ghostwind

It's a nice lens, but it wasn't enough for me to go to Canon. Nikon has a 120-300 2.8 and rumors are they will make a Z version as well. For hockey I shoot both through the glass and through holes (at places that have them). It's college hockey, so it depends on the venue. In any case, I mostly use my 70-200 and my 24-70. If the light is good, I'll throw the 1.4x on the 70-200 and that's fine. Problem is, you can't use a 1.4x on the RF 70-200, and for me, that's a big problem TBH. Anyways, nice photos.

I believe with Delkin BLACK (the best performing card and the coolest temp) the almost got 30min before shutting down. With external power, no issues with any cards. If really interested, just rent one and push it and see.

2 fellow shooters that use it and tested it.

Yes, it seems to.

Yes, the Z9 doesn't overheat. The Z8 will, at times, unless on external power. It's just the physics of a smaller body, really. Also, the Z8 eats through batteries a lot more. I've been using large bodies like the Canon 1D(s/x) series for decades and prefer them over smaller bodies because they balance better with long lenses, battery life is better due to larger batteries, and the ergonomics feel better in vertical mode (the vertical grips of smaller bodies never seem to quite get the button layout right for some reason). Of course this is individual preference, but the heating is not. For some and their work and workflows, the Z8 battery life may very well be just fine.

After some more thinking, I've decided on the following. 2 x Z9 bodies 24-70mm f/2.8, 70-200mm f/2.8, 35mm f/1.8, 85mm f/1.8, 1.4x converter, and 400mm f/2.8 Canon has nothing that matches the Z9; it's that simple. Their 70-200 f/2.8 also can't take a 1.4x converter and that zoom mechanism doesn't look great in bad weather - a deal-breaker. Any minor differences that check comparison boxes in reviews or YT videos (like whose AF is slightly better, whose color science is better, etc.) aren't significant to me as these are minor things. What's important is having a body that does what I need it to do and doesn't overheat - period. I can't show up at a client's site and worry about this. I went down the wrong path in reading too much and watching too many videos that go into those small and unimportant details rather than focusing on what's more critical - lenses, solid and worry-free bodies, etc. This thread has helped get me back on track, so thanks all!

Forgot volleyball and swimming!

I did go by lenses above, but bodies are still important. Nikon also didn't really have video before the Z9 either. They always had lenses for what I do. I shoot college sports - football, soccer, hockey, basketball, lacrosse, & baseball. I usually use the 24-70 or 70-200 on one body (depending on the sport) and a 300 or 400 on the other body with a 1.4x at times. With Canon, I could use the 24-105 and 100-300 with 1.4x to replace those 3-4 lenses. Hockey I might still want to use a 70-200 though, as that's what I primarily use and the 100-300 is not so light to hold for the entire game. How's the 28-70 for video? My thinking was to use the 24-105 for most other things, with the 28-70 when I want shallower DOF or the light drops. But I would think the 24-105 would be nicer for video with the IS and power zoom.

Right, it would either be 1&2 or 3&4. I was just separating them by what I shoot. I've thought about a Z8 as the second body, but I prefer to have the same body with the same batteries, button layout, cards, etc. When using 2 bodies at once, it's easy and less thinking involved.

I was thinking of things in terms of simplicity today and came up with this: 1. Canon (everything not sports, including video): 1 body with 24-70mm f/2 and 2nd body with 24-105mm f/2.8 2. Canon (sports): 1 body with 24-105mm f/2.8 and 2nd body with 100-300mm f/2.8 (with 1.4x on hand) 3. Nikon (everything not sports, including video): 1 body with 24-70mm f/2.8 and 2nd body with 70-200mm f/2.8 and in lower light a 24/35/50/85mm f/1.8 prime combo on the 2 bodies. 4. Nikon (sports): 1 body with either 24-70mm f/2.8 or 70-200mm f/2.8 and 2nd body with 400mm f/2.8 (with 1.4x on hand for the 70-200mm - the 400mm has the 1.4x built in) So those are the scenarios I came up with based on my experience with 2 bodies and what I shoot, and what is out there in Canon and Nikon mirrorless land from a lens point of view. With Nikon the Z9 is the body I'd get. With Canon, it's more complicated as stated before until R1 comes out (assuming it will be similar to the Z9 with more MPs, etc.)

If it were more than 24MP, I'd def get the R3. That and the RF 70-200 limitations (see my prior post) are reasons I won't get either. Regarding the Z8, it's in the mix of course. I just worry that I'd have to carry a bunch of batteries all the time. And for video, it doesn't seem to last too long. I'd hate to be on-site with a client and have it overheat. Z9 just doesn't from any testing I've seen, so more reliable even if more heavy and pricier.

Yeah, it's a tough problem to have 🙂 You make some good points, ones I've also thought about. The problem is that while Canon has some interesting lenses, Nikon does as well. But the main issue is that Canon doesn't have any good bodies at this point IMHO. The R3 is too low at 24MP for me if I need to punch in. Otherwise, it's great. The R5 bodies are getting a makeover soon as you point out. So more waiting for the R1...or buying some R3/R5 combo in the interim and selling at depreciation as I was saying in my initial post. That RF 70-200 is a bad design for my use. I would worry about taking it in rain and dust with that zoom mechanism. It also won't take the 1.4x extender, which I use all the time on my EF 70-200 for sports.

What about support and Nikon's commitment to video? These really are the first cameras to have all this, and while Canon is a safe bet, not sure what Nikon's future is. I agree with the lenses. The other thing is Canon colors - not sure how N-log is in comparison, or how easy it is to get it to look good in post.

I just made this post below and saw yours afterward. Maybe you can chime in on my post?

I'm finally making the move to mirrorless from my DSLRs for my photography work (weddings, portraits, sports, events, corporate, etc.), as I have some downtime in December and January to do this. For the past 4 years, I've had to incorporate more and more video into my work, and that's not going to stop; it will only grow. But stills are still very important. So, In looking at what system to go to, the Nikon Z9/Z8 stood out in terms of having quite the video capabilities - no overheating on the Z9 especially (Z8 may have some overheating), internal recording of RAW and ProRes, etc. In the Canon camp, I've been waiting forever for that R1 that keeps eluding everyone. I've shot both Canon and Nikon, so am not tied to either, and I don't only own 4 lenses which I want to upgrade to either Z or RF anyway. So what I have now doesn't factor much into the system I'll move to now. So the Z9/Z8 look very attractive, as I was saying. In the Canon camp, I've read mixed things about the R3 and R5c. It seems Canon still cripples some features on their cameras, whereas Nikon went all in with the Z9/Z8. Not having as many products and no cinema line, Nikon can do this I guess. So that's a plus, but perhaps also a negative in that they are not as established, and who knows what the future will look like. Canon is everywhere; they have cinema cameras, and they're not going anywhere, it seems. For stills, I think the Z9/Z8 are superior to the R3/R5/R5c for my use, so I am not worried about that, and I'm sure the future R1 will match the Z9/Z8 for that, but it's the video I'm on the fence about. Some folks at the local camera shops I've spoken to seem really high on Canon for video (how C-log is so great, etc.), and they aren't a Canon shop at all. On the lens front, it doesn't matter much, they seem similar (Z and RF quality), and I think the Z mount is versatile enough to use many other lenses with adaptors - maybe more than the RF mount. I shoot as a one-man band. My videos are usually corporate stuff (interviews mixed with b-roll, etc.) and, more recently, some sports stuff. But I do it on my own, and I'm not collaborating with other folks. It works for me, I like working this way, and I mention it because I don't need to share files with other folks, which makes choosing a system more individual presence. I've used Canon C100/300 cinema cameras before, but I realized it wasn't worth it or necessary, as my workflow is simple. And with the advent of 32-bit audio recorders like the Zoom F3, I don't care about XLR inputs anymore on my cameras, and want/prefer the simplicity of a true hybrid camera system. I'm just on the fence about Nikon for the reasons mentioned, and I'm also curious about what people here think. I could go with Canon and get an R3 + R5c or an R5 + R5c and use them until the R1 comes out. I feel like the R1 will be quite similar to the Z9 in specs/features, but it will be Canon and shoot C-log, and people will gush about it. There's also some comfort in the fact that, again, Canon is committed to video whereas Nikon may not be. I've read some negative things about N-log, NRAW, etc. too. These are just my thoughts that I wanted to write down and solicit some feedback on. I feel the Z9/Z8 workflow will be simpler, and working with the R3/R5/R5c will be a bit more of a headache managing battery life, heating, etc. All feedback is appreciated.

It really depends on what you will be shooting. You haven't said. Personal stuff? Commercial work? If so, what kind? Narrative, corporate, documentary, etc? That will determine what you should get. While I like the BMPCC 6K's image, I would never use it on a corporate shoot for example. For narrative projects, perhaps (again depends on the project). Same with the RED Komodo. For doc and corporate shoots, I would use Sony or Canon as they are more robust and reliable. I would always prefer to have two cameras instead of one, but I wouldn't mix brands, as matching them in post will be a nightmare. Budget is another thing to consider. What is your budget? For $10K, I would get a Sony FX6 and a Sony A7S3 for example. I think that's a great combo for many types of shooting scenarios. Both are full frame, easy to match, etc. My 2 cents with the little info you provided.

While I agree with the sentiment of your post, it's important to point out that higher end cameras don't mess with the signal as much as consumer cameras do. Stuff like NR, sharpening, etc. Some that cannot be turned off, even when shooting "RAW". And this can be very important, as that determines your starting point.

Same can be said about "Proud Mary", link below. Of course these are extreme examples, with multi-million dollar budgets that allow for big productions with very expensive lenses, rigs, lighting, crews, etc. Then you have access to the best coloring and grading in post. So while it's true that it can show what the Sony sensor can do, for people here, they won't be able to get there so easily. And that's when a larger camera like the FX6/FX9 will help, with more flexibility, more I/O, etc. I think the key is to focus on flexibility when you are a one man band or a small crew. Which camera will offer you the most flexibility and make it easier to get the end results you seek. Yes they can all get there, but choose a realistic path (e.g. not the "Possession of Hannah Grace" or "Proud Mary" paths), and that will lead to the best camera choice for you personally. https://britishcinematographer.co.uk/dan-laustsen-dff-asc-proud-mary/

We'll see, I guess. H.264 was adopted a lot faster however. BTW, the FX6 doesn't do H.265, only the A7S3.

In many ways, it seems like the wrong time upgrade to a 4K camera now and a more powerful computer. Canon is moving to RF, and for sure in 2021 will have better RF C90/etc, and Apple is making a huge hit with their new processors that just came out. A month ago I was ready to get a loaded Mac Pro and the C300MKIII, but now I'm not so sure. I may rent for any projects that need the 4K until next summer perhaps. Those Apple chips I had doubts about, but they are ridiculous it seems. Hmm..

Need to upgrade to a 4K camera from my trusty C100MKII, and am a bit confused on codecs used and where things are headed. I understand HEVC/H.265 and how it's a better distribution codec as it has similar quality to H.264 but at lower bitrates (smaller files), but what I don't understand is why some cameras like the new R5 and A7SIII use it, while the C300MKIII for example does not. And what does the future hold? I ask because I will also need to upgrade my computer, and seems this H.265 is to be a pain to play back and edit on, requiring hardware decoding/acceleration, like the new Apple M1 chips have, the iPhones, iPads, etc., but none of the big name NVIDIA or AMD GPU cards have (at least not for 4:2:2 10bit H.265). What's the deal here? Are cinema cameras like the C300MKIII designed with the assumption that the "more pro" user is not as concerned with storage, so the smaller files/bitstreams allowed by H.265 are not as important in a workflow as they may be to a "less pro" user using a DSLR/prosumer camera like the R5 (or A7SIII)? Otherwise why not have it? It's not like the C300MKIII and the R5 were released years apart. I don't get it - I'm missing someting. Confused...

Never owned anything Sony when it comes to cameras, but this could be a first. The Canon C70 looks nice, but at that small size and low weight it needs IBIS IMHO. That's my biggest concern with the C70 - handheld footage and no IBIS. The Sony A7S3 checks all the marks.

True. Wishful thinking on my part. Perhaps there is room for something between the C70 and the C300MKIII. Just not a fan of the C70’s form factor.

Agreed. This thread is mostly about codecs, but to me the ergonomics are just as important. Having named it the C70, that leaves some hope that perhaps they will have a C100MKIII at some point, full XLR, BNC?, larger/modular form factor/ etc. for $2K more. Dunno. Many are saying this IS the C100MKIII, but then they would have called it that no?

Still using my C100MK2, in fact just wrapping up a corporate promo video this week, but need to go to 4K soon, so the C70 vs. C300M3 has got me thinking. While I do like the smaller form factor of the C70 (and of course the price), the one thing I do wonder is if a camera so small and light without proper IBIS will be more difficult to handhold and stabilize than a C300MK3. Weight gives better stability when handheld, but size does too, as it's easier to brace a larger camera (for me anyways). Any thoughts on this? Another thing I noticed that makes me a bit nervous are the exposed audio controls. The cinema cameras so far have a small plastic door to cover them. With the LCD open on the C70, can be possibly easier to change the input gain on the audio by mistake.