Django

I get where you’re getting at with your suggestion as I use a variety of different cameras for stills ranging from expensive Leica M rangefinder to Yashica 35mm film point & shoot to older DSLRs and of course mirrorless. That said I can understand someone with perhaps less experience and funds simply wants one camera body and one lens system. That’s a good place to start too. The EOS R is actually a very decent hybrid despite all the hate it garnished at its release due to the massive 4K crop. It sounds like you enjoy Canon ergonomics, color science, value their AF system and your invested in their lenses. This begs the question, why go through the hassle of changing systems? And why even consider Panasonic if AF is important to you? FYI, I was also an EOS R user with just the 35mm RF and EF lenses and I chose to upgrade to R6 two years ago. Its a massive upgrade as you gain IBIS, oversampled 4K with no crop, 10-bit codec, Clog3 & DPAF2 with eye tracking. It’s a bit of a no brainer if you’re looking to upgrade from an EOS R in that $2K budget. Although the overheating may make that a big no-go in that tropical Brazilian heat. in that case maybe smart to wait for R6 mk2 that appears to be right around the corner. or switch to Sony or Nikon if you can’t wait and wanna stay FF and have great AF. I’d only consider Panasonic if your planning on shooting video with manual lenses..

..if you need AF though Panasonic is probably the worst system of the bunch and a huge downgrade from Canon. Image quality means nothing if you can't hold focus. Best bang for buck is probably XH2 right now. 45MP stills. 8K, 10-bit, ProRes. Phase-detect AF with eye detect. Film simulations. FX30 also super solid for run & gun. Oversampled 4K. AF on par with Canon. 4K120p. 10-bit. LUT support. Top handle with XLRs. But yeah, switching systems is expensive so if you own a lot of lenses probably better to wait for suitable model than switch. APS-C / Super35 seems to be where it's at right now as far as bang for buck in the $2K bracket.

.. an older sensor perhaps but not a 6 year old sensor, that's ridiculous. even canon are smarter than that. as for the R6, I've been shooting with it for some time now, and its a very good all-rounder (basically a 1DX3 in RF mirrorless form). It shoots 5.5K oversampled footage, has DPAF2, can do up to 4K60p no crop in 10-bit 422 which the A7IV can't even do. CLog/Clog3. The only downside is RS & overheating. If the new sensor/processor fixes those I'd upgrade in a heartbeat. Would be nice to see a couple extra things like 4K120p or RAW but that would probably steal too much from R3/R5.

An R replacement using the same 2018 R sensor (that used the 2016 5DIV sensor) makes zero sense. That sensor had horrible rolling shutter and had to crop x1.7 for 4K. Also what do you mean by: The current R6 is already RF full frame?

Lets not forget XH2S & FX30. A7IV has similar cons to R6: poor rolling shutter & overheating issues. not great for run & gun.

Is there any tangible proof concerning this? I've only really noticed the footage is a little choppy when the camera is moving a lot handheld but that's kind of to be expected with no mechanical stab. Have you tried Canon Raw on the C70? From the test footage I came across the motion felt really nice, well on the normal side of things. Getting back to codecs, I still think the C300 mk2's 12-bit 444 2K option is the nicest option. Real shame no other Canon cam seems to have that particular one.

Not stacked but BSI. It is the best sensor from Canon and makes sense since the R6 uses 1DX3 sensor. The specs however appear to be pretty much the same as current R6, I don't see any improvements which is rather disappointing. So the best improvement is perhaps just the sensor, which is already a very good thing. Should mean much better DR & much less RS. I'm also hoping/assuming there will be little to no overheat. That is by far the biggest con of the current R6 and why I wouldn't recommend it for run & gun work. Unless you're just shooting short clips with reasonable intervals for cool off time. I'm selling mine as soon as I find the right FF substitute (which could be R6 mk2).

Yeah that doesn't sound right. Never heard of a camera having same noise levels at higher base ISO either.

I agree and if I get an XH2S I would be probably be shooting 422 LT most of the time. It's my preferred codec when doing exports. The problem with bigger file sizes is for me not just archiving but mainly file sharing. I travel a lot and I'm constantly sending files to editors, production house, clients etc. Finding a good internet connection is harder than one may think (at least here in France) so working with RAW or even ProRes HQ is a total nightmare in transfer times. I can't shoot lower than 4K (production house won't accept it) and I refuse going back to 8-bit so its a bit of a conundrum but yeah its nice to have options in-camera. RED still probably has the best IQ/ratio with its patent, one of the reasons I was considering a Komodo.

I think what you're saying was historically true in the 70s/80s but doesn't hold anymore due to the extensive use of DIs and green screen: Limited use of 65 mm film was revived in the late 1970s for some of the visual effects sequences in films like Close Encounters of the Third Kind, mainly because the larger negative did a better job than 35 mm negative of minimizing visible film grain during optical compositing. 65 mm was the primary film format used at VFX pioneer Douglas Trumbull's facility EEG (Entertainment Effects Group), which later became Boss Film Studios, run by former Industrial Light & Magic alum Richard Edlund. Since the 1990s, a handful of films (such as Spider-Man 2) have used 65mm for this purpose, but the usage of digital intermediate for compositing has largely negated these issues. Digital intermediate offers other benefits such as lower cost and a greater range of available lenses and accessories to ensure a consistent look to the footage. That being said, IMAX 65mm (70mm is the projection format btw) is relatively unparalleled as far as IQ with a true equivalency of about 18K in resolution. The frames are 69.6mm x 48.5mm which even beats Alexa 65's 54mmx25mm. The particular DoF & aspect ratio also gives a special look & immersive feel. So really there is no digital equivalent. Today there are only a handful of directors in the world that shoot 65mm film. And only a handful of IMAX cameras even available for rental (at one point there were only 4). It is so expensive and complicated that still only short sequences are usually shot with them. Christopher Nolan is the only director in recent times that shoots exclusively in 65mm AFAIK. He's credited even by Tarantino to having brought back that particular format to use in blockbuster productions. But for Nolan, Tarantino & Johnson.. they've always said that they shoot film because they love the look (no matter if its 35mm or 65mm). So I really don't think its a "specialist tool" thing for VFX units but really an aesthetic choice. For the last Star Wars films the visual template was the original trilogy so that kind of explains the use of film and hiring a known film shooting combo such as Johnson/Yedlin. The use of CGI/VFX was actually quite restraint on shots involving camera work compared to the previous Lucas prequel trilogy. A lot of animatronics were used, virtual production and basically just real props, real explosions etc. Nolan & Tarantino also advocate such real old-school FX. I mean its kind of silly to go through all the hassle of shooting in film only to integrate massive digital CGI/FX. Sub-35 film perhaps but 35mm & 65mm remain cost prohibitive. Also speaking of Yedlin he's kind of put his money where his mouth is and actually convinced Rian Johnson to shoot his last feature 100% digitally stating: “I have just been a big film guy my entire life. It was Steve Yedlin, my cinematographer’s idea…he’s shot all of my movies, which we’ve always done on film. And he’s also a very technically-adept color science guy. Steve basically has a philosophy, it’s based in facts. From Steve’s perspective, right now with imaging technology, there’s no reason that what you capture your image on needs to define the look of what you’re doing. What he told me over and over again is it’s harder for him to make film look like film, than make digital look like film. Johnson then went on to describe that, following being captured, the content is sent through the same digitization process, and that the application of grain isn’t something that’s difficult to do. ” So in this case it looks like DIs & film emulation actually killed the use of film. But as Noam Kroll states in the comments of the link you provided: "I agree with you, that it is possible to very closely replicate the film look digitally, but it’s quite difficult to get right and is never identical. I’m astonished by the work of Steve Yeldin in this area, but for the average filmmaker (right now), it’s much simpler to just shoot on film if you want a film look. That may very well change in the future as technology continues to evolve, but right now, I think both formats each still have distinct advantages." According to his math it adds up to $14,492 for 90mn at 5:1 ratio. And that's if you get a reduced price of the film stock. Still that is relatively affordable for 90mn feature. It's actually dead cheap if you're shooting a 30 second commercial, 4mn music video or 8mn short film. And that's why S16 is currently very popular in those segments. I know several local DPs that currently specialise in it, like 100%. I also know 20 year old film students that shoot S16 as well (ok they have rich parents so not your typical 'poor' student but still). In the end its my opinion that its really all part of a trend, like anamorphic, 4:3 aspect ratio or even full-frame. I love the cynical yet so true commentary of this guy about "selling cool" in the commercial world via such trends..

Yedlin shot Last Jedi and the majority was shot on film. Only 10-15% was shot digitally according to Rian Johnson.

Last SW Trilogy was shot on a mix of 35mm/70mm film, Alexa XTs, Alexa 65s & even 5D mk3 for stop motion.

General rule? there are no rules, only format choices and he explained his motivations. Of course its personal, but I think other people can relate. I know I can.. YMMV. He also mentions tight spaces and narrow locations like shooting hallways etc. Going full frame means you don't have to step down to a wider focal length when you simply can't physically back up the camera to compensate for the S35 crop. Stepping down from 35mm to 24mm adds quite a bit of distortion. an alternative is to use a speed booster, but here again we're talking reasons for going FF.

what's wrong with mimicking things of your subconscious or revisiting the favourite FF lenses of your early 35mm photo days? that's one of the main appeals of going FF imo, the familiarity with the format and shooting wide-open on fast primes, both of which he touches upon.

No I don't think so. Medium format & Large Format have been existent in both photography and cinema for a number of decades, way before the digital revolution. They've been very popular within a niche but have remained just that, a niche. The trend in the mainstream camera industry is towards compactness and that's where APS-C/S35 still stands a fighting chance. MF & LF lenses are just too big and too expensive to ever take over FF/S35. And on the high-end cine front, with Alexa 35.. S35 looks like its got a bright future ahead.

It's not really snobbery, it's the reality of a certain bubble "cine" world. That of ARRI/RED/VENICE. Ironically, the very few theatrical releases I've done were shot with 5D3 (ML), C300mk2, BlackMagic Production Camera, FS7... albeit all low-budget documentaries/cinema vérité/art/festival films. And paradoxically, all my RED/ARRI shoots were for high-end commercials, TV, fashion/music videos. It's all relative. That's my reality. To give further context, at Cannes this year films made with these cameras entered the competition: C500mk2, S1H, A7S2, FX3, FX6, FX9 , A7III & iPhone 11X Pro (!). https://ymcinema.com/2022/06/13/the-cameras-behind-cannes-2022-alexa-mini-still-dominates/ Mostly as B-cams & for documentaries but that is an interesting evolution. While the Mini still "dominates" those entries are the most surprising/interesting to me. Budget, crew, clients pretty much drive what I'm going to use. The whole "cinema camera" term isn't really that relevant to me anymore personally. Yes, ARRI is the gold standard. But if an FX6, FX3, FX30 or iPhone better suits the project/budget then that's what will get used. I am attached to certain "cine" specs though.. shutter angle, DCI, I/Os, codecs, resolution, DR, rolling shutter etc. Luckily we're getting a lot of those in affordable bodies. Finally, "cinematic" image quality wouldn't be anything without lenses. The focus on these forums seems to be so tilted towards camera body brands, specs, sensor size etc.. but lenses can't be dissociated from the equation. It's really what may tie you to an eco system or a sensor size. Seems like the big boy cine cam discussion has sort of turned into Alexa Mini/35 vs LF/VENICE. If you look at the above camera Cannes list, or Oscar list or Emmy list.. it's actually pretty split in between S35 & FF. You can reference frame it however you want, the divide is the same no matter the category. Some DPs prefer S35 others FF. While sensor generation and overall specs (DR, ISO, resolution) may play a part, I think that again, what lenses a DP wants to use plays a decisive factor in his sensor size camera choice. We've already had similar discussions in the past. I like to use real world examples to illustrate my arguments so let me re quote what the Ozark DP had to say about his switch to Venice with FF Leica glass: “I started as a still photographer on 35mm film,” described Kutchins. “It creates a feeling. For example, I can describe it like shooting Super 8 versus full-frame, I feel like I’m watching it in a box, from far away. As a viewer, I feel distant, even in a close-up. It’s nostalgic, but I don’t feel connected. TV lives in the world of a medium close-up. We never go really tight. In full-frame, you still feel close." As Kutchins described, they took older Leica R lenses and rehoused them, which gave them the ability to shoot wide open. “It opens so super wide. I was intrigued by it as we went down the wormhole with the family, in isolation and distrust. I was intrigued to use the wider aperture to create more character separation. I love the result. Both Armando and I were excited by the possibilities. We play with depth of field and with lenses to create a separation from character in the background. Even with a wide lens, you can feel the character coming into my space and coming into the living room. That’s what we’re trying to do as filmmakers, create a presence in 2D space."

that use to be the case but I think since the C200, FS5 and now BM6K Pro, C70 or even FX6, that is no longer the case. They have great battery life so you can stay away from Vmount. Built-in NDs mean you can avoid a matte box. And stellar AF avoids the need for a follow focus rig. A lot of DPs do love to over rig their cameras and that's fine, just not my ethos. I usually strip them down to the bare minimum, I like fast energetic shoots to keep the momentum going. Obviously you can't do that with URSA Mini, RED & ARRI. You need a crew if you wanna be comfortable. Different scenarios. Different applications. Different results also. Sony is definitely cornering the market, mostly in broadcast. A friend of mine just joined one of the biggest TV shows for fashion & music and told me it's all Sony now. Used to be AMIRA up until just a year ago. I'm not sure why they switched but could be weight related as he told me they alternate a lot in between sticks and shoulder rig. Or did they go FF? I hope to go visit the studios and find out more. Fuji are killing it, and XH2S would also be my first choice today for personal camera and pet projects. But with no real upgrade path, limited ecosystem & outsider reputation.. Sony does feel like the best system right now as far as getting pro work in the industry. I still prefer Canon colors, ergonomics etc but their pricing isn't very competitive neither in pro bodies or RF lenses and their politics are lousy at the moment, they need a change in CEO or something.

Not sure what all this ARRI talk is doing in a FX30 thread but ok I'll bite. Locally, I've notice ARRI Classics are sitting for weeks/months on the marketplace, basically until the price hits rock-bottom. They're usually beat up as hell with very high mileage. I guess they're built like tanks but like second hand luxury cars I'm always weary of spending couple thousand and end up having an expensive paperweight if a major fail were to happen. Not to mention the giant form factor, not very liberating. unless you're shooting (budget) feature films I can't imagine a scenario where you'd pull up with this type of rig in 2022 lol

Even bigger profit margin on FX3. Same exact body, FF sensor, twice the price!

I want a Fuji XH2S for the sensor, resolution, open-gate, ProRes, film simulations etc. But as a working pro, already invested in Sony ecosystem plus an FS7.. the FX30 makes better sense. FX30 does have some nice features like Cine EI, LUT import & TC. Nice ergonomics, top handle with XLRs. Active cooling. And yes, rock-solid AF. But I'd also adapt glass and use a speed booster. It's just not very exciting, at all really. Completely utilitarian like most Sony cams. No real innovative features. A "new" old sensor. Sony aren't breaking barriers like Fuji, they are simply diluting their cine line. Making it more accessible. Most accessible ever, really. And that'll probably be enough for them to make bank. They also have bunch of A7III/A6xxx users that will upgrade to it, as FX3/A7S3 were above their budget. And FX3/A7S3/FX6/FS7 users that will add one as B-cam. Those are the main purchasing scenarios imo.

Looks like Sony launched local FX30 film projects in its main sub-divisions. This one just popped up from Sony Australia and is quite nice in a gritty graded way: Looks like it was mostly shot with FF GM lenses but also the APS-C 18-110mm PZ cine zoom lens designed to pair with the FS7.

Lol I know your being cynical but I think (or at least hope) most people are aware that S35 is the cinema standard!

Cancer has also wiped out members of my family and friends. It's even more tragic when it happens at such an age, my heart goes out to you and your family Andrew. I also know people who beat it, including a young woman who had all odds against her. I don't want to give false hope or anything as every case is different but you do have stronger chances when you are younger. Try and keep her morale up as best you can even if the circumstances are dire are the only words of advice I can give. Stay strong.

Meh Vegas is overrated, plus the whole point was to rip it to pieces, annihilate, nuke it. The shallow DoF was the character in itself. Call it a played out gimmick, fine, but it was never done before at 100% in a feature. I do get how it could annoy people though, especially those that can't stand shallow DoF. ..Uh what camera was this thread about again?

Wow that is a big price difference! only 300€ difference over here. I can't find my source on DR but here is what DPreview said about AF (citing the Fuji white papers): Although both cameras use the same AF system, interface and processors, the company says there will be performance differences between the two. In a post-launch technical briefing, Fujifilm characterized the performance of the X-H2's AF tracking of moving subjects and its subject recognition of moving subjects as 'good' rather than the 'very good' rating it assessed for its faster camera. This makes sense given the X-H2's slower readout sensor, which means the AF system is receiving less frequent updates from the sensor about what's changed (around 26 fps rather than 120 fps) However, the company does point out that the X-H2 has many more AF elements than the X-H2S, saying its 3.33M focus elements should deliver better focus on finely detailed subject such as fur and foliage than the 2.16 million elements on the X-H2S's sensor. Another advantage about XH2 is oversampled 4K and some kind of zoom function possibly similar to Sony's clear image zoom. Sorry if it was so painfully obvious to you! I haven't been on Fuji for a while.. its great those settings are actually there unlike on Sony's where NR can't be diminished. Thanks but I'm not really qualified for that! Definitely send it to him though (I guess h265 & ProRes files of similar footage ideally involving foliage for him to compare).