independent

As a former pocket 6k owner, I loved that camera. That image can go head-to-head with any camera today. All these upgrades are incredible for $500 more. Lack of autofocus does hurt it relative to the competition. But if you shoot anamorphic, this is the cheapest way to get the best image.

God forbid unsubstantiated opinions! GU, CVP have done some rigorous testing—up to 12800 is clean and usable. Above that, the Fx6 is the way to go with the higher iso kicking in at 12800, with NR controls to avoid the heavy artifacts in the a7s3. As far as dynamic range, GU, deep in Sony's pocket at this point, nonetheless acknowledges that the c70 has better dynamic range than either a7s or fx6, which is quite remarkable because the c70 has a super35 sensor. CineD also corroborated this w/ the c300iii, using the same sensor and codec as the c70. That somewhat makes it even more exciting, because the focal reducer transforms the c70 into another camera really.

what are you talking about?

The a7s3 gets its dynamic range number w/ noise reduction - artificially boosting the S/R of 2, which CineD (and Gerald later adopted). The c70 is 13+ stops at that S/R if I recall correctly, better than the a7s3--or the fx6 (below 13), which makes sense because of the c70's dual gain sensor. Only the Alexa is better.

The Sony fx3 will definitely justify its existence if it offers: noise reduction control Pro monitoring tools including false color, which would help avoid needing an external monitor. That would save you the money, preserve the small form factor, and of course, audio on the top handle leaves no room for external monitor. eNDs v. IBIS...I'm guessing IBIS would be more important to counter the jitters on a small body If it has better AF features like touchscreen tracking and an audio input, that would certainly be an advantage over the fx6

You're seeing smartphones eating shitty digital camera market. Nothing wrong with that. Pro camera markets are fine; if anything, prices have come down: compare the prices of the Canon C300 series; the C300iii was released $4K lower compared to its predecessors. The introduction of C200, C70. Sony with their FX6. Red has trended cheaper as well, from the scarlet to the Komodo. For hybrids, I haven't looked into the financials, but goodness, Canon did well during a pandemic w/ the R5 and R6. Also, I don't think hybrid prices have necessarily risen, relatively speaking (not even accounting for inflation) Canon 5Dii: 2699 Canon 5Diii: 3499 Canon 5DIV: 3499 Canon R5: 3999, Canon R6: 2499 Well some manufacturers have: Sony A7s: $2500 Sony A7s2: $3000 Sony A7s3: $3499

Yeah, the $6K A1 is targeted at coal miners

Fuji and Sony bringing back 420 recording like it's 2019

Sony's on fire. Love how they're putting random hot trash out on the curb while nobody can get a PS5.

Via Phil Holland: difference in sensor area between the R5 and Sony A1 for 8K UHD. R5 is a bit larger, 33.75x18.98 (38.72mm image circle) vs. Sony's 31.91mm x 17.95mm (36.61mm). So the Sony has a 1.06 crop compared to the R5. That might not seem like a lot, but I've shot in tight spaces like cars, bathrooms, closets, etc. and every mm counts that's what she said

Apple is next

It can't record Raw internally? The 8K is 420, really? 30-min limit? $6500? What a miss. I'd rather drop a copper heatsink into a R5 and save $2500. And it would still be a better camera.

No, it's a flawed comparison. For example, the data pool of the 2019 chart draws from Rotten Tomatoes rated films, the 2020 from a Thriller opinion piece. Next, the RT chart pulled a random number of movies, 43, while the Thriller list collected an equally random, but much fewer, 24 movies. A meaningful comparison would be choosing the same metrics and meaningful, bias-free sample size. Why not compare all Netflix originals films in 2019 with those in 2020? Because that would actually require work and competent journalism.

Andrew's not wrong, but I'm not surprised by the corporate-speak. This is nothing new...execs want to maximize profits for the company. Why can't the a7siii turn off noise reduction? Why does the fx6 have crippled AF? Why does camera have a YouTube channel? There's no question Canon wants to upsell customers on their cinema cameras or upcoming R1 or R5ii. Did Canon strike out by selling a flawed camera that nobody asked for? Tell them their strategy is wrong by voting with your wallet. But I'm guessing Andrew kept his R5; he does seem to like Ferraris over Fords.

Pornhub definitely is keeping tabs. Dropping cookies in all your jars.

Well it depends on what you want or your tolerances are. If you want max image quality, the r5’s 8k raw is arguably among the best for any camera. The dynamic range figures have to be contextualized with NR. If you want great useable dynamic range straight out of the camera, the c70 is great. The R5 8k raw requires work in post, but that’s any raw camera. With some NR its DR and high ISO end up being quite competitive or even better than the A7s iii. But the 8k raw’s detail and color are superior to anything under $15k.

The Sony a7s3 isn't advertised as having a dual native ISO because it doesn't have it. Does anybody have any information that 12800 is a non-amplified ISO? The Sony "behaves" like it does because it applies heavy in-camera noise reduction starting at 12800, which makes the footage increasingly cleaner at the cost of losing detail and introducing artifacts such as smearing. This has been depicted in nearly every relevant review of the A7S3. This isn't to say that the NR feature is bullshit. It's useful if you have a fast turnaround and your footage is good enough at those high ISOs. But you also can't turn it off, which is why the Sony FX6 is the better low light camera. Also clearly demonstrated.

Hybrid camera of the year: Canon R5, the NSX to the A7Siii's Accord Video camera of the year: Sony FX6, the Tom Cruise to the C70's unChristian Bale Audio product of the year: Tentacles Sync Track E, Zaxcom version Biggest Innovator: Apple. M1 (agreed) will push all editing machines and software, but Apple has also promoted pro/cutting-edge features in its iPhone such as Dolby Vision, Lidar autofocus, IBIS, which challenge standards even in the pro industry. AI and machine learning, though not exclusive to Apple, will definitely change post-production processes in the very near future. 2020 was a great year in filmmaking tools that make the job easier. Now, getting jobs.

As standalone cameras? Sure. As part of a pocket computer, aka smartphones? The market size will approach the human population. How many people buy a phone because of how well it makes phone calls? How many buy a phone based on the improving cameras? 4K 10-bit, IBIS, Lidar, Dolby vision. Sadly, some traditional camera companies have been having trouble putting these features in their flagship cameras. Consumer digital cameras are simply being displaced and integrated into another product, which isn’t unusual, as seen in the case of cassette players, CD players, MP3 players, pagers, cell phones, blackberrys, watches, etc. Thus, those graphs are misleading. The market for better digital cameras has never been bigger. The problem, if there is one, is that some old camera companies haven’t been able to justify their existence. Never have consumers, hobbyists, and professionals had such access to creative video filmmaking tools as we all do now. Innovation hasn’t slowed, it’s accelerating—over the dead bodies of dinosaurs.

This was a good question five years ago.

Quite a few successful docs and feature films were shot on the c300, including the Oscar winner OJ: Made in America and the great German film Victoria. Cameras get better, but talent stays the same.

But masses and masses of shitty cameras are indeed still being made—for smartphones. But they're not built by Nikon. The shitty camera market exists, and business is booming; every person on the planet now has a shitty built-in lens camera—right in our smartphone. That's just the evolution of technology. Sony Walkmans have also disappeared, but not the market for portable audio. No need to pour one out for the standalone compact camera market, good riddance! But the overall camera market is alive and well, and cameras ostensibly have become a feature that drives competition among smartphones—how often is the camera the most heavily marketed feature every release? Nearly all of the time. Now on to the subject of Nikon. Whether it's because corporate culture, Japanese or otherwise, there's nothing unusual about large companies going under. Regardless, Nikon's products weren't competitive enough, just like Olympus. Maybe Nikon should have paid more attention to mobile (See Samsung), but maybe not (See Red). Regardless, I think you are a bit sentimental about these camera brands. But they have to justify their existence.

And you’d be wrong, because nobody is editing iPhone footage on Final Cut Pro on Mac Pros, iMac Pro’s, etc. Nobody. iPhones aren’t selling Macs. And please stop with the “shrinking market” phenomenon. The market for shitty cameras has shrunk. Actually, not really, because that market has been displaced and coupled with the smartphone industry. So the market for shitty cameras has actually grown. Everybody in the world now has a shitty camera in his pocket. However, the market for interchangeable lens cameras (non-shitty) has stayed relatively constant over the past decade, because these are the cameras that pros are using. And we still see significant innovation and evolution in professional cameras, and more importantly, a gap between amateur and professional content. That’s what will drive that market and keep it alive and lucrative, until that gap is closed. Nikon isn’t struggling because of a shrinking market. It’s struggling because its cameras can’t compete with Canon and Sony. Thus my argument for Apple: they can quite easily develop an even better camera than either company. And there’s money in that.

Red is for sale? If they are, Apple just might, just to own the patents. My guess is that JJ will never sell, because he loves himself more than money. Apple's patent challenge against Red is a much stronger sign of their interest in the pro camera business; Prores Raw is limited to mostly Atomos external, which is a bottleneck in many ways. In fact, think about the Canon R5 and Sony a7s3's HEVC h.265 footage, which is impossible to play or edit on most machines. Except of course, the new Macs, which can edit them quite cheaply. Bingo. Again, why wouldn't Apple want to release a professional camera that would boost their entire ecosystem? They are pushing various technologies that really only make sense if they add the final piece to the puzzle.

No complaints about the dynamic range in 8K Raw