independent

Well, Samsung is mostly an electronics company. Apple is much more than that. They develop their own codecs to be edited in their own software, run on their own computers, viewed on their own monitors, and published to their cloud services. The only thing missing is their own pro camera. The iPhone cameras don't require any of Apple's hardware and software, so nothing is to be gained there. Only a pro camera would really take advantage of Apple's ecosystem (and help sell products and services). Of course, Apple doesn't need Nikon; its brand is plenty strong enough, and whatever savings in R&D might not matter because Apple would probably pursue a radical redesign of both internals and externals. Also, Apple is close enough already; how hard would it be accommodate a large sensor into their existing iPhone camera processing infrastructure? They're 99% of the way there.

No I think Apple is in it for the money. Their $10,000 Mac Pro and $6,000 monitor and $1,000 for a stand isn’t for mass consumers. It’s just economics; the high price reflects the smaller units to maximize profits. But it also shows apple’s willingness to develop niche products that fit into their ecosystem. And that’s why I think it’s a no brainer for Apple to produce a completely reimagined and redesigned pro camera, because they have the pro software and pro hardware for complete integration. They can make the most efficient camera with the most cutting edge technologies with brilliant design, and you will shoot on their codec, edit in their software suite, on their computers and monitors, and publish on their platforms.

Incorrect. The market that is “shrinking” is the smartphone market. Everybody already has one, and apple has marginal advantages over the competition. Again, apple hasn’t seen growth here, which is why it’s pivoting in other industries - and succeeding. The iPhone wasn’t the first smart phone, nor was the iPod the first MP3 player, nor was AirPods the first Bluetooth headphones, nor the Apple Watch the first smart watch, and so on. But they were the most successful because they reimagined existing products. The pro camera market has been shrinking not only because so much money/innovation has been put into the smartphone race, but also because of the lack of innovation by Sony, canon, Nikon, etc. That’s exactly the kind of good opportunity for Apple. They don’t invent products, they reinvent them. The key issue is you’re stuck in that same mindset...pro cameras haven’t peaked, the existing companies have peaked. See also Tesla and the automobile industry.

Business mercy? It’s Apple’s modus operandus to generate growth by penetrating other markets with disruptive technologies - the way they did with watches, headphones, phones, mp3 players, etc. In fact, Apple’s growth has come from wearables and services; their phone, computer, and tablet sales have been stagnant. However, if Apple put their Ax or Mx ARM chips in a full sensor camera, with neural processing, software integration with Prores Raw, lidar-boosted autofocus, etc., they would likely crush the pro photo/video market. It’s almost a logical move. Apple has already a complete ecosystem for pro photo/video, hardware and software. They’ve had relationships with R3d and Blackmagic, but neither can keep up. Let’s put it this way; Apple made $10,000 computers to accommodate professionals. Then they showed how by controlling a codec, an $800 iPad could edit 8k. They put internal 4K 10-bit in an iphone, while that feat had eluded the major camera manufacturers until this year. Anyways, Nikon has the infrastructure for rapid integration of Apple’s technologies. If Apple developed a full frame camera with all the technologies and features in the iphone, I’d buy it.

Apple should buy Nikon and bring all their innovative technologies to professional cameras.

Truly mind-blowing. For all the shit Apple gets, and often well-deserved since they do put out a lot of bullshit, the M1 is an industry disrupter. Processor clock speeds and ram sizes are rendered meaningless now, especially with the optimization w/ macOS. Sure, the next more advanced M1 Macs will be insane, but I'm not waiting if I can do basic 4K-8K editing for the next few years with a cheap, small, quiet computer. I can't wait to get this damn egpu off my desk, farting hot air into my face. (If only SSDs would improve in $/TB, and I can get rid of this 8-disk raid too). With the M1, Apple hasn't created a more innovative product since the original iPhone. Speaking of which, I'm returning this 12 pro max for a Mac mini. Why would I need a new phone during another year of lockdowns? Fooled me again, apple. But M1 is a Great Leap Forward.

The inability to add RAM or an eGPU means these macs better do everything you need now and the near future. They do need to sell iMacs and Mac Pros, though.

So all three Macs share the same M1 chip...wouldn't they all perform roughly the same? Also, sad to see the Mac Mini top out at only 16GB of ram and drop the 10-bit gigabit ethernet.

I owned the a7s and skipped the a7sii for the a7iii, which had been the best all-around hybrid camera for a good time. The internal 10-bit codecs are a necessary upgrade, as is the improved color, but I think what's most interesting is the gyro-based catalyst browse stabilization (like the SteadyXP module). What's slightly disappointing? It seems that the low light isn't that much improved, with both noise visible in higher ISOs combined with noise reduction that you can't turn off, which affects resolution (no oversampling). It's unequivocally a more reliable camera than the R5, but if one can accept the overheating limitations, the R5 has better image quality—bleeding edge actually, in 8K raw. The Sony a7siii is a safe, great all-arounder, but nothing really all that exciting about it.

C70 is the best bet at the moment for your budget. Weddings and docs should prioritize usability over all else. You miss the shot, you're fired! You just need to choose what's practical for a dynamic shooting environment. The c70 is unique in that price range for internal NDs, superior dynamic range, clean low light, great color, all leading to minimal post work, which also allows for fast turnaround. Of course the on-board audio features, AF, lightweight, etc. all contribute to what helps a solo shooter or skeleton crew. You certainly can make it work with other cameras, but they won't be easier. But for commercial work, generally speaking, camera systems are far less important than the production elements (location, lighting, crew, etc.). And you'll probably rent anyways, because if the producer or client wants a specific camera, it won't be the one in your price range.

It’s technological progress. All cameras today have hot chips and fishy algorithms in them too. The iPhones will continue to devastate consumer photo cameras, but that’s a problem for manufacturers. Regardless, pro video is currently too far ahead for too many reasons. If anything, I see this accelerating innovation and features in the pro market, and I welcome whatever makes the job easier. I do look forward to better TikTok videos.

Taken aback by the patina in your voice. Several octaves lower than expected too.

And did CDA Tek get even a hat tip?

It depends on 1) what your projects needs are and 2) how you like to shoot. I really liked the Sigma 18-35mm so the 15-35mm RF feels very comfortable (shooting oversampled crop mode on the R5). So I'd recommend the RF 15-35mm for the C70 over the 24-70mm, which I'd prefer for full frame. Why not speedboosted w/ EF? Because of Nano USM, which makes the on-top mic far more usable instead of just relegated to scratch mic. EF is dead to me.

The C70 and C300iii have a completely different sensor and image processing than the c300ii's--or any other camera's. The Dual Gain Output is the key technological advantage. Gerald Undone, Dave May, and Jake Ratcliffe from CVP all clearly showed how the DGO helps retain color and pull detail from the shadows or "underexposed" images, without the artifacts seen in other cameras. Even the new Sony a7s iii, while amazing for its high ISO sensitivity, is surprisingly noisy in the shadows, as noted by Brandon Li BTS/review. And internal NDs aren't absolutely necessary, but It certainly sucks to fiddle with screw-on filters, fight image degradation with variable NDs, or spend thousands on matte boxes and filters. I think that's the biggest compromise w/ the R5. NDs (in the adapter) or the quiet, stabilized RF lenses. For the C70, the biggest compromise is Full Frame (in the speed booster) or the quiet, stabilized RF lenses.

It's the same sensor. The magic is a dual gain output, like Arri. But not the same; Canon's advantage is in the shadows while Arri's is in the highlights. So you should still protect the highlights w/ the C300iii or C70

Oh believe me, it was a joke about people overreacting about cameras. Read it again. But if you have to explain a joke to a cunt, well, I guess that's on me.

Ironically, you missed the irony and the joke. And the irony. As well as the joke.

There's no video camera right now that checks off as many boxes as does the C70. That doesn't meant it's the right camera for everybody. However, it is amazing to see how many people require a built-in EVF, SDI-port, and RAW. And must let the world know the tragedy of their unmet needs. We all know you twits shoot on iPhones. The C70 has portrait mode too you cunts

Green screen/vfx. Unpredictable lighting. "Artists." R3d users. Me and my R5

The C70 is an interesting intermediate option during this critical turning point in lens mount. RF lenses, and the RF mount, are clearly the future; Canon is not making any more EF lenses. Also, technically the RF L lenses are superior, which matters. I've tested the EF 50 1.2 v RF 50 1.2, and the resolving power of the RF is significantly superior. For static shots, you will immediately notice the difference (shot in 8K raw, viewed on 5K monitor). Also, for some lenses, there's not a huge price difference between EF and RF (24-105 F4 retails for the same, RF 15-35mm v EF 16-35mm is $200 retail difference). That being said, with the EF focal reducer adapter, you get the full frame look. It's not cheap at $600, but it's still way cheaper than the $11,000 c300iii that's still stuck w/ crop sensor. Then again, you could also just use the $100 EF/RF adapter and use the lovely Sigma 18-35mm and the Canon nano-usm zooms that are dirt cheap and silent for video. You can walk away with a $5600 ready to shoot package. It's a very flexible camera.

More flexibility. You can still push the color grade much more w/ 12-bit raw. And with some post work, de-noising, you can probably get it to look closer to the shootouts. But the c70/c300iii 10-bit 422 XFAVC looks great straight out of the camera if you don't screw up too badly with exposure, white balance, etc. Faster turnaround, you don't have to spend as much time in post.

They will. But it'll be in the Canon C500 III.

An EVF is a great thing to have, but I've primarily used the LCD for the touchscreen focus on the R5, even in daylight - I just change the viewing angle. I've also used the Ninja V on top of the R5, which was quite good during daylight too. The availability of even higher nit monitors somewhat mitigates the issue. To be honest, I never liked the EVF placement on any of the Canon cinema cameras, and I've either owned or operated almost every single one of them (not the C700). It's not very ergonomic to hold the camera in that position. The EVF is best placed on the side of the camera, for shoulder-mount. None of the canon cinema cameras were ENG ready out of the box. For bigger productions, the C70 would be primarily used for gimbals, so no EVF needed. For indie shoots, I would imagine it would be used mostly on sticks or if handheld, with the top handle for cradle shots or on easyrigs.

Codecs are efficient, practical, professional, broadcast-ready codec that you don't need to clean up in post. Following the c300iii, the shadows will be noise-free under ISO 25600, SOOC. True, you don't have all the flexibility of raw if you want to do heavy color grading, but you also have great color because of the the parallel readout of RGGB rather than debayer process. Also, due to the efficient codec, you save a lot of cash on media and storage. If you're a one-man shooter who shoots fast, all this helps.