Django

Saw Soderbergh's Presence the other day. Immediately noticed it was shot on mirrorless with gimbal, and turns out its the A9iii with Sony FE 14mm F1.8 GM. Interesting choice for a full-feature, it makes sense since the POV is a floating ghost inside a house: "We shot this on the [Sony Alpha 9 III], which is, as you know, a digital [mirrorless] camera. Its primary mode is as a still camera, but it also shoots really good video. It’s small, and this new version has a sensor that was never used in [this kind of camera] before. I did experiments with all the digital cameras that I’d worked with before and ones I hadn’t. I stripped them down as much as I could, then put them on the smallest stabilization rig that would support them. What I discovered was that there was just a couple of pounds’ difference between the camera I could use and stabilize and be able to back into any space I wanted to, and the next step up made that impossible because of the weight. We did all these tests with the Sony and this one rig. And I’m like, 'This’ll work. It’s not heavy.'"

Fuji often come up with great concepts but miss on their first gen products.. X100, Xpro, XT, GFX etc. The Eterna cine also got lukewarm reception. I still think GFX100RF is a great concept, shrinking the GFX body and bringing the fixed lens X100 rangefinder design to medium format with some really cool ergonomic additions (the aspect ratio / crop front & back dials, the custom front lever). Only real bummer is the lens & IBIS. I could imagine a GFX50RF with a f2.8 lens & IBIS. 6K. Open-gate. Now that would be a smash. I can understand the price point objective of under $5K. Fuji wants to undercut Leica as they should.

Fuji says it was a compromise between size and price. They had a strict goal to keep the size and thickness around X100 series. In fact they are hoping to apply the X100 "sold out" viral success in an upscale segment. Price had to fit under the $5K mental barrier. So that explains it, wether they achieve commercial success is another story though. I'm guessing the thinking for low light situations is to go with a flash, since the leaf shutter allows super high sync capabilities. I would have loved it if they had included a flash like on X100 series, but again size and price. I can see this camera working great for certain applications. But I can also see it being frustrating at others and the overall IQ is just not what you'd expect from a camera at that price point imo (unless you really like slow wide lenses). If they unlock the aspect ratios and crop factors for video it may make it slightly more interesting as a fun cool hybrid but I still think there are better options in the compact fixed lens universe, including their own X100VI that has IBIS, NDs, flash, 6K, hybrid OVF/EVF, f2 lens.. at a third of the price. The GFX100RF feels like more of a luxury statement camera with mid specs. Probably the most Leica product from Fuji. They could have called it the GFX100BF.

I've watched a lot of reviews and even downloaded some RAW pics and came to the conclusion that this is not going to be the cam for me personally despite how much I wanted it to be. The bottleneck is really the lens. Its not so much that its an f4 but a 28mm equivalent pancake f4 just gives a very dull iPhone look and totally counteracts the huge sensor and kills the medium format look imo. No mojo, no 3D pop, super flat/compressed bokeh/blur. I've seen smartphone pics that look better than some of these GFX100 RF shots. Maybe for architecture, landscape this could work thanks to the high MP & DR. Obviously street photography is what this rangefinder type camera is about but yeah f4 isn't really great for low light situations. Not to mention the crop features will not even make it an f4 as far as DoF. The aspect ratio dial is the coolest thing about this camera but it isn't actual aspect ratio like in medium format film. Its just a sensor crop here, you're not actually getting extra width like on XPan. FoV won't change, less DoF control and significant drop in resolution (not a huge problem with 102MP but still a big drop). So in the end its really more of a framing gimmick. Finally the video specs while suitable are nothing exceptional. Especially without IBIS or 4K60p. Also a big shame the cropping and aspect ratio options aren't there in video. I still think its a gorgeous camera and maybe in the right hands its inspiring. But the actual results I've seen so far seem quite boring/dull. When you're going with a fixed lens it better be good and the one they chose just doesn't excite me one bit. At this point I'd probably prefer a Q2, Sigma BF with fast prime, X100 VI or my M9 with Summicron 28mm. Oh and of course any GFX interchangeable with a better lens.

I’ve watched a couple reviews, no indication that the aspect ratio dial and crop modes are active in video, so I’m going to assume they’re not there. Missed opportunity vs the Q2/Q3. The lens is imo the big question mark. I’m not seeing anything mind blowing or that even screams medium format look. But it’s still very early..

I was going to say the X100 & Leica Q series but hot damn the leaked GFX fixed lens camera looks insane! $5K isn’t really that expensive for a top quality medium format camera with a compact leaf shutter lens and ND filters. At first 35mm f4 seemed like a miss but that converts to 28mm f3.2 in full frame terminology which isn’t that bad. Basically very close to a 28mm f2.8. The aspect ratio wheel is cool beans. In fact aspect ratio settings seems like the cool new thing, saw a review of the Bf showcasing how quick and effective it can be to frame shots. I hope that feature works in video mode too. Shame there is no IBIS but other than that this could be my dream « art » camera!

Rules are meant to be broken and Von Trier & Vinterberg did so by the early 2000's. Their first films under Dogme95 were shot using MiniDV and they later quickly embraced RED/ARRI digital cinema. Breaking the Waves was shot on 35mm but digitally scanned to process it in post and give it an aesthetic. Basically early modern color grading. All movies shot on film today are scanned digitally and graded. 35mm usually scanned at 4K-6K and 65mm/75mm 8K and beyond. Projection is also digital. Its a fallacy to think film is super soft with lack of detail. People romanticise old 35mm movies but they were usually scanned at 480p/720p for TV, VHS, DVD. Most of the time from from second or even third gen prints not even original film negatives or masters. Maybe you are into soft grainy contrasty Lo-fi analogue aesthetic and that's fine but you can emulate that look pretty well today in Davinci. Personally I embrace digital cinema and how its democratised filmmaking on a lower budget. And while I do have a deep appreciation for analogue medium in general (especially as a musician, engineer) I recognise it is more about the tactile experience and workflow than sound/image quality which can be closely emulated today in digital.

« Color Grading »

Very likely FX3ii will use the A9iii sensor and have 24MP/6K global shutter.

Sure but why limit yourself to the 8 or 9 film simulations only two of which are cinema film stock? The best for that approach would be LUT recording enabled cameras, assuming you have a favourite/custom LUT collection in your NLE. S9 has as far as I know best implementation with stackable LUTs, opacity etc and a phone app to edit/manage them. I think you can even add film grain to video. you can also use the LUTs on stills which is pretty cool as it even differentiates log from standard sources. I really hope more manufacturers use this approach. Never been a fan of stock picture profiles especially for video.

You must consider most network channels in the US (ABC, NBC, CBS & FOX) still use 1080i; 720p HD resolution. This opens up or rather holds back quite antique video shooting standards versus Europe that has vastly transitioned long time ago to FHD and even 4K with 10-bit 422 requirements. Of course cable TV & streaming services in the US have higher requirements too.

There are more real life tests on YT that show 8K RAW with no NR has much cleaner shadows on R5 mk2 vs noise/banding on R5. But the big DR jump in the cined lab test happens in the compressed 4K HQ/fine modes. Could be more aggressive NR but the main difference imo is Clog2 vs Clog3 alongside cleaner shadows from the better SNR of the Mk2 stacked sensor.

I'm a long-time Canon shooter and my next camera will probably be an R5C or R5 mk2. That said my on-going workhorse camera is an FS7 because it gives me work. Logic would dictate I get an FX3/FX6 but I'm just not a fan of the camera specs / price ratio in 2025: No 6K/8K, No open gate, No RAW, No EVF etc.. with a price tag here in Europe still at 4500€ for FX3. Sony's dominance comes at a price, to me they are the overpriced and under spec'd cameras today.

For me it would be: 1. Workhorse hybrid (R5/R5ii/R5C, Z8/Z9, S1Rii, A7RV/FX3 etc). 2. Compact personal/travel camera (Leica rangefinder, X100VI, Sigma FP/BF). 3. Cine camera for long format / high-end work (FS7, FX6, C70/C80, BMD, Komodo). Anything else for me is a luxury/niche. I do have couple film cameras, including point & shoot favourite Yashica T4 (would love a Contax G2, Leica M7). Old SLR & DSLRs. The dream "art" video camera I want doesn't really exist, basically a new digital Bolex form factor with IBIS & NDs that shoots open-gate. I imagine Fuji could do that although it seems they're going another direction for their cine cam introduction..

Oh I agree with you and not trying to argue R5 mk2 is the best camera in each category nor was I even comparing it to Nikons. I was just pleasantly surprised to find out that in 4K fine mode the DR in Clog2 puts it all the way up to the 6th position in their rankings between Venice 2 and ARRI. In comparison the original R5 is ranked 72nd with 10.8 stops of DR. Quite a significant leap that no one seemed to really notice. I'm not that concerned with exposure latitude tests as indeed I never intend to under expose an image to those limits however usable DR in a well exposed scene is definitely always a plus, especially in backlit situations which can be crucial in certain scenarios. Also from my own tests, Clog2 is just a lot less contrasty and saturated than Clog3. Skin tones are much more natural. So that and the added DR is to me a significant advantage of the R5 mk2 vs mk1. Now comparing it to the Z8 that's a tougher one, different pros & cons. I do really like the Z8/Z9 and was so close to grabbing a Z9 last summer as it ticks so many boxes. But as mentioned I had exposure trouble shooting N-log and grading workflow was tricky versus Canon C-log. Maybe with more time on the camera I'd get to satisfactory shooting/grading level but sadly that just wasn't at all the case for me in my short time with the Nikon. I did love many things about Z8/Z9, namely the ergonomics, tilt display, speed, ProRes codecs, 4K60p oversampled, color science and neutral/flat profiles. What I didn't like was menu/banks system, AF that would often focus on eye lash instead of iris, no LUT support, unreliable log exposure assistance. These things could all be corrected in firmware and the pros do outweigh the cons. In the end its the overall lens ecosystem that'll drive you one way or the other. I'm more invested in Canon so its going to take a lot for me to switch to Nikon. Rumor has it R5 mk2 is getting open-gate. Obviously to be taken with a huge grain of salt, and Nikon could very well add that as well. That would be a significant draw for me.

Actually the R5 mk2 cined lab test reveals some quite interesting results. You can choose the binned 4K for an impressive 9.7ms RS or the 4Kfine option for detailed oversampled 4K in Clog2 with class-leading 13.3 (SNR2) 14.2 (SNR1) stops of DR! That is totally outstanding and something no one has talked about up until now. This places the R5 mk2 in this shooting mode above all other mirrorless cameras and makes it sit in between the Venice 2 & Alexa Mini LF. I was already blown away by R5 mk2 Clog2 files I've played with and now I understand better why. I think R5 mk2 has been overlooked as the specs sheet isn't that impressive but actual test results are and for DR alone I think its revealing itself to be a killer camera.

Sure, Sony lens lineup a decade ago wasn't nearly as complete in pricing & range as was EF. Sony has done a great job building its lens collection with the help of Zeiss, Sigma, Tamron etc. Not to mention all the esoteric/anamorphic E-mount lenses from boutique companies. Today DSLR lenses like EF aren't nearly as popular due to size, weight & poor video AF performance. The C70 wasn't that overpriced in the sense that its an actual cine camera with pro I/O, ND filters, large battery etc. It also had a pretty singular DGO sensor from the top of the line C300 mk3. FX3 was basically a rehoused A7S3. The main issue is that C70 was RF S35 but with zero APS-C RF lenses so you had to get the speed booster to adapt old EF glass. Really convoluted approach.. C80 is what it should have been from the start. Still for solo docu work I'd take a C70/C80 over an FX3 for the NDs, internal RAW, battery life & I/Os. You'd have to step up to FX6 for a fair comparison. FX3's competition is R5C.

I think a big part of why Canon lost to Sony in the low/mid segment is the change of mount & lenses. Canon were super slow to update their cine line to RF and still have this problem were only C70/C80 are RF and the rest is EF. On the Sony side its just E-mount through & through for over a decade. This consistency makes it a lot stronger to build and invest in the ecosystem. Not to mention RF mount has almost no S35 lenses and is closed to third-parties. That whole strategy just backfired on them big time imo. I still like Canon cameras and lenses but it's a much weaker ecosystem than Sony. Now Nikon have a chance to enter this market with Z-mount RED/Nikon cine line. Fuji are attempting with the Eterna but I feel that's going to flop, should have gone with a Fuji X APS-c sensor like the one inside XH2S.

I think it just confirms the on-going trend that in the broadcast/videography world Sony is the leader with Canon still present but trailing behind. Panny, Nikon & Fuji are so far behind they're basically absent although that could potentially shift in years to come. I've noticed the Sony dominance within my own local docu/concert/event scene. Its to the point where if you don't show up with Sony gear, people look at you funny. If you want work in that scene you basically just gotta be a Sony operator. I'm not sure how to explain it other than Sony FX ecosystem is really popular and yeah they have a head start with a FF range from A7 to FX3 to FX9. Also the A7S3/FX3/FX6 sensor is a lowlight champ with super low rolling shutter which helps a lot for run & gun docu style work. Also S-Log3 is kind of the standard in production houses. C-log is acceptable too. Other log formats can be problematic to hand in. For example I haven't even figured out how to expose/grade Nlog correctly so it would be complicated to send N-log footage to a post unit not familiar with it. Might sound silly but its workflow stuff like that that can dictate a brand/format choice from another.. and part of why ARRI dominates the cine world.

Why would Leica need to sell out though? They are doing fine financially. The Xiaomi partnership allows a strong revenue stream with a foot in the lucrative smartphone business. They already have the top tier M/SL/Q lines and lenses and the second tier rebranded Panasonic stuff for consumers. Plus the L-mount alliance. That a pretty healthy strategy for a boutique company. Hasselblad was in a much harder position hence the DJI buy out. And while that has indeed saved the company from going tits up, many users feel its diluted the brand who's shifted focus and hasn't really innovated much since. That's why I'm not usually keen on buy-outs from big tech companies unless the only left option. The Nikon/RED thing is interesting considering there was a legal feud right before that happened. If you can't beat them, join them type of situation. Will see if Z9 follow-up (ZX) will indeed have global shutter and R3D code. Its going to be interesting because they now also have to protect the RED cine line..

Can't say I agree. As a Leica user, I absolutely care about manufacturing, build quality, country of origin etc. Call me a purist but that's what I pay for not the badge, in fact my Leica MP has no badge/red dot. I'll go even further and say the only real Leica's to me are the M, Q & SL series. As for Panasonic, they have a strong and long legacy both in audiophile world via Technics (started in 1965) and broadcast/video/cinema with the various ENG/camcorders & Varicam products. Video cameras like the DVX100 were cult among indie docs, film and music videos and game changers as they introduced 24p alongside 3CCD sensors in affordable packages. Sony also has heavy legacy in video/film with DVCAM in the 90s and CineAlta the first digital cinema cams used by Lucas in the Star Wars prequels. So while both Panny & Sony don't have CaNikons & Fuji photography background, they actually precede them in the video/cinema world hence the head start they got on that side in mirrorless. Nikon up until basically Z9 was seriously lagging in the mirrorless video market. There were even bad speculation about their financial health and future viability. They made a surprise U-turn with Z9/Z8/Z6iii and the shock acquisition of RED. Still very curious about what RED will mean. Nikon didn't have a cine line to protect, now they do so will RED tech trickle down to the Z line or will it be more of a Z-mount ecosystem?

Yeah I don't see Canon, Fuji or Sigma entering the smartphone industry for a bunch of reasons. And even if they did, I doubt they could catch up to Apple, Samsung, Google etc. RED tried and failed miserably. Canon, Fuji etc can't even get their own smartphone apps to work correctly most of the time. Their speciality is imaging and should stay focused on that. Now what I do wish is that they actually implemented on their cameras more advancements coming from smartphones. AI is just starting to creep but they're still pretty behind. Computational stuff, I know lotta people hate it but why not have access to it. Image upscaling is starting to appear, Canon leading it with the in-camera 172MP upscale in R5 mk2. Panasonic seems to start getting it with S9/S1Rii and its Lumix LAB & FLOW apps. Oh and give us bigger OLED 120hz EVF/Displays ffs. What's up with these dim tiny low res displays?! And don't even get me started with menus & overlay displays.. Why does it feel like I'm playing Pilotwings in 1992.. Give us more gestures, tap functions but also modern physical commands. I know everyone hated the Touch Bar thing on original EOS R but I actually loved it for quick exposure/ISO adjustment while eye locked in the EVF. Still haven't tried the Canon eye-control AF but yeah that's the type of innovation I like to see. Sigma BF might also be on to something.. really time to shake up the UI/GUI on these cameras.

Yeah pretty wild that in 2025 Sony only offers it on their $60K Venice 2. I’d hope that would change in the FX replacements or even some kind of update although Sony are terrible in that department. There is a rumour Canon will introduce open gate in an upcoming R5 mk2 update. It would be a smart move because that camera isn’t getting much love and no one aside from Panasonic is doing it on a hybrid (would be a direct S1Rii counter strike). Plus if Canon add it, it might push Nikon to do so as well.

Yeah I don’t really think stills burst rate limits correlates to open gate. There are cameras from Panny and BMD that offer it with much older tech. Personally I wouldn’t mind if it were offered with certain codec/fps restrictions just as long as it’s an option. Fingers crossed.

Cool, now what they really need to add is LUT support. Especially considering the current log assist mode isn’t really that reliable for exposure. Another major one would be open gate. If they add both LUT support and OG, I’d switch to Nikon in a heartbeat.