actually testing latitude, but you get the idea (click on the images to see it more clearly). When you have to shoot low light and don't need the dynamic range, shoot non-log for lower noise.

Lectros and Zaxcom are industry standards for bigger productions. But the OP was asking about Sony UWP vs Sennheiser G3/G4. For that class of gear, the Sennheiser is much more" pro" than the Sonys in terms of adoption, availability, and actual use in the industry. Go call the rental houses in New York City. I guarantee you that all of them rent out the Sennheisers along with Lectros and Zaxcoms. Ask them whether the Sennheiser or Sony is more "pro," and most will tell you they don't carry the Sonys. That should tell you something. That's not to say the Sonys are bad! Just be careful listening to some poster on the internet who culls info from jwsoundgroup.net and goes around on other forums as some self-styled expert.

There's always that contrast between mainstream and niche. Boring is subjective and relative, across culture and throughout time. As a child, you found cartoons interesting and the news boring; the inverse is (generally) true as an adult. The difference is that the internet has just exponentially increased the amount of media to a wider audience. Of course, the resulting popular media that emerges is quite vanilla--but many people like vanilla. If you're looking for the meaning of life in TikTok videos—that's a you problem. You're looking in the wrong place. The number of innovative or experimental movies has increased as well. It just takes work to discover them. As it should. As it always has. Some remember what it was like reach into the unexplored shelves of independent video stores. That was sometimes the best part.

Yes these are just your opinions. The majority of which don’t jibe with the industry.

No, it’s the type of logic that get the job done. Reliability, compatibility, availability, etc., all matter more, especially on larger sets with bigger casts and crew. All rental houses carry boatloads of Sennheiser G3s/G4s, for good reason. But if you’re by yourself, and you’re wiring up your mom and the mailman, then sure, you can choose whatever toy to tell your story. Except for the Sennheiser 416. That’s a tool. Leave that for the pros.

Huh, yeah interesting, I guess people have different tolerances. I often shoot in a sound-controlled environment so the AF noise is pretty important to me. Especially with smaller crews now, it's good to have another usable audio track from the camera. STMs aren't uniformly quiet. USMs are also not all the same. I have a 24 f2.8 IS USM that is much quieter than the 35 f2 IS USM or RF 50 1.2. The Nano USM models are all great, virtually undetectable. I just wish Canon would make fast primes w/ Nano USM. Anybody have experience with quiet, fast Sigmas?

Check the site? https://en-us.sennheiser.com/sifa Anyways, get the Sennheiser. They're extremely common, everybody is familiar with them, and warranty/repair service is excellent.

How loud is the autofocus on that STM lens? Would an external mic pick that up? I use the EF 35 IS version to take advantage of the ND filter adapter, but the autofocus noise on that USM lens is definitely noticeable.

Gray lipstick on a pig

I had a scarlet too when it came out- can't argue with the image when properly exposed. But I compared it with the original BM 2.5K, which completely crushed the scarlet in low light. At least a couple stops. I see the same trade off with the Komodo. But when properly exposed, Red is hard to beat. The c70 does seem to have an issue w/ AF on darker skin tones; Brandon Washington and Griffin Conway demonstrated this issue. Might be able to be fixed w/ a firmware update, but it's pretty disappointing regardless. That being said, the fx6 has its own autofocus issues w/ a lack of touch af tracking. I do think the c70 and fx6 are the two best affordable pro cameras out there, but they're definitely not perfect. The Blackmagic P6K Pro is just a pure cinema camera. Manual focus, s35, pro monitoring tools, etc. Slap on an Sirui anamorphic and shoot your movie the old fashioned way.

What is it, laziness or incompetence? Watch the GU videos of the c70 and Fx6, which he compares with the a7s3. The cineD article can also be googled: "c300 iii dynamic range." Anything beyond that, you'll have to compensate me for my efforts. PM me, I'm affordable

Autofocus is not necessary for many reasons. It's also necessary for many reasons.

Well, you didn't click on the link that I posted, which would take you exactly to the iso tests. So that tells me you're lazy, and I did all that work for nothing. Pay me!