Kino

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.

On Imatest results, the acceptable signal-to-noise ratio at .5 "Medium" will provide the usable DR. Otherwise, using your methodology of max DR, the R5C 8K RAW (16.1 stops) comes out way ahead of the R5 II 8K RAW (15.1 stops) when both are placed on a 4K timeline: There is no way you can recover the max DR (16.1 stops) on an R5C. So max DR is often pointless, except for camera marketing purposes. I would rate the R5C at about 11 stops, which is confirmed by the usable DR above (10.8). That would mean the R5 II (11.7) is giving us almost 1 stop more than the R5C when 8K RAW is placed on 4K timeline. However, by the same methodology, the R5 II has no advantage (both were about 11 stops) when looking at the 8K RAW source on an 8K timeline. I absolutely agree with the eye test and everyone should just go with that. As I stated above, it is obvious the R5 II has improved noise performance in the shadows, except at high ISOs where the R5C seems better. What I'm not seeing is any improvement in the highlight roll-off, which is a problem with the R5 cameras. The Sony A1 by comparison has better highlight roll-off than any R5 camera, including the R5 II. The new 6K sensor in the C80/C400 (and possibly in the R1) should demonstrate significant improvement in all these areas.

I have no intention of buying an R1. It's just an idea for the future. For VND, you shouldn't be getting any green shift. On the R5C, I use the Freewell V2 Hybrid VND/CPL (3-7 stop) and it is really impressive in preventing color shift. It is magnetic, easy to use, and comes with a nice case. You should try it.

Not really. It is difficult to recover gradations of tone and color that are not in the original RAW file. As I mentioned, I will need the CRM files to confirm. The R5 II and R1 have very different sensors that should produce visible differences in DR, RS, noise/texture, and color. Since the R1 sensor is likely a variant of the 6K sensor in the C400/C80, I would expect better performance for video than the R5 II's 10.9 stops of usable DR and 17ms rolling shutter in 8K mode (as demonstrated in the tests above).

In the following side-by-side comparison between the R1 and R5 II in RAW video, you can see the blown highlights in the R5 II when looking at the white beam above. That may be caused by a higher base ISO, but the overall DR does seem reduced here. In addition, the R1 retains rich and more accurate colors in RAW. It has better color and tonal separation, whereas the R5 II looks bland and overly magenta. These are just preliminary observations. I'm sure there will be proper tests when the R1 is released.

I am expecting a DR advantage for the R1 (owing to the larger pixel pitch and better signal-to-noise) as well as a significant improvement on rolling shutter over the R5 II's 17 ms in 8K mode, but we don't have the tests to prove it just yet. The R1 has a near global shutter sensor readout speed, so that may negatively affect DR. Based on what I have seen of the two cameras so far, I really prefer the look of the R1 sensor, which is likely shared in some way with the C400/C80. I'm also not a fan of the magenta bias I've seen in the R5 II footage, but that is just a personal preference. For the R5 II vs R5C, I mentioned that the former definitely has an advantage in the shadows: In my experience, NR works well on the R5C 8K when required, so the shadow noise has a solution. Unfortunately, the R5 II does not solve the problem with highlight roll-off. For everyday use, these cameras are nearly identical: G. Undone's Imatest numbers for 8K are also very close for usable DR (Medium). 11 stops on the R5C interpreted in CLOG3: 10.9 stops on the R5 II interpreted in CLOG2:

R5 II offers very little DR improvement on my R5C (and only in the shadows), whereas the the R1 looks like a significant improvement in both highlights and shadows. However, I will need to see more footage when the camera is released. FF 6K RAW is really the sweet spot for video. The EVF and AF on the R1 are also world class and there is no need to attach a fan/battery compartment to avoid overheating in our L.A. summers. Canon 1-series cameras are simply built to different standards in terms of weather sealing and durability. Unfortunately, there is no anamorphic de-squeeze on the R1 or R5 II, which is one of my favorite features on the R5C. With either of these cameras, I would need an external monitor. IBIS wobble is another problem that the R5C avoids, since it has no IBIS. Perhaps, there will be an R5C II, but I'm not hopeful.

So far on my R5C, I've shot everything 8K RAW LT and it looks great. Since it is 8K, the data rate is just over 1000 Mbps. I'm just concerned that the 640 Mbps data rate is very low on the C80. You can see the loss of detail in the CVP test of the different RAW variants in the C400 test. The drop off between ST and LQ is significant: 6K RAW LQ is the best available quality on the C80. While it is the obvious choice for taking on set (over a hybrid), it is a disappointment that they used SD cards and limited the 6K RAW to LQ and 30p. If on-set use is part of your requirement, I just think you are way better off with the C400. It has many advantages over the C80 at a $2500 premium. Then again, I still own the C500 and barely ever use it these days . . .

It will be interesting to see how the R1 compares with the C80 and C400. According to Canon, it is also rated to 16 stops of DR in video: https://www.newsshooter.com/2024/07/17/canon-flagship-eos-r1-announced/ The use of CFexpress Type B allows for much higher quality 6K RAW than the RAW LT found on the C80, which is also limited to 30p unlike the R1's 60p. The R1's Standard RAW is basically on par with the RAW HQ on the C400. The R1 will retail for $800 more than the C80, but that might be worth it. You lose the I/O, NDs, and cinema features (e.g., waveforms, anamorphic de-squeeze), but you gain better RAW quality, IBIS, AF, EVF, and hybrid usability.

You will have to wait for DSMC4, which could happen in 2025-26. Aside from high-end cinema cameras, I think the next logical step for RED after DSMC3 is to push into the mirrorless market, which is where all the action is. I would expect more RED features and branding on Nikon mirrorless cameras.

I was thinking of Scott Balkum, not Tim Daust:

Tim Daust is under an NDA with Nikon/RED, but he has hinted that RED and Nikon are actively working on camera projects together. My guess is that this involves getting a version of REDCODE into a Nikon camera or releasing a Komodo replacement with Z mount within the next 1-2 years. They have already released a RED LUT pack for Nikon cameras, so that is only the first step. By the time of the Z9 II, Nikon could probably include REDCODE RAW in the camera instead of licensing TicoRAW.

The $85 million for RED was taken from Nikon's financial filing and likely doesn't represent the full price. RED generated nearly $160 million in revenue for 2023 and there is no way that Nikon could purchase them for $85 million. Typically, there will be stock transfers involved in such large deals that are not listed in the year-end financials. You should expect that Jannard and others at RED received a significant amount of Nikon stock (NINOY) or some other bonus as part of the deal.

Although we don't know the financials of the deal, I'm sure Nikon has overpaid. But they were facing a disastrous lawsuit. They were also far behind Sony, Canon, and even Panasonic in the digital cinema field. That is no longer the case.

RED sued Nikon for patent infringement and Nikon decided simply to buy RED in response instead of paying a fee. They settled outside of court and filed a joint dismissal to avoid litigation. Considering the circumstances, it was a smart move by Nikon. They now have RED's brand name, industry presence, sensor R&D, and control of the REDCODE patent along with any variations they want to implement in their cameras, as intoPIX's TicoRAW was simply too close in implementation to escape the REDCODE patent once placed into a camera.

I recently shot this cover song and music video in 8K RAW on the R5C with a Great Joy 1.8x Anamorphic (50mm). My daughter sings here and I recorded the music, so I was occupied with a lot of things aside from the camera. Having said that, the camera performs really well for what it is and is a great addition for those who already own Canon glass. It's not going to replace a proper cinema camera in terms of the best DR or latitude, but it is an amazing tool and the in-camera anamorphic de-squeeze is a priceless feature. The video is uploaded in 8K so choose that for best quality:

Absolutely, but when will it be here? I mostly have EF lenses, though I may consider the Sony FX9 II if that comes along sooner and has the better features/price. The FX9 already looks great with the in-camera 10 bit: And, with the RAW expander, it reproduces some beautiful colors: Sony's advantage is that they don't need to introduce a new mount at this stage and have a better native and 3rd-party lens selection.

There are people here who have shot with the Komodo 6K and the Komodo-X, so I'm sure they will chime in. As mentioned above, the Komodo-X has better I/O for professional use and a claimed half-stop advantage in the shadows, which is probably closer to a 1-stop advantage over Komodo 6K. The other main advantages are that it has a 2X faster sensor readout (80FPS in 6K 17x9 vs 40FPS in the Komodo 6K); an upgraded processor for the menu GUI; locking RF mount; mini V-mount battery plate; and an XLR breakout port with better preamps. You can now mount more accessories (e.g., monitor) directly to the camera and so it functions more like a traditional RED camera. The media has also been upgraded to CFexpress B and there are some autofocus updates not available on the Komodo 6K. I believe it is worth it if you need all these advantages, especially the low light and the higher frame rates, both of which may be useful on a nature doc. However, for the additional $4K over the Komodo 6K, you could simply purchase an FX3 or A7S III and cover those bases. Then, you would have two cameras for the price of one. The one drawback is that the Komodo X also has a strong magenta bias (perhaps to make it more like the V-Raptor 8K S35mm). You can correct it in post, but it shouldn't be there. It is obvious when you compare it to the Komodo 6K and even the Dragon X. In terms of the other cameras you mentioned, the Kinefinity Mavo LF II (FF 6K) is the closest in features and price, but it does have a significant amount of rolling shutter and dealing with their warranty service might be very difficult. For nature docs, you are probably best off with a Canon or Sony, including the FX6, C70, FX9, and C300 III. But there is one camera you haven't mentioned, the C500 II, which is now discounted to $11K. That is a serious cinematic machine and punches way above its price: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYM_DvGGhxc If you watch the Netflix series Madoff: the Monster of Wall Street, you can see the C500 II in action. It looks especially great in Dolby Vision: The one problem with this camera is that it doesn't have 4K 120FPS, if that is important to you. But, if you don't need that feature, then the C500 II is about the best you can do for a new cinema camera in this price range.

This is from the Chinese website I posted above, but it could be fake. First of all, it was posted a few days after this review from CVP and seems to lift most of the above specs from the section on "future cameras": It is very unlikely that Sony would release the A9III and FX9II, featuring the same sensor, within such a close timeframe. The A1 and Venice 2, which share a similar (but different) 8.6K sensor, were released one year apart. Moreover, while the A9III is a competent hybrid camera, the sensor is not designed for high dynamic range and would not be able to achieve 15+ stops of DR in video. It would be a downgrade from the current FX9, which has exceptional DR and ISO performance. Although Sony featured a global shutter on the F55 and F65, its newer cinema cameras lack this feature. I don't see them putting it back anytime soon, as it is too much of a compromise for overall image quality. Either the FX9II will get the IMX610 from the A1 or it will get some other 6K or 8K sensor that we don't know about.

Camera manufacturers do that all the time. It is common practice. In the case of the Sony A1, its promos came out in January 2021, well before the camera was in production or released to the public, which was March 2021: The Canon hybrid releases follow the same pattern. The flagship 1DX III promo video was shot on that camera and posted on its announcement day January 6, 2020, well before it was released in mid-February 2020.

It's more that I'm disappointed that Sony didn't shoot the video with the A9III exclusively, as they did with the Sony A1 promos. Based on other footage I've seen from the camera, I think the A9III is fully capable. There is even an unsubstantiated but plausible rumor from a Chinese website that the exact same A9III sensor will feature in the FX9II with 6K recording: https://m-weibo-cn.translate.goog/u/2424567755?jumpfrom=weibocom%2Fu%2F2424567755%3Fjumpfrom%3Dweibocom&_x_tr_hist=true&_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp#&gid=1&pid=1

Sony itself doesn't believe in the A9III as a video camera. BTS of "Light Speed" promo piece shows Venice 2 and Burano were used for most shots, including all the really impressive ones:

The Venice 6K is a certified Hollywood A-cam and I don't think it should be compared with the Burano, as the latter only offers X-OCN LT. That is a significant downgrade from the RAW and X-OCN options on the Venice cameras. My hope is that if they do bring out a Burano 6K, it will have X-OCN XT and ST because of the lower resolution and the fact that the Venice 6K is a much older design. In scenes with a lot of movement or change, X-OCN will scale resolution, especially when it comes to the LT compression. That is how Sony's X-OCN avoids artifacts. This means that Burano's 8K X-OCN LT will not be a true 8K image in all scenarios.

The promo piece includes short RAW bursts that are rendered as video:

XDCA module was part of Sony's legacy design. On the FX9, it allows for much more than 16-bit RAW and 4k 120 (S35). You can power a giant B4 lens, for example, and offset the weight. You can also stream and transfer files. It's a full professional feature set for those who need it, especially broadcasters and those in field recording. This is all before they integrated RAW output into the body of the FX6. It will be interesting to see how they move forward with the FX9 II design in case they drop the module or modify it. At the moment, we have the aging FX9 at $10K and the brand new Burano 8K at $25K. That's a huge price gap in the Sony cinema lineup that they need to fill. The "Burano 6K" could fill that gap nicely and still separate itself from both cameras. I believe the "inflation adjusted price" for the F5 was $3000 over MSRP, so I'm not sure how that will work. I think you will find buyers for the FS7 who don't want to pay FX6 prices. It is still a capable camera and perfect for many applications. I still shoot with the C500 (original) and the image is great, especially in RAW. The only problem is the size/weight of the camera and Odyssey recorder when all rigged up.