gt3rs

Something that I could not find out if the 4k 120 is oversampled and unlimited too. Anyone has seen something in this regard?

Why is not an Arri Alexa in this body but with AF and 8k 240 is beyond any logic.... for this price it should be the minimum. Why people don't download some CRLs 8k and try in Resolve before complaining that is not workable. Of course if you want to record hours and hours you will not use it but then there is finally XF-AVC in this camera that will do it, but you want to squeez out the max you can really work with CRL especially the LT version.

Z9 ProRes is capped at 4k not even DCI. R5c has XF-AVC that is as fast as prores and is also capped at 4k but DCI. If all the Canon cinema cameras (other than the C700) can do XF-AVC why should this one need ProRes?

I really think is wrong it does 12bit RAW video why it would do only 10bit RAW photo.... is a typo imo

here is powered over power bank

It can be powered by the USB-C you need a PD compliant one and powerful enough. Canon R5 you need a 45W one I bet this one too. Cameralabs used a Mac charger to power it.

Apparently 8k 50p is possible on internal battery, 8k 60p needs external power. Seems that AF works in 8k 50 and 60. Also 4k 60p is oversampled so sharper than the R5. Not sure about 120p It has dual iso. Finally it has all the C line assists like WF, false color, etc… Price around 600$ more than R5.

Worst intro video ever, it is so bad and completely useless.

I think is the timecode terminal

Mmmh 8k 60p apparently only with external power source whatever it means....

Is not practical for you because the lazy Adobe developers...... Is not that RED RAW is faster is just the software implementation in Premiere that is faster..... Again in Resolve 8k CRL is way faster than any of the h265 codecs that R5 has even 8bit ones..... Instead of advising to transcode CRL to ProRes you should write to Adobe that they wake up or just stop paying lazy Adobe for the subscription.... they are always late and slow with all.... I'm still paying PS subscription but boy they are lazy. CRL vs 10bit gives you a tad more DR, changing the WB, ISO after the fact. It also don't break a part as quick as Log3 10 bit files at least with my editing skills. So for me is the faster of the codec that R5 has for editing and the one giving me more quality and flexibility so why I should not use it? Only draw back is storage but I don't do long stuff and I have brought 2 x 2 TB CFexpress for 499$ each (ca. 500 hours of CRL at 24p) So you can believe me or not but with the R5 and my PC the CRL is the one giving me the faster turnaround..

8192 / 2976 = 2.75x crop from a 8k DCI and around 3x from the full frame 3:2 sensor Res is a tiny bit more than 2.7k

I really hope is like this, a R5 with a vent, hope they keep the same swivel screen.... I don't want to go back to 1D style of bodies and weight.

I did not expect all this I was expecting a R5 with a fan and that is it. Audio in HFR it was just about time, but 8k 60 RAW unlimited and Super 35 6k RAW is pretty cool. XF-AVC is also great as no more hard to edit h265 10bit... Hope it has more video centric helps like scopes etc... If the body is not too big I will swap out one of my R5. Let see if is all true and what are the caveats. Price will be much higher than the R5 I guess at this point.

CRL plays back real time in Resolve on a gaming notebook and I’m talking about 8k so 4k is no problem at all. I shoot 95% in CRL. There is no need to transcode it at all maybe with other NLE is needed but not in Resolve on a good machine.

Is not the problem of raw light but the readout speed they need to switch to 12bit, this is why photos in ES have the same DR as video, mechanical has the full DR.

I cant agree more, It got so restrictive now especially with flying over people that < 250g is almost the only way to go.

Z E1 215 gr, mft 7.5mm 170gr.... BMMCC is 300gr without battery and lens..... 0.5 KG on your helmet is super dangerous, try to convince an athlete to attach these to his helmet..... compared to a GO 2 27gr or this new osmo at 57gr..... some of the people that I work with they complain about an insta360 R or GoPro imagine this. Since I use a GO 2 nobody is complaining.... quality is barley usable but people agree to use it. Crash happens all the time to so better throw away a 300-400$ camera (and some time is just the lens protector that breaks) than a 1500$.... Also for helmet mount or Mtb mount etc you need great stabilization so that rules out camera like Z E1 or BMMCC.... Consumer action camera has progressed so much especially on the stabilization, horizon lock, etc.. that is almost not financially doable to build a more pro version as the market is way to small compared to the investment needed. Insta and Gopro offer some flat profile but only 8 bit and has some sharpening on it..... 10 bit and no sharpening I do agree it would be great. I was very exited about the 1 inch insta but at the end is the one that I use the least as is too narrow for body mount, it has minimum focus etc. so I end up use it as kind of remote camera but most of the time for that I can put one of my R5 with a much better quality, like for ice hokcey net, car roll bar, horse showjumping obstacle, etc...

They could have a license agreement. Canon seems to have one with RED, Nikon could have also done this. It could be fairly rentable for RED to license it.

I think it would be great to have action cam with a 24 or even better 35mm 1.8 lens to chest or helmet or bike mount.... for sure you will not see all the artifacts as it will be all oof..... They call action cameras because they are made for that, not for narrative work. I'm sorry that you don't like that people enjoy skiing, snowboarding, mtb.... but you don't need to watch and it does not have to be extreme as the target are consumers. For a action POV camera the wider the better and I can tell you the 1 inch insta that is probably the better camera of all the action camera stays mostly at home as the fov is useless for POV and for non POV a mirrorless camera is 1000 better. I do agree that quality is horrible from all but you get footage that you will not get in another way. Is the same as 360 cameras quality is horrible buy you can capture scene that would cost 100x more to do with a real camera.

It depends on the usage, for POV Sports like helmet, chest and so on the wider the better, you want the ski, snowboard, horse etc in the frame, it also show more the speed. I do prefer much more a 360 reframed or GO2 than normal GoPro FOV for POV. If you want to use it as more normal then yes they are too vide. GoPro approach with the additional MaxMod lens is not a bad idea. I find the 1 inch insta too narrow for most POV work. Car mount is ok but body mounted is not that great. I'm not sure about this Osmo..... the mount is terrible for action/sports one impact and the clips will break and you will lose the camera. Seems a terrible design for an action camera. GoPro mount based on a frame or embedded in the structure is the best solution as the swivel part take the force but camera normally will not detach..

Canon was one of the first putting a 1.4x TC on the 200-400, I never understood why they did not add it to all new big lens. Nikon is doing it right it, it is super convenient the embedded TC. So now they have 180-400 F4 and the 400 F2.8 with TC and I'm sure they will do the same with the 500 and 600. It is so logical...

One recent example

I used to use PW remotes for my remote camera, now in most cases I just start video recording and select the image after from the video, is much quicker to find the right moment in Resolve that culling many images. The big advantage for me no more miss fires, buffer full and so on. Also the fact that now camera are fully silent is a big plus too in some environment that I place the remote

Photo DR is 1 stop less that Z7 II apparently but nevertheless seems impressive.