eatstoomuchjam

So at least for now, I'm inclined to stick with my original take - you can go buy a GFX 100 II right now and have "basically the same" almost everything as the cine camera, but without pro I/O and without internal ND... but you will also have what is arguably the best sub-$10,000 stills camera that is available. Although now that I've seen the size of that 32-90, unless you make some sort of cinerig for the GFX 100 II, it'd probably end up awfully front-heavy. That thing is a monster. Sheesh.

(submitted before I finished writing) They will add "some features." Rolling shutter will be the same. Internal codecs not specified 12-bit A/D conversion, same as GFX 100 II Capture formats "basically the same" as GFX 100 II Shipping sometime in 2025, but he was pretty cagey about when - I suspect it'll be later in the year

cined interviewed the product planner. There are internal ND's which is good. Picture quality "basically the same" as the GFX 100 II, but "optimized more for filmmaking" with what I think he said would be f-log2c for cinema gamma.

The rumors site also said that Fuji announced a 32-90mm zoom for the GFX system. That might also be exciting - the 32-64 is my default lens on the GFX 100 and one of my only objections is the lack of reach at the long end.

Bold, maybe, but "new" is really what I was objecting to. Nothing in the announcement is "new." Otherwise, that's cool that Customs 65 is doing well. I'm glad that OFG are having some success with it. Though it's not necessarily the case that the success of a niche camera in LA is predictive of the success/desire for the same camera in every market. I can say that in my market, the lower end for narrative production is pretty full of Black Magic and the higher end is skewed toward Sony and Red. When I've shown up places with the GFX 100, people see "Fuji" and make some comment about how they prefer FF to S35. 😆 (Dude, I know the GFX 100 II is smaller than the original, but does it really look like an S35 body to you, especially with the big chonky GF lens on the front?) I'll definitely look forward to hearing from BTM_Pix about what info can be gleaned on the show floor, especially if it's possible to put hands on the camera. I'd be genuinely excited if my prediction that it's "GFX 100 II in a box with better I/O" is wrong and it's able to merge the low RS mode and the high DR modes, even at 4K. Even more excited if it included a faster readout version of my beloved 5.8k widescreen mode.

I'd say that just about any of Red's VV cameras are also competitors in the "bigger than FF, but not as big as 65mm" category. Unless I'm mistaken, they're all 40.96mm wide - so more than halfway between a 35.7mm (or so) full frame sensor and the 43.8mm GFX sensor size. A monstro brain sold on ebay in early September for $4,700. Add a $400 IO expander, $700 v-lock module, and some ridiculously overpriced mini-mags (which could be less expensive if the Jinnitech hack still works - just buy the smallest/cheapest one possible and swap it for bigger/better media and overwrite the needed SMART bits), and you're not too far off from $6k. Now if only the prices of DSMC2 accessories would drop to match the bodies...

Absolutely. Fuji are (mostly) at the mercy of Sony for the sensors and building out an entirely new camera with a different sensor is more than just swapping out a single piece of hardware. I'm not saying it's viable or that they should - just that it's what I would find exciting. Putting the same guts in a cine body isn't all that thrilling to me. That said, adding professional ports to the camera is probably table stakes for getting it used on more professional shoots. I'm just not sure what the market is for that vs renting a V-Raptor or Alexa 65. But again, we will see when more details come out. I also realized between my last post and now that they didn't mention IBIS. If the sensor is locked down, it'll be easier for them to stick a big heatsink on the back to go with a fan. If they can kick up the readout speed and give it a hybrid 4K mode combining the faster readout and the increased bit depth that the GFX 100 II has as options now (vs the OG 100), it's suddenly a much more interesting camera - even better if the 5.8K mode can also get a faster readout. Even better better if they improve the autofocus just a bit - right now, it works right for me around 80-90% of the time - with copious swearing at it the other 10-20% of the time. Not just if ETERNA is a success - but at this point, I don't think I've seen any footage from the BM 17K sensor. It's probably some combination of embargo and me not looking for it because it'll be years before they hit the used market at a price that I'd find even remotely palatable. If that sensor is all BM claims, I'd love to see a GFX 100 III with a shiny new/better sensor.

If I am reading that release right, the camera uses the GFX 100 II sensor which is a tweaked version of the GFX 100 sensor (released in 2019 so the sensor is at least that old) and the same processing chip as the GFX 100 II (released last year). I'm not sure I'd call that "new bold tech." Plus that particular 102 megapixel sensor in a cinema camera is a bizarre choice. You can't shoot 12K with it. For full sensor width modes, there are 4K (17:9) and 5.8K (2.3x:1) options. There's an 8K mode which is smaller than full sensor width on a 24x36mm sensor. Sensor readout speed in several of the modes is fairly glacial for a modern camera - and in 4K mode, the low RS mode comes with reduced bit depth. On a hybrid body like the GFX 100 II, they are fantastic options and the image can look really nice. On a dedicated cinema camera, it seems bizarre. If they put in a huge fan that lets them overclock the processor/sensor and get more/better modes than the GFX 100 II, it could be interesting. If not, given that the price is likely to be $6k+, if I had that money burning a hole in my pocket, I'd be far more likely to pick up a C80 and get triple base ISO, internal ND (maybe the Fuji will have it, but those pictures don't look like it), faster readout, and better dynamic range. I love my GFX 100 II, but I'd be a whole lot more excited to see a cinema camera version of it made with an updated lower megapixel sensor with faster readout, ideally in 14-bit or 16-bit mode. If I'm looking to buy a large sensor camera, I'd buy the normal hybrid version of this camera which is also well-designed to be a stills camera (taking full advantage of that beautiful 102 megapixel sensor with 16-bit readout (or at least 14?)). If looking to rent a larger sensor camera, I'd wait to see reviews of that bonkers Black Magic 17K that's supposed to come out sometime this year - that's a wider sensor than the GFX (~50mm) or one of the Red V-Raptor VV cameras which is wider than FF, but less than GFX (40mm).

Does anybody make the argument that film has higher resolution than digital? In full frame 35mm photo terms, I thought it was generally accepted that 24 megapixels or so was equal to (or greater than) the resolution of most film. That means 6k is closer to Vista Vision. There are a few exceptions that people will cherry pick to show it - but if using a high-quality film scanner with around 4,000dpi resolution (4000x6000 - 24 megapixels) - and if using a glass carrier to keep the negative perfectly flat, the grain on almost any film stock is easily visible at 100%. If using ISO 400 or above, it's even more obvious. With that in mind, the actual resolution of even a very modern 35mm film stock (academy) is about 8 megapixels at 4,000 dpi - so 4k. But even with a fully digital pipeline, I'll choose my C70 (4K S35) over my EOS R5 (8K FF) almost every time. Resolution is far from the most important quality of an image and there are plenty of reasons (including much better highlight rolloff) that people shoot on film. Plus if we're talking cinema, it might surprise you how many theaters are still using 2K projectors, rendering the capture resolution even more moot. 😄

This thread is a good idea, but might be tricky since the handful of actually-active members on the forum are spread between England, a few EU countries, the US, and Australia. Most of the deals are fairly country/geo-specific.

Probably a good choice. The codecs that you can record to internal storage on the X-M5 are much better. A used Panasonic S9 would also be a nice choice if you want FF. Edit: OR not, I guess, if you want raw. I guess the S9 doesn't support raw over HDMI. 😕

Red are (or were) made in the US... or at least, the assembly is done here. Not sure about the individual components, but if that's the concern, then Sigma is no more ethical than anybody else who uses Sony sensors. https://petapixel.com/2017/11/30/red-cameras-made/

I'm glad to see this has been more "favorite cameras" vs "favorite manufacturers" since there's almost no reason to have a favorite manufacturer. My favorites that I have right now are the GFX 100 II for stills and the Komodo-X for motion pictures. For a smaller, more portable setup, I like my EOS R5 with Canon RF consumer primes and the 70-200/4L - or with Leica M primes. I also like the C70 a lot and look forward to the C80 hitting the used market (partly because it'll be a nicer match for the Leica M stuff than my APS-C gear).

Oh, and as far as 16:9 being phone-friendly, it seems like they're stretching a bit. My new phone (iPhone 16 Pro) is 19.5:9 which is closer to 2.17:1 - so flat aspect ratio (2:1) would be the closest to full screen and scope is less letterboxed than you might expect. 😃

I've definitely shot a bunch of stuff on the GFX 100 II using the 5.8K widescreen mode - that's the full sensor width and some sort of scope aspect ratio (can't remember exactly, but 2.3x anyway). I wouldn't call it faux-anamorphic, though, because of the lack of horizontal flares or funky rounded bokeh. In most cases, I prefer just to shoot 17:9 with frame guides set for a scope frame. That's how I've shot the last... bunch of short films that were delivered in scope. That comes with the bonus that the editor can move the frame up or down a little bit without having to punch in for it. Some of my cameras (Z Cam, RED) allow shooting in scope, but about the only reason I can see for using it would be to save space - and it's just not going to make a big difference for me to save the 25% or so. I have a set of nanomorphs (25/50/80) that I keep threatening to bring to some production, but given that the main cameras that I use these days (Komodo-X/Komodo/C70) all have 17:9 sensors, 1.5x anamorphic will put me at 2.8:1 which is wider than my collaborators will enjoy so we'll just be cropping left/right instead of top/bottom. Though I recently got a Dog Schidt (Helios 44-2) with a faux anamorphic aperture and I picked up a 1.33x anamorphic adapter to go with it. I might, at some point, shoot some low-priority project with it. I sort of like the combo.

OK, boomer.

That looks literally nothing like Gary, IN... ever. And yes, it is a real concern if human artists can take months to build something, only for a bunch of untalented fakers to shit out hundreds of AI imitations overnight afterward. If you think it's a concern that melodies in pop music are similar to progressions in music that's hundreds of years old, I would urge you to familiarize yourself with the concept of public domain. Anyway, as with other things, the main thing that will or won't kill AI for this sort of thing will be whether what it produces can be copyrighted. If Musk's stupid ego-stroking horseshit videos can't be copyrighted due to being generated by AI, there's nothing to stop internet users from drawing dicks all over them and reposting the next day or competitors using them, etc.

Nice whataboutism.

You might also want to consider whether the convenience of touching your production monitor to choose focus points is worth supporting a shitty company like Atomos.

For sure! It might be the camera that finally inspires me to pick up X-mount.

That's basically why I ended up ditching my Sigma fp and fp-l. By the time they were set up for any sort of reasonable shooting (external SSD + screen), they ended up a lot bigger than my Canon R5 (internal raw, screen can be rotated).

Now it's apparently a 1" camera that will be marketed as "half frame." That makes a lot more sense, but it's nothing revolutionary. It could be a bit interesting to see a modern compact with 1" sensor - like an updated RX100/ZV-1 or similar - though for me, a bit less interesting if they actually make the sensor vertical.

Right, but we're not talking about them releasing a film camera. We're talking about a digital camera that has a half frame sensor. 23.5x15.6mm and half frame is 18x24mm. They're basically the same size with the only difference being that half frame is naturally portrait orientation and being 4:3 ratio instead of 3:2. Does Sony even make a 18x24 sensor? Or is Fuji just going to take one of the bigger APS-C sensors and rotate it 90 degrees? It would seem to make more sense for them to go APS-H (similar to Red's S35) or go fixed lens FF or MF.

It's regrettable because cameras like the GH2 and GH5 were truly industry-leading in any number of ways. I loved both of them - but failure to continue innovating has let everybody else catch up or surpass them.

At some point, the ecosystem becomes relevant. Are Panasonic's bodies in the $1,500-2,500 range price-competitive with competition in a similar bracket? Sure. Do any/many of them offer compelling features in excess of the competition? Not really. In that range, I can get an R6 Mark II, A Z6 III, or an A7 IV. Just slightly out of that range, an R5 (currently about $2,900) or even a used Komodo (I can say from personal experience that they're now available on ebay for <$3,000 - my K-X now has a cute little brother). Those options would put me in RF mount, Z mount, and E mount which are all supported by vendors who are regularly releasing new cameras and show every sign of still being in the industry in 3-5 years. Fuji X mount is also an option in that price point and excellent, though there's no FF option if that's a requirement. On the other hand, if Panasonic folds or stops releasing new cameras, what are my other options in L mount? Leica are a combination of expensive as hell and seemingly reliant on Panasonic for their electronics. Sigma haven't released a new L mount camera since the fp-l in 2021. What does Panasonic offer that the others don't? In photo terms, not much that I can think of. In video terms, internal ProRes on some models? Fuji has it too, but again, if we're only looking at FF... ProRes could be useful for some working professionals, but for a lot of the kids, they're apt to be a lot more excited by internal raw on Canon and Nikon. Panasonic still have, I think, the best IBIS in the industry. Is that enough of a selling point? Judging by the sales numbers above, a big majority of customers say no. If I have $1,500 in my pocket to buy a camera, do I buy the S9 or the FX30? But also, as far as working pros go, these days, most are going to go Sony and of those that don't go Sony, most will go Canon. That's just how the industry has gone.