barefoot_dp

Don't believe everything you see on the internet! 🤣🤣 They've even added digital lens flares to the "before" images. The picture with the sun in the frame would be exactly the same in the before/after in real life, which shows that not only are they flogging junk, but they don't even understand what their junk is supposed to do! Yes, please tell me more about how I can digitally add back the shallow DOF and motion blur that is lacking if I shot outside at f11 & 1/400th without ND's! As for diffusion filters, it's generally much faster (& therefore cheaper) to get the effect in camera, regardless of how well you can digitally add it in later.

Can I spend zero dollars FOR someone else to do it? 🤣

I'd steer them towards either a C100 or an FS700. Either of those cameras are a steal for the prices they go for. They'll save money on audio and ND filters because it's all built in. And they'll learn how to use all of that stuff properly with minimal fuss. FS700 is more versatile with lots of frame rates, option to record 4K externally, etc. Canon has a better "straight out of the box" colour profile but is limited to 24/25/30fps @ 1080p. C100 also has auto-focus if it's had the firmware update, but learning to focus manually is best for any cam. If they're going the budget route then a lens adapter for the FS700 would be a good idea, either to use electronic EF lenses or old manual primes (m42, Nikon, etc), as native E mount lenses might blow their budget out pretty quick.

Recently I thought about picking up a DSLR just for stills, as I've got plenty of EF lenses already. I do have an a6400 purely for use in a surf housing with the kit lens, but I don't like the idea of investing in a whole new set of lenses just for the occasional times I want to take some photos. I had a look at what used DSLR's were around, and was astounded to see that Canon 60D's are going for more now than when I sold mine about 6-7 years ago. As for cinema cameras, the current used market makes a pretty good case for not buying a Red. All those folks who dropped $60-80K+ on a Red, thinking they would be rental cash cows that they could then sell without much depreciation, can't even sell them for peanuts now. Pretty funny, seeing as this is the company who's slogan was "Making obsolescense obsolete".

The different contrast levels are probably due to data vs video levels. Not sure if your particular camera lets you choose which to use over HDMI, but if not you can fix in in your NLE. Resolve has an option to swap between video or data levels, and in Premiere you need to add a fast colour corrector with output set to 16-235 before you add any other colour effects. You might not always notice the difference when you're editing, but those times you do, you'll be very thankful. It also helps you reach minimum requirements for a lot of broadcasters and agencies which means more work opportunities.

I guess that is essentially the space that cameras like the DVX200, CX350, UX90 and Z150 fill. Camcorder style, 1" sensor (or 4/3rds for the DVX200), with zoom lenses covering around 9-120mm. Of course they generally lack things like raw, log, 10-bit etc, but that essentially comes down to market forces. Anybody who cares about maximum image quality is also far more likely to favour a larger sensor cinema camera. You might be in the minority who feel otherwise. Red cancelled their original Scarlet concept ("3K for $3K") for similar reasons - once DSLR's started recording video, they most knew people wanting to move to a more "cinema" style camera would be far more likely to purchase a FF interchangeable-lens camera, rather than a fixed lens s16 camera.

No, it is 120fps. If you play back the 60p file, it will be at 50% of real-time speed. If you interpret it to 23.976 fps then it will play back at 20% of real-time speed. Not sure about the a7sIII but many cameras let you choose what the files get saved as - so if you don't want to interpret the footage every time you import it, you might be able to set the internal file to record at 23.976.

I think you made a good choice - a solid set of sticks will last for decades and might never be redundant. LED lights, however, are changing so fast that there might be something better available for half the price or even less within a few months. I'm seeing lots of listing of people selling 300D's and 120D's at the moment, trying to recover some value before all the latest LED releases become available and the used prices plummet. It's hard to justify putting several thousand dollars in to a single light right now.

I updated my camera last year so I'm good for a couple of years now. 2021 purchases will be mostly lighting - LED lights are starting to get really competitive and I'll likely get some of the new Nanlite's.

The problem is designs like that won't work with lenses made for APS-C of FF sensors. The PD150/170 had 1/3" sensors, and the lenses required for such sensors are much smaller and much lighter. Most of the weight of these cams was at the back right near the handgrip, so they balanced well when hand-holding. Most cameras these days end up with the COG pretty close to the lens mount or sensor plane once you put a typical photo zoom or small cine prime on., so any grip/handle behind that point is going to be poorly balanced. If you were to hold a camera like you describe up to your face to use the viewfinder, your arms would give in after 30 seconds because all the weight is at the very front. And using the top handle to shoot lower angles would lead to RSI after a day of shooting. Plus this design would be no good for gimbals which would instantly discount it for a large portion of potential buyers. To achieve proper balance, you need to either (a) make the camera body bigger, longer, and heavier (eg Canon C700, Sony F55), or (b) put the handgrips further forward (like Sony does with their grip/arm combo and slanted top handle on the FX6), or (c) make the body a simple block shape and let the user solve the problems on their own (eg red, Alexa Mini, Z-Cam). Those cams of the 90's-00's were very convenient and ergonomic, but the same designs do not translate well to large sensors and large lenses.

I did end up buying a Z-Cam E2-S6 earlier in the year and have put it to good use. I've got the eND so I'm not sacrificing ND at all, but I do sometimes miss the SDI. However I haven't yet had a job with it where I've needed a director or AC's feed - my guess is that when I do, it will also be a job that has the budget to rent whatever I need (same goes for TC). As far as those other options, I crossed most of them off the list for various reasons. The FS7 did not seem like a big enough IQ jump over what I already had to justify a $10,000+ investment. If I'm paying that much I'd much rather spring an few thousand extra and get the G2 I originally wanted. Same story for the EVA1. Sony F5/55 are great but do I really want to buy an 8 year old camera to be my workhorse, and expect it to last another 5 years? And again, a G2 package mostly works out cheaper. The Metabones are good when they're new. However as time goes on (like most lenses) they start to get issues with contacts, or with firmware not working for certain lenses. It's just one more point of failure that I would like to eliminate. Plus I always get nervous putting something like a 70-200 on the front of an adapter - or it means an extra few minutes setting up rails and lens support. I shoot a lot of surfing & action sports which is why the 100fps is a must-have for me. And I wouldn't say it is a super ambitious spec these days - basically every major camera announced this year has a 4K100p. It's pretty clear that it is going to be almost an expected feature going forward so that is why I didn't want to buy something that was limited to 60p (or 50p, in practicality) knowing that in 12-18 months it will just be expected you can shoot 4K at 100fps. I'm not the type of person who upgrades at every new release so I wanted specs that would keep my going for a good few years. I'm not saying the Z-Cam has been perfect but I'm definitely happy with the choice. It paid for itself within a few gigs and was a good fit for the level of shoots I was mostly doing this year (local website vids & commercials). Once I get back in to my more regular schedule post-COVID, which involves more TV stuff and lots of travel, I'll probably really start wishing I had the G2 I originally wanted, or something even newer like an FX6 or C70. But my Z-Cam will at least keep me going until those start popping up 2nd hand at lower prices.

You can assign a keyboard shortcut for this too.

Granted the Mac Pro might not be for mass consumers, but there's a much wider market than just filmmakers. And It's not actually a niche product; it's just a high-end version of a product nearly every home and office uses. Any professional who needs a powerful desktop for any reason might consider it. And many more people with more money than sense will go out and buy it simply because they think "it's what professionals use and I want the best". The real genius of Apple products is in the styling and marketing, not in the design or features. It's worth noting that if Apple put out a cinema camera they would likely not be able to include ProRes raw recording internally - they already challenged Red's patent in court and lost. And being Apple, they would probably have a proprietary lens mount with very limited, overpriced lenses. You would have to buy an ipad or iphone as the monitor, there would be no headphone jack, the audio inputs would be some new proprietary type, everything would be touchscreen only, and the mounting threads would be 1/2" instead of 1/4" so that you have to buy a special Apple baseplate for $2499 just to put it on a tripod. Plus it would probably have an internal media and an internal battery that cannot be removed and which does not last for a full 10hr production day (and the charger would be sold separately). Apple are the last company I would want to see release a cinema camera.

You're far less cynical about Apple than I am. They won't make/sell anything unless (a) there is mass consumer appeal, and (b) everything about it requires compulsory proprietary integration for both hardware and software. Both of these things are inherently at odds with the professional photo/video production industry. I know plenty of stills photographers who would be devastated if Nikon went under, but not a single videographer.

The HDMI output is by far my biggest gripe with this camera. It seems to change from mode to mode, but when shooting HFR Prores it is limited to 720p and is so soft that the peaking on my monitor won't even engage. AF is not something I even considered when I bought this cam and it was only after 6 months that I even realised it was there last week. I did a full music video shoot on a gimbal (Zhiyun Crane 3s) two weeks ago and it might have been nice to use then. I just tried to work with deeper focus instead but I'll have to do some tests to see if the AF can actually be used in that situation. I wouldn't trust it for a 1-time event like a bride walking down the aisle (not that I shoot weddings), but for a music video or fashion video where you just need to pick out a few moments from each take it should be ok. CFAST cards are expensive but that's true for just about any camera shooting 10-bit 4K. Even the SD cards needed for the flagship mirrorless cameras these days are pretty darn expensive - though I guess with those cameras you can usually choose to use cheaper cards if you don't mind being limited to lower bitrates. With ZCam you don't really have the option of buying cheaper CFAST cards to shoot h.265 because cheap CFAST cards don't really exist. The buttons & controls are annoying but once you remember what is what it gets a bit easier. I'm planning to get the Rvlvr Clutch handle which should make controls a lot more convenient, but it would be nice if the camera itself at least had one rotating dial on it. Image wise though, it's fantastic. I cannot fault it. I can't ever imagine a situation where any aspect of the image quality or codec is going to be the limiting factor for me or my work.

Well, that's a matter of opinion, as you say. I think it makes sense and anyone who's worked in broadcast can instantly pick up one of these (or an FX9 or FS7), start shooting, and find most of the controls they're used to. Apart from setting the right res/codec for the project or formatting cards, you can often get through an entire days shooting without ever needing to enter the menu's with these cameras. And usually you can find the button you need without even looking. You literally push one button. The video you linked shows you how to change your S&Q settings, but once that's done, it's a single push of a button to get into slow-motion mode. It will be far from "less cluttered" once you have 2x xlr cables (+ adapters to full-size), headphones and HDMI cable coming out of the side with all those little rubber doors dangling around. Not everyone will need that, but it's just as easy to criticise the C70 design as the FX6 (even more so in this regard). The FX6 has the ports right where you need them on a set - on the dumb side. It even has the ports recessed enough so that you can avoid obstructions when using a battery plate. Unless you need to shoot any high or low angles, or on a shoulder mount, and can't use the non-rotating handle. In that situation you have exactly 0 nice dials. FX6/FS7/FS5 style handle is very versatile and convenient. Fair point, in some cases. But if you're stripping the camera down, say to shoot on a gimbal or to mount it in a car, are you really going to want audio in-camera? All those cables/mics/receivers would just get in the way and go against what you're trying to achieve. You'd probably be recording externally anyway. A deal-breaker for some, (eg if you MUST have in-cam audio on gimbal), but for most it's a problem that is easily solved when it arises. This comment shows just how out of touch you are with most people who will actually use a camera like the FX6. The reason people will build a rig is to improve ergonomics (for their particular preferences) and reduce fatigue. It also lets them use all the tools they'll need when they work in a crew with a 1AC, soundo, director, etc. It lets them go from tripod to handheld to shoulder faster. It lets them put the shoulder mount and top handle directly in line with the COG for perfect balance. It lets them put the camera down on unbalanced surfaces without getting damaged or falling over. It lets them power everything from a single battery. It also gives the camera more mass which reduces shake and gives a more natural feel to the images (and if done right, makes it easier to balance and operate too). The only people building rigs to impress other people are those who care more about THEIR image than THE image. Again, we're all entitled to opinions. But you're also making pretty outlandish statements that show how much understanding you lack about this product and the people who will use them. It's the equivalent about me writing an article claiming the Isuzu N series is a "monstrosity of stupid design" because it doesn't fit into the average household garage.

There's a few big differences between then and now though. Back then the cameras had tiny 1/3" or even 1/5" sensors, and were mostly shooting for SD delivery (yes, they could shoot HD but the delivery pipeline was still mostly SD through the 00's). The lenses needed for those cameras were tiny compared to what we need today for S35 sized sensors. So there was less weight up the front of the camera, and they could easily be balanced in the palm of your hand. The fact they were shooting on tiny sensors, in a lower resolution, also made it much easier to nail focus, so you didn't need the best monitor possible. As we've moved to bigger sensors and more resolution, even the tiniest focus mistake can ruin a shot so quality monitoring is critical. A viewfinder of the quality required these days is expensive and might not even be used by most people - especially if it's located at the rear and requires the user to hold a front-heavy camera up to their eye for long periods of time.

Everyone: Please Sony, give us an A7sIII with professional video features! If you do I will buy at least seven of them. Sony: Ok, here it is! Everyone: Meh it's just a rehashed A7sIII. This is lame and I'm not buying it.

I think a lot of people are going to buy the Komodo, and a lot of people are going to regret it. I'm sure the picture is fantastic, but - even compared to the very similar Z-Cams - it just doesn't seem to tick the boxes people actually want or need. It was designed as a B-Cam and all those people thinking they can use it as an A-Cam and that it offers a small convenient package similar to a mirrorless will quickly (within about 23 seconds 🤣) find out they are mistaken. I think people are going to scramble for it just because of the Red name, without actually thinking it through or comparing it to other options, or asking themselves if it actually suits their needs.

Yeah it's definitely got a "start up" feel to the company. However the good side of that is that they are constantly improving the camera through firmware updates. It's actually a better tool now than when I bought it.

I went Z-Cam earlier this year. I was planning to go with the UMP G2 but then Covid happened and all my work dried up so that went on hold. When it started up again, I decided to grab the Z-Cam E2-S6 instead as it covered a lot of the same bases (my prerequisites were Prores, 4K100p, Internal ND & v-mount power option) for a lot less money. It was also a small, lightweight package that I didn't have to spend half a day prepping/packing/charging/rigging before a shoot. This was important for me as when bookings started to come back, they were a lot different and instead of being multiple-day crewed shoots plus travel they mostly became local half-day affairs with no other crew. I needed something where I could instantly say yes when I'd get called and asked to do a 3-hour shoot the following morning, and still know it would be worthwhile and effortless and that I could get everything prepped in time easily. The camera sits on my desk or shelf and when I have a small shoot, I just put a battery on the charger the night before and then I'm good to go for about 6 hours of shooting - no other prep required. While the camera has served its purpose for this - especially once I had a decent handheld rig - It has its shortcomings. The eND kit which I ordered in May is still backordered so I'm stuck with rectangle filters for now (in a Tilta mini matte box). Some of the controls are clunky. Audio is a pain - the mini-XLR breakaway cable I have does not fit when using my v-mount plate, so I've got a Zoom H5 due this week, which I plan to mostly use a mixer & pre-amp (rather than purely as a recorder). I've had a few producers ask me what camera I shoot with and they've never heard of the Z-Cam - though luckily this didn't lose me any of the jobs because most of the work lately is local and I'm in a regional market so I'm often their only option (unless they want a hybrid shooter who can't do sound or lighting). The image is fantastic though. I don't shoot charts or do tests, but for actual in-the-field performance it is great - there's never been a time when the image quality has been the limiting factor in any way - and there's not many cameras under $10K where that can be said.

It's certainly not necessary - but given the lenses available to us at reasonable price points, it is certainly more convenient. There is simply no lens available for aps-c or m4/3rds that can offer the convenience and range of something like a 24-70 f/2.8 in a single package. Even the amazing Sigma 18-35 only becomes something like a 27-52mm f/2.5 when you're talking about FF equivalency. Not as wide, nor as much reach when compared to a 24-70. Aperture that is just barely faster (but not enough to even be noticeable), and no IS versions. And it doesn't help that the manufacturers have largely ignored QUALITY aps-c lenses for a good decade. How long has it been since any of the lens makers released a new ~17-50 f/2.8 or similar lens? Canon's own version of this lens (17-55mm) doesn't even work on their own S35 cinema cameras without vignetting. Meanwhile there is a 28-70mm f/2 lens available for FF now (which would be require a 18-46mm f/1.4 for a comparable aps-c lens). Even the insanely-spec'd Voigtlander 10.5mm f/0.95 only has a FF equivalence of 21mm f/1.9. You can buy a 21mm full frame lens that is a stop faster for 1/3 of the price. So, to summarise - no, FF is not necessary (as proven by all the films shot on s35 over the last century), but it certainly offers advantages to people chasing certain characteristics - even taking into account that direct equivalency is possible (because unfortunately in practice it does not exist).

I've spent a lot of time as an AC rigging up Red's and I have to say they are truly a pain. The problem is the body is too tall, with the lens mount (ie all the weight) up quite high. It makes most shoulder-mounts impractical, as the center of gravity is too high and harder to balance. It also means you need a heavier duty tripod and very specific base plates to get the correct vertical spacing of rails so that all your lens motors will fit. The URSA cameras are ugly as hell, but they are very fast and flexible when switching between handheld, shoulder-mount, easy-rig, and tripod.

Yeah I've already got the right cable I think, as it's the same as the one for the Shogun Inferno. But I have been keeping tabs on the FB page and have seen a few posts that there are bugs with the audio. Hopefully it's sorted out soon.

Did the camera you tested have a rig and handles, or was it just the camera body? It seems like the Z Cams design makes it a lot easier to build a functional rig than a DSLR or BMPCC 4K/6K, and there's a good number of cage options available. Obviously the flip side of that is that the body is not really usable straight out of the box like other options in the same price range.