KnightsFan

The XT30 could very well be the first <$1k to shoot 10 bit 4k video internally, but if not, then I think Z Cam's E2c will cross that line later this year. I too am skeptical that the XT30 will have 10 bit internal, but overall I'm optimistic about the camera. Fuji got everything right with the XT3, let's hope they pull it off again.

I'll have to take your word on it for "better optics." As far as extra contacts, extra lens ring, corrections, etc, all of that could have been done without changing the physical mount. Adding more pins and checking them for connectivity to determine what kind of thing is attached is essentially how USB OTG cables work. It will be interesting to see if Canon actually follows through with much smaller lenses. Looking on Canon rumors, the RF 70-200 2.8 changes in length from 173mm to 243mm when zooming, whereas the EF version maintains a constant 199mm. So depending on your zoom level you are gaining or losing length, though it is nice that it can be stored in a slightly smaller package. I can't find any information comparing the weight.

...that's because it isn't FF anymore...

What is Panasonic holding back from the S1? It's the first FF camera to shoot 10 bit internal and the first to do 4k60. The S1R even does the latter without any crop. Like the GH5 there's a paid upgrade, this time to full VLog instead of VLog-L. I guess this was my question from earlier in the thread. What does RF bring that EF didn't?

I dont know if anyone would seriously hate the eos r if it didnt crop. You get trolls and such in any case, but most people would forgive slightly lower frame rates and bit rates in exchange for reliability and great color, as they have been for years with canon. But the crop is an actual dealbreaker for a lot of people, and moreover it is just so silly. Its not like having poor autofocus, which is still evolving and pushing forward with competing technologies and software. Its a simple concept of having 60% of the sensor taking up dead space when shooting 4k. It would be like if blackmagic put that 5in screen on their camera, but only the middle 3in worked while shooting. Is canon somehow the only major camera manufacturer who has not discovered the technology to make full frame 4k? Its hard to imagine, but the equally perplexing alternative is they slapped thousands of people in the face by witholding it.

That's the funny thing. EF lenses were universal, so even if Canon didn't make great bodies, people still bought EF lenses. In the past 4 years, the vast majority of lenses that I've used--mine, friends', borrowed--have been EF. I've used them on Samsung, Blackmagic, Fuji, Panasonic, Sony, and even on a handful of Canon bodies. Despite never owning a Canon camera, I saw the EF format as a good investment. RF won't have that status. How many people think that RF is superior, compared to a mirrorless EF camera with that vari-ND adapter built in? They could have updated the lens communication protocol to allow for that extra ring on the lens, while maintaining EF compatibility.

@thebrothersthre3 a lot of people get great results with gimbals. with some practice you can build the muscle memory with little joysticks for control, which i definitely do not have. But i certainly found the experience of using a glidecam for the first time to be more enjoyable than my first attempt at using an electronic gimbal. The quality of the gimbal helps a lot too. I used two different glidecam 4000 pro's. One was decent, the other utterly sucked. If i had used that bad one first, i probably would have given up and never touched a glidecam again. And then an HD 4000 is in another league entirely. Its magic compared to the pros.

I often use a Glidecam. I once used an electronic gimbal and hated it for this reason. It was so difficult to smoothly and accurately pan/tilt, and I couldn't lower the handle too much or the camera hit the motor on the back. And forget canted angles--If there was a way, it was buried in the app. With the glidecam, all movement is a direct, 0 latency result of me aiming the camera. It provides the tactile feedback of a fully mechanical system, like handheld. If I pan too far, I feel it between my fingers before I see it on the monitor. As far as freedom of movement, I find mechanical gimbals to be a lot closer to handheld than electronic gimbals.

I hope they go all RF, then maybe the used market will get flooded with cheap second hand EF lenses.

I didnt watch the whole video. But i like the concept. I think a removable grip is the way to make DSLR style cameras better for drones and gimbals, while allowing them to have ergonomic photo functionality when needed. I also think that the only way for global shutter to make a widespread appearance is for photo cameras to adopt it as a means of removing the shutter. GS purists are a tiny fraction of DSLR videographers, who are already a tiny fraction of camera buyers. We've got to convince photographers that they need to be ablr to take silent, skewless photos. And perhaps once we get rid of the shutter we can also finally get in-body electronic NDs.

On some level, anything is good enough. It's like saying 16mm film is good enough compared to 65mm. If the price and weight of 65mm dro the way FF cameras are, no one would shoot 16mm anymore.

I completely agree. However "one day" doesnt help anyone who is shooting now. So until then, many of us are stuck with smaller sensors as the best option.

Agreed. However, newer features will come to smaller sensors first. Right now, if you want internal 10 bit (S1 isn't shipping yet), or 4k120, or global shutter, there is no FF option anywhere near the price for those features in smaller sensors. While I'm sure all of those features will eventually come to FF, they're still a few years out. And I know from other discussions that many of those features don't speak to you personally, but everyone's got different priorities. That's why I'm not out here saying FF is objectively better than M43.

@Video Hummus There are plenty of great M43 cameras, I agree. I'm not trying to dissuade anyone from using it. I jumped into the conversation only to point out that the "spreading light" wasn't really true. For me, though, I am really looking to get a FF camera next because it goes better with my lenses. I love that old voigtlander I mentioned above, but it's really tough to use vintage lenses on anything smaller than FF, simply because that's what they were designed for. Speed boosters... I'd rather not tbh. A new GH5s with a speed booster was more expensive than an S1. Might as well just . And while Olympus have great pixel shift cameras, none of the M43 cameras with phenomenal video have it. The fact that pixel shift exists in one camera, and that another camera has good lowlight just means that M43 has produce a camera that does both. The way it's shaping up, the S1 beats the GH5s for low light, takes 24MP photos out of the box, AND has pixel shift. And it's certainly cheaper than getting a GH5s, an Olympus, and a speed booster. So at this point it looks like a better system for my needs and I'm pretty excited for the future of Panasonic's full frame lineup.

The larger sensor with the same photosite size has the same signal per pixel, but more pixels. Thus, more total signal across the sensor. And that's something we can directly measure as SNR when downsampling, which combines several signal samples into one larger signal sample. I'm not sure how this is a different concept altogether, but maybe I am misunderstanding you? It all leads back to capturing more total signal to begin with. The only voigtlander I've used extensively is an old 50mm f2.8 from West Germany. A true character lens. I hear good things about the modern ones, too.

What is a different concept altogether?

Yes, brightness will match because ISO is designed to make the same brightness across devices. It's crucial that the reading of your light meter match ANY camera you use, so equal ISO should always provide the same exposure on the final image. However, ISO does not equal gain. That is, if you take a ten year old sensor with terrible low light, you might need 12 dB of gain to get ISO 800, whereas you might have a modern sensor that only needs 3dB of gain for ISO 800. And probably that new sensor will have a higher SNR, despite producing the same "brightness". For example, if you compare a GH5s vs a fictional hacked together camera consisting of 4 GH5s sensors in an array, then you would expect the array to have a higher SNR. However, after calibrating for ISO, both will produce the same "brightness" at equivalent ISO--it's just that the array will have a lower noise floor. As far as quality, yes that's entirely dependent on the product. Some small sensors are extraordinarily good (GH5s, for example), and some FF sensors are pretty bad. I think one of the main reasons for that is that new tech arrives at the smaller sensors first. It's a much larger investment to improve FF sensors than cell phone chips. Like I said, you can find some MFT sensors that outperform some FF sensors. And sensor performance isn't the ONLY factor in choosing a camera. Just trying to add some perspective on this specific "low gathering ability vs sensor size" debate. There's a reason NASA uses massive CCDs in their telescopes--I'm sure it would have been easier to launch the Hubble with a 2/3" sensor! So if the photosites are the same size, then the FF camera has MORE photosites. This means you will be downsampling, which improves SNR.

Put a fullframe 50mm f1.8 on a FF camera. You capture all of the photons that land on the 24x36 sensor area. If you put that same lens on M43, the same photons exit the lens, but only 1/4 of them land on the sensor. The other 3/4 are reflected or absorbed by the area around the sensor. It's immediately apparent that at equivalent F-stop on the same lens, a smaller sensor gathers fewer photons. There is no "spreading" of light unless you add a teleconverter--which comes out exactly the same as using a smaller sensor. The teleconverter analogy explains why a M43 camera gathers less light. Taking FF as a starting point, expanding the image circle 2x with a teleconverter is the same effect as shrinking the sensor size by 2x. In both cases, only 1/4 of the original photons land on the sensor, meaning 2 stops less light. Of course, it's absolutely correct that "sensor quality, image processor quality, and size of pixels" affect ISO performance. We can easily find at least one example of a smaller sensor outperforming a larger one for noise. To use sound as an analogy, it's easy to find two amplifiers that output a different SNR even when given the same signal. The fact that some small sensors outperform some larger sensors does not change the simple fact that with the same lens, fewer photons land on a smaller sensor.

The eos r rolling shutter isnt much worse than the competition. But the competition do full pixel readouts from 24 mp sensors, while the eos r does a 1:1 sample.

I did see an interview with Atomos, but I don't remember that. I hope you're right, it would be a really phenomenal twist for Nikon. If they are that committed to video in their Z series, I'd love to see them tackle some of the other lesser-requested video features like LTC.

@mercer I can see a difference between 10 and 8 bit once I start grading. But it's not a huge difference. I'm pretty much in the same boat as you with the whole diminishing returns view. That's why for me a camera can't just be good or even a good value, it's got to be better than what I have. My NX1 is ridiculously good in 4k, fits my hand like a glove, and has ergonomic and simple controls. That's why I keep going back to things like rolling shutter, 4k60, full frame, 10 bit, etc. It's not that I "need" any of those, but anything less and I've already got it covered. I sort of agree sort of disagree. I agree straight image quality has peaked. Framerates... well the E2 has 4k120 so we've hit a peak there. 10 bit is almost mainstream in prosumer cameras. However, rolling shutter hasn't really improved much--and while 10 bit and 8 bit aren't a huge difference, global shutter is pure magic on a glidecam. I'd also love to see more cameras that can sync to LTC.

At this point it seems that anything that isn't debayered is considered Raw. So conceivably a 10 bit compressed log format could provide great image quality at a relatively low data rate, like RawLite you mention. Not true RAW, but it could be a really nice format. I don't really think that's going to happen, though I'd love to be proven wrong.

I dont recall any word from nikon on internal raw. Does anyone have a source on that? @DBounce brought it up earlier.

This is really unscientific and based only on having extensively using a 5D3 with Magic Lantern in the past, and recently doing a handful of tests and one job with the XT3. But my impression is that the XT3 has more dynamic range in FLog vs a 5D3 with ML. You'll have a tough time trying to find an objective number. While C5D has extensively tested cameras, I don't believe they have a number for the 5D3 and certainly not with ML, and it's unlikely they will test a 6 year old camera. And afaik no one else even tries to do objective numerical measurements between cameras. In F-Log the minimum ISO is indeed 640, higher than in photo mode. I believe you can use lower ISO values in other picture modes if you want. The difference is where Fuiji decided to place middle grey, not a difference in sensor sensitivity. I don't think that's what webrunner was saying, and it's not true in any case. DR will be even be different between different picture profiles, let alone photo vs video mode. However, DR has nothing to do with bit depth except within a specific gamma curve. That is, one gamma curve might put 20 stops into 10 bits, and another might put 10 stops into 10 bits.

I agree. It's on par with Sony's codecs and bitrates with an added 4k60p mode. So really scraping the bottom of the bitrate barrel. It's not dealbreaker bad--I've never take issue with 80 mbps HEVC on the NX1--but it's not a thrilling list like the XT3 had. Let's wait and see what that paid firmware update brings, and for how much extra.