currensheldon

That's a good idea as well. I like Fuji continuing to offering something different than the competition in those two fields, and video is one of the best ways to differentiate itself. Super35/APS-C: Packed full of features, high frame rates, IBIS, great AF, etc Fuji Cine LF: Medium format sensor for dreamy cinema. Basically the GFX100 specs in a compact (FS5-ish) cinema body. Or a EZ-Cam/Red Komodo like box. That'd be sweet.

Yes, agreed that Fuji should fully embrace their APS-C/Super35 sensor size and go all in on the things that are harder for full-frame to do: make affordable cinema and video cameras that are compact and travel well that are packed full of features 2-3 years before they make it into full-frame cameras. The GH5 did this 2-3 years before the S1H came out. Still nobody has topped it for 10-bit 422 internal 4K outside of Panasonic itself and the $6500 1DX III. I LOVE the Super35 sensor size as long as there are lenses that are made specifically for it. Fuji has tons of those. The Canon EF mount is frustrating because if you want a stabilized 24-70mm f2.8 for doc work, the only lens that is close is their 17-55mm and it vignettes in DCI 4k and 2k. Sony has some, but underwhelming in general. Definitely think Fuji needs to get into the video game big time in some way. Why not a Canon XC-15-esque model with 2 mini-xlrs and inernal NDs and an X-Mount? Or a Fuji X-H2 that has all the features of the S1H but with great AF and internal NDs? And then an FS5-like video camera for doc-oriented projects with IBIS and 12-bit codecs. They definitely have an opportunity to continue to do what they are doing and offer something different, rather than just go full-frame like everyone else.

I think 1917 did a great job of keeping the film exciting, but it is not "action-packed" like most action/war movies. It feels very realistic. It's more stressful and tense than high-flying action. And, like in real life, any fights are messy and realistic. I really think they toed the line very well of action and reality.

I've used it quite a bit, yes, and totally agree with you. I even said that I think the C300 II produces a MUCH better image than the FS7. What I mean by "blew it" is really the price compared to what else it offered besides a beautiful image. That's my main concern, which is why after using a Sony for a bit, I went back to using Canon and/or Panasonic, but for a lot of people, the FS7 offered more (4k 60fps, 180fps in HD, ability to speedboost it, high bit rates, etc) for about half the price. I'd still take the tradeoffs for a better looking image at 24p (which is 85% of my work), but there are plenty of people who need all the other stuff the FS7 offered or wanted to save $8k. As an actual image-making device, it's a fantastic camera. Just released at a weird time at a pretty insane price.

Shooting with it yesterday on a C300 II and I had the same thought - really wanted it to be longer. It's just too limiting, but the f1.8 aperture is too good to pass up. 16-55 f2 would be amazing, but I'd take an 18-50mm f2 in a heartbeat.

American Factory is the doc of the year, yep. Great film. I think Canon really blew it with the C300 Mark II. The original C300 was one of a kind and huge for all sorts of productions. By the time the Mark II came along, there were much cheaper and more specced out options (FS7 being the obvious one). I won't say better because I still like Canon's image considerably more, but hard to argue with 4k 60fps, 180fps in HD, more codec options - all for about half the price. With that said, I think Canon is moving in a very good direction with the C500 Mark II and 1DX Mark III. Everyone has been comparing the C500II and FX9, but I don't think that's going to be the real comparison because the C300 III will be in that same $11k price range when it is released (apparently very soon, probably NAB 2020). Here is how Canon should differentiate its lineup: C700 - nobody cares. C500 II - full frame, 6k raw, all 10-bit codecs - $16k C300 III - full frame, 4k only, 4k 120fps, 4k raw, all 10-bit codecs (basically a C500 II but without the 6k options and 6k raw) - $10-11k - THIS would the direct FX9 competitor. C200 II - Just a C200 but with the 10-bit codec (Super35, 4k raw, 10-bit 422 4k, 60fps) - $7499 C100 III - Super35 sensor, as small as possible, no raw, 10-bit 422 4k in 60fps - $5499 (and SMALL - for Ronin-S gimbals. Maybe 2/3 the size and weight of C200). If they did that (and soon), they would have a great range of products from journalism/broadcast/documentary up to feature film and narrative series - all Netflix approve with plenty to differentiate the costs. The most important ones and the two they should release this year (since they are rumored to be releasing two this year) would definitely be the C300 III and C100 III.

1917 is brilliant. One of my favorite movies of the year and insanely remarkable how they made the film. The sets, the lighting, the choreography, and the techniques used in this film are all groundbreaking - and it's even a great, emotional, and beautiful film. Right up there with Dunkirk as my favorite war movie of all time. This video shows a lot of what makes the filming of this movie so special:

This camera is very tempting and I love Canon, though I find the EOS R a total pain to use (and the rolling shutter really is bad). Much rather use an S1H or Fuji, which are actually fun to use and hold. But, I have lots of EF glass, shoot with the C200 or C300 II quite a bit, so staying with Canon for awhile. While the 1DX III is very tempting, I don't see myself using the raw that much because the file sizes are huuuuuuge - though full-frame 4k in 10-bit 422 is awesome. C200 4K raw is my max and even that isn't something I can use on most projects. I think the Red Komodo could be a game changer for Canon. They are going to sell a lot of EF and RF lenses because of that camera, I believe. I've almost went in on a C500 II purchase, but didn't. I've almost pre-ordered this camera, but didn't. I've almost ditched Canon completely and ported everything over to Panasonic or Fuji, but haven't. And the main reason is the promise of the Red Komodo and a Canon RF Cinema EOS body (NAB 2020?) and the potential that an RF mirrorless camera with 1DX III specs is very close to arriving. I hate this wait-and-see approach, but so much is changing right now in mounts and tech, that waiting another 6-months might be a good bet...

I think we've seen this for the past 2-3 years. Instagram turned into a platform for selling you stuff a few years ago and now Youtube is exactly the same. This is rampant consumerism at an all-time high. And honestly, camera gear and electronics are one of the worst offenders. There is a large selection of Youtubers who seem like fine people but are making a good chunk of money by promoting incredibly wasteful consumerism. I believe our current widespread depression and addiction epidemic is based on these false "social" channels and "relationships" that are actually more about envy, greed, and jealousy than actual real human connection. Maybe without knowing it (but some of them do), these Youtubers and Instagram "influencers" are contributing to people's increasing unhappiness.

Most curious about: - How is the rolling shutter? As bad a the EOS R or closer to C200/C500II? - Is there anyway to sync timecode through any of the ports? That's one of the best features of the S1H over the other mirrorless/dslr competition (and the reason it got Netflix approved, a long with the All-I 10-bit 422 4K).

Love Fuji and have been waiting for a really good reason to use them fully. The XT3 was really close, but I got too used to the IBIS of Panasonic. If this is an XT3 with IBIS and some updated video specs (120fps in 4K, 10-bit 422) and better battery life, I'm IN. Would love internal compressed raw (license something like BM Raw or RedCode), but ProRes Raw to a Ninja V would be great as well.

I wish manufacturers would work to optimize a 4k camera instead of rushing to the 5.5k - 6k (or 8k) raw option that results in file sizes so gigantic that only large budget, fully-funded stuff would ever use them. I shoot 2-4 hours a day on my doc projects, so 2.6gbps just ain't gonna work. What modern camera can I use for 2k raw? I would use that for 65% of my work. It doesn't exist. And use 4k compressed raw or 10-bit 422 for everything else. Plus, give me 120fps in 10-bit 4k before 60fps in 6k raw. Or internal NDs. Or so so many other features. The S1H definitely comes the closest in the mirrorless/DSLR field. But sheesh, enough with the 6k raw. Give me 2k and 4k compressed raw at useable data rates with good audio, internal NDs, a new lens mount (Canon!).

The RF Mount was a perfect choice, I think. That variable ND adapter alone is a huge boost to any RF-mount camera, not to mention the new Metabones speedbooster. EF mount is pretty frustrating after you've used the E-Mount or MFT mount, RF-Mount or L-Mount (really any mirrorless mount). So much easier to adapt lenses and all of the designs are more modern and the RF lenses in particular are vastly superior to their EF counterparts. After 2020, I think Canon will have the finest lineup of mirrorless lenses available - at least with a couple revolutionary lenses like their 28-70mm f2 and their new 70-200mm f2.8. But they really need to get a strong lineup of high-quality f1.8 and f2 lenses going (like the Zeiss Batis or Loxia). They definitely rolled out the PRO lenses first, so I'm guessing we'll see some more compact primes and zooms in 2020.

Raven was definitely a more introductory model, but it had a huge flaw compared to Komodo - namely, it was still a part of the DSMC2 system. Which means that even if you could get a cheaper Red camera in Raven, you still had to spend loads of money to get a working model: Red proprietary media ($2-3k), large and expensive V-Mount batteries and chargers ($500-900), Red modules to get any sort of audio ($2k), a Red monitor ($2k), and a few other needed accessories. So while Raven was fairly cheap ($6k), it costs close to $14k to get it rolling on an all day shoot. On top of that, it had an old sensor with a 1.8x crop and bad in low light. And then it was also just as heavy and intense to use as any other Red DSMC2 camera. Whereas the Komodo may be just the price of a camera for a lot of people. Many users probably have a few CFast 2.0 cards, the Canon batteries can easily be found for $25-$40 a pop, lots of people have a good SmallHD or Atomos monitor (and if not, they are only $250-300) already, and the camera uses a brand new sensor that is supposed to be graet in low light and only has a 1.33x crop (or no crop with a speedbooster) - and you can get a variable ND with it with the Canon mount. So, the Komodo really may only be $6-7k to get a full working package up and running (price pending, of course). Big difference between that and the Raven's close to $13-15k. Plus the Komodo seems like it will be a much better, smaller, lighter camera.

It does seem that Red is aiming for a more introductory camera to hook users. No doubt that once I used Redcode, it's hard to go back to h264/h265. The C200's cinema raw lite is also amazing, but definitely costs a lot more to use than Redcode due to only 3:1 or 4:1 compression (Redcode 5k still looks incredible at 11:1 - 14:1) and is much more processor intensive on my Mac. So, once you see the quality and flexibility you can get with a high-end raw codec, using something else is a bit disappointing. Makes sense to hook lower budget users.

Just check out Phil Holland's handy tools: http://phfx.com/tools/formatCompare/ For example, at 6k full sensor the Komodo is 1.33x crop from standard full-frame: http://phfx.com/tools/formatCompare/formatCompare.cgi?makeA=RED&modelA=Komodo+6K&formatA=6K+FF&makeB=Kodak&modelB=Film&formatB=FF35+Still+3%3A2&focalLengths= And has a 1.6x crop at 5k full frame: http://phfx.com/tools/formatCompare/formatCompare.cgi?makeA=RED&modelA=Komodo+6K&formatA=5K+FF&makeB=Kodak&modelB=Film&formatB=FF35+Still+3%3A2&focalLengths= So, if you used the speedbooster at 5k full sensor on the Komodo, it would get prettty darn close to a full-frame FOV. Pretty sweet.

I've been following it pretty closely and have been wondering that myself. I thought it was going to be sensor size, but that proved to be incorrect. As far as I can tell, the main differences will be: - High Frame Rates - Most Red cameras can do 96fps in 6k (Komodo will top out at 40 or 50fps) and 120-150fps in 4k. The specs haven't been released yet, but I'd be surprised if Komodo matched this. - Modularity - All of Red's other cameras can be built out based on the production. Whereas Komodo is pretty much just itself - it can't really be anything more than what it is, which probably means it won't be used as many A-Cams on most of the shows/movies that Red cameras are used on now. They need all the extra inputs and outputs that DSMC2 provides. - Fixed Mount - Totally fine with me since I love the RF Mount, but having an RF Mount and not user-swappable PL and EF mounts probably means many bigger productions will opt for DSMC2 and not use adapters. But really that seems to be about it, all of which is fine for small crews, owner/operators, small production companies, etc. Also, with a global shutter mode and Red IQ, I bet they will sell dozens of these to action movies and tv shows to use as crash cams and b, c, d, e, f, g etc cams.

This camera is going to be huge if they get a few things right. Battery choice is perfect. Non-proprietary media is awesome. Large then Suoer35 sensor for 1.3x (or so) crop. RF Mount with variable ND or speedbooster means full-frame at 5K. Redcode is still the friendliest raw format for file size or quality. Love the size and modularity for gimbal or handheld or travel work. Can use a host of monitors. RF lenses are getting better and better. PDAF could be incredilble, but we'll see what Red can do in this arena. Of all the cameras I've used, the Red Helium and Gemini still have the best image quality by far. So throw that into the mix. Excited for this camera.

This adapter is huge for Canon (and now Red). The fact that with this speedbooster you'll be able to shoot in 4k Redcode on Red Komodo with only a 1.3x crop or at 5k in full-frame is pretty incredible (or use the EOS R with only a slight 1.2x crop in 4k). The difference in image quality between Redcode Raw (I've used Helium and Gemini) compared to most of the standard FSx and A7 cameras from Sony or Panasonic S1H/GH5 or Canon EOS R or Cinema EOS under $10k is pretty darn dramatic still. The only thing that has come close is the Canon C200 Cinema Raw Lite but file sizes are astronomical compared to what you can get with Redcode. I'm sure someone will argue for Black Magic Raw, but I've had too many friends send theirs in for repair only to not have the problem fixed - they just have too many issues it seems. Red Komodo at $6k will be a massive hit. And this speedbooster only helps.

I think the GH6 will really pack in the features as it is the only way to differentiate the MFT market (just like the GH5 did 3 years ago). Basically, what can't full-frame mirrorless cameras do yet? A few years ago, it was 10-bit 4K, high frame rates, and great IBIS. Really only Panasonic's own cameras have surpassed that, but Nikon, Sony, and Canon are coming close (and Canon crushing with 1DX III specs that will surely make their way into a mirrorless camera soon-ish). So the GH6 needs to go all-in. - Raw externally to an SSD - Dual ISO that is great to at least 6400 ISO (like the GH5s) - 6K recording (not a huge deal for me as I'd rather have 12-bit 444 or raw in HD and 4K, but everyone else is doing it, soo...) - G9 or better IBIS (EM1X territory) - 120fps in 4K (and in 10-bit!) - Great AF - definitely starting to find this more and more important to keep my gimbal weight down. - And the BIG ONE: INTERNAL NDs!! I'm all about Panasonic's full-frame and excited about where Canon is heading after two knockout releases (C500II and 1DXIII) and amazing RF glass, but a GH6 with the above features with the 10-25mm f1.7 attached would compete on almost all levels.

Has anyone seen any tests on the photography side? The all electronic shutter concerns me for movement and certain lighting conditions but it would be nice to have a full frame camera this small to have with you at all times.

Yea exactly. Hard to use a fixed screen for video nowadays. And the RF mount would make the variable ND adapter available for EF lenses (though I like the RF versions much more and most are packing IS). But man, everything else in the 1DX III outside of its overall size is near perfect. Even with that size it is tempting due to the impressive battery life. Let's see when all the other specs are released, but Canon seems to be moving in the right direction quickly.

One of the main reasons a lot of cameras like this don’t make the Netflix list is Timecode. The C200 raw is one of the best Images under $20k, but does not have timecode I/O and therefore doesn’t make the list. Netflix officials have even stated that is why it isn’t on the list. Same with Pocket 4k/6k. smart of Panasonic to include it so they can make this list.

While the 1DX Mark III isn't exactly what I'd want in a camera, it is close. A bit smaller (S1 size), non-fixed screen, and the RF Mount would make this an instant buy for me. Canon's image and color (especially it's raw image from the C200 and (soon) C500) is just so freaking good. But it does seem like the C500 II non-crippling wasn't a fluke, because they are packing the 1DX with some serious features as well. Looks like Canon could be shaking up for an order that looks something like this: C500 II - 6k 60fps full-frame, raw internal, 10-bit 422 C300 III - 4k 120fps, full-frame, raw internal, 10-bit 422 (everything the C500 does, but no 6K. OR everything the c500 does but still Super35) - Hopefully with an RF Mount option. C200 II - 4k 60fps AND the 10-bit 422 codec the C200 was missing, super35 sensor, RF Mount and closer to C100 size. 1DX Mark III - 4k 60fps, raw internal, 10-bit 422, full-frame readout. Maaaaybe 6k. 5D Mark V - 4k 60fps, 10-bit 422, full-frame (no raw) EOS R PRO - Same as 5D V, IBIS. -- If Canon can fully re-organize their entire lineup in 2020 to match something like or to just keep going down the same path they have started with the C500 and 1DX Mark III, they will be in good shape. But, in my opinion, they need to start giving us the RF-Mount options on all camera models as soon as possible. Or at least launch equivalent camera models with the RF Mount. Their RF lenses are just too friggin good and all have stabilization, which is huge to have on . a 15-35mm f2.8 and 24-70mm f2.8 for video (something their EF counterparts do not have). 2020 might be a very exciting year for Canon. It's been awhile, so here's hoping.

I would say the 10-bit 422 codec is big. Also just the size - bigger than mist mirrorless/DSLRs, but still easy to use on a Ronin-S (whereas a C200 requires something much larger) and a glidetrack. After the C500 II, it is starting to look like Canon may be done crippling cameras for a bit (even the 90D has no-crop 4K and now 24p). I still don't like the 1DX series for a B-Cam (too tall, no flip out screen, more photo-oriented), but internal raw at 4k 60fps AND 10-bit 422 (probably XF-AVC) in such a small camera would make an amazing B-Cam to the C500II or even a great A-Cam for many other productions. With that said, If this was even S1H-sized (less tall, basically), had an articulating screen in some way, and (the big one) had an RF Mount, it would be an instant buy for me. If the C500 II had an RF Mount, I would strongly consider it as well. Mainly because I love their f2.8 RF lenses that are all packing stabilization and the variable ND adapter if you want to go that route. IBIS in the 1DX III would also make it very tempting. We'll see what the next EOS R mirrorless and 5D V bring, but if Canon keeps this up, those might be knockouts too. Honestly, Canon's 12-bit raw is leaps and bounds above any 10-bit camera I've used (EVA-1, C300II, FS7, etc). You can push and pull those files an incredible amount. It's hard to describe because online comparisons don't do it justice. It's when you see it that you realize what it gives you. The colors are SO much richer, so much deeper, and more natural. I really wish Canon could do on more level of compression (like Red) and get it to 8:1 though - file sizes are just too big for most things I do.