Kino

I agree and I don't think it is the heat from the ground. There are definitely a few out-of-focus moments in the cheetah chase. Perhaps it is operator error, wrong settings, or preproduction issues. I guess my point is that, especially when considering the autosport clip, the A1II's AF is much improved from the A1, where video AF was more limited in terms of AF types, performance, and subjects. For wildlife video, the R1 seems like the best AF in the business: Using a DNG converter, you could also use the R1's 14-bit RAW photo bursts as video clips, since the high-speed buffer is sustained for a good length of time (10-20 seconds).

The greatest thing about the A1II is that Sony didn't replace an amazing sensor for video with a higher megapixel sensor that would create rolling shutter problems and downgraded video specs. That was my biggest concern. You can also see the advantage of the A1II's new AF for wildlife, sports, and motorsport video:

Oh wait! I realized that the 8K internal / 4K HDMI setting can be recorded in true ProRes 422 10 bit, as it is bypassing the 8-bit limitation on the 8K HDMI output. So, it is truly a "hack."

Using the Gerald Undone "hack" (internal recording set to 8K, but HDMI output set to 4K), you can send out an oversampled 8K image to the Atomos and record it in 4K ProRes 422 10 bit. This bypasses noise reduction and LongGOP compression in the internal files, but I think this looks the worst in terms of color depth, as Sony lists 8K HDMI output as limited to 8-bit in the spec sheet: As for the ProRes RAW in the A1, it is hard to pick out which shots are internal and which are ProRes RAW in this video (she lists the RAW shots in one of her responses): I always look for Blue-channel clipping as a giveaway for ProRes RAW, but otherwise everything cuts together seamlessly. This suggests that the 12-bit 4.3K ProRes RAW upscales nicely to 8K and that the 8K's 10-bit internal is good enough to match with 12-bit color.

According to Sony's website, the HDMI output on the A1II is the exact same as the A1: 7680 x 4320 (29.97p / 25p / 23.98p), YCbCr 4:2:0 8bit / RGB 8Bit 4332x2446 (59.94p / 50p / 29.97p / 25p / 23.98p), Raw 16bit Also, note that the gamma was locked to Slog-3 during RAW output. I believe it is still the same.

The price of entry may be higher than Canon and Nikon mirrorless, but the image quality is undeniable. That is a world-class sensor that shares tech with the 8K Venice and Burano. Coming from Canon, there is also the issue of third-party lenses, where Sony has a huge advantage that balances out the higher initial price point. In terms of the "subsampling," this is 4K/50 from the A1 and it looks incredibly detailed for what it is: Here is the A1 in 4K/120 (HVEC 200Mbps 4:2:2 10 Bit): I'm just amazed at what Sony achieves in this little camera and its highly efficient/compressed codecs.

I saw that. I thought you were referring to the extra processing chip that allows for the new AI and AF in the A1mk2. That damn AI stock footage will finish us all!

I guess you are referring to Sony's consumer and prosumer cameras. This one only costs $60K!

With all the extra processing and heat generation, the body should have been enlarged to match those of other flagships (e.g., Canon R1, Nikon Z9). In room temp, the A1 could record 8K up to 90 minutes without any problems, but the best I've seen for the A1 II in similar conditions is 60 minutes.

The main improvements for video over the A1 include the improved IBIS (8.5 vs 5.5), stabilization modes, rear screen (resolution and functionality), AF performance, LUT support (importing function), high ISO performance, higher second-base ISO in S-Log3 (5000 vs 4000), and the new implementation of S-Log3 to match the Venice/Burano color space and detail (as a dedicated B-cam). Also, the 8K insect 🦋 stock footage business will never be the same!

This French technical review with available English CC compares the C400 with the C500 II, FX6, and RED KX. Considering the new triple-ISO, the C400 has better ISO performance than the C500 II. DR (14 stops usable in RAW 6K) and color fidelity ("Delta E" at two different exposure levels: lower score is better) are very similar between the two cameras. Unfortunately, there is no real-world comparison here, but at least you can get an idea of how the C400/C80 sensor should perform in challenging conditions.

Aside from a few action cams and a camcorder, let's remember Nikon's last dedicated video camera was released in 1982: Whatever they release that is not a mirrorless/hybrid will likely be under RED. If it does have 16-bit RAW (REDCODE), it will need to deal with the heat management and power requirements. Perhaps they could do this in a Z9-size body with the addition of active cooling. There is nothing smaller that could handle 16-bit RAW with current sensors, ASICs, batteries, and the rest.

I never stated that the R1 would be a better on-set cinema cam than the C80. I actually said the opposite way up there. I just think it could be an alternative for those also interested in the C80 (like me) who need something mobile. Then we had the discussion about why you would get an R1 over an R5 II, which I did not initiate. I only responded to the R5 fans (pun intended) with all those graphs and charts to suggest that the R5 II does not really improve on the highlight clipping problems I have with the R5C. The point here is that the 6K sensor in the C80/C400 is going to offer a substantial IQ improvement on all the R5 cameras, which really can't be compared with proper Cinema EOS. In the meantime, I've recently seen more RAW C80 footage and it is pretty awesome: The C80 also looks fantastic in XFAVC 10 bit. Here are some XFAVC files available for download: Despite the charts I posted above, in most scenarios the differences between the C80 and C400 will be minor. Perhaps you will see some differences in extreme low-light with noise in RAW LQ, but otherwise the C80 looks gorgeous overall. I don't use HFR much, so that C400 advantage doesn't worry me. In any case, RED and Sony should be scared.

Again, you like to put words in my mouth. I made no such "demands." I posted test results on the R5C, a camera I own and use. When it comes to C400, C80, and R1 comparisons, everything on this thread is speculation. Some are very offended that the R1 should be considered here or that it may turn out to be a better video hybrid than the the R5 cameras. That's not my problem.

I never stated otherwise. We need the R1 and its CRM files to make real assessments about how it performs in relation to the C80/C400. It could be that the faster sensor readout on the R1 undermines any DR advantages seen in all the C400 footage and tests. The AF circuitry is also different. But I can't imagine that Canon spent the last 2-3 years designing completely different and new 6K BSI sensors to be released at the same time in such low-volume cameras. Also, no one in his right mind who needs a proper cinema cam should go for the R1 over the C400, even if they share a similar sensor and image quality. It just becomes interesting when comparing the R1 with the C80, which is still using SD cards, and lacks the FF 6K 60p RAW, IBIS, and EVF. For those who need portability in the field, which is what the C80 is supposed to offer, the R1 is just another choice and obviously a better hybrid.