Jedi Master

Interesting. That’ll make for good bedtime reading. Thanks.

To each his own. In the room I'm sitting in now I have four desktop machines set up for various purposes with a total of twelve monitors between them.

If you do that, you might as well have a desktop machine with its better performance. That's not a reasonable justification for a laptop over a desktop. I solve the issue of portability by having both a desktop and a laptop. For me, that's a better solution that expecting a laptop to do double duty. Jack of all trades, master of none.

The biggest issue I have with laptops, besides the speed issues, is screen size. My desktop PC, where I do editing, has three 34" 4K monitors. That much screen real estate really makes it easier to edit video and photoshop stills and I'm not willing to give it up just to get portability.

After reading this article: https://www.eoshd.com/news/is-n-raw-real-raw-nikon-z9-under-the-spotlight-at-eoshd/ I’m beginning to wonder if RAW is all it’s cracked up to be. Is there a similar analysis of Canon RAW Lite? That would be interesting to read. How about a codec that doesn’t skimp on color sampling, such as ProRes 4444 or 4444XQ? Would that be roughly the equivalent of RAW without the hassles?

B&H has the R5C for $3399 today for their Cyber Monday sale.

Me too, but I’d do it the opposite way you would. I like autumn and winter more than spring and summer. 😉

If you don’t need portability, then get a desktop machine. The biggest issue limiting performance on a laptop is heat dissipation, which isn’t as much an issue in a desktop. Desktops can typically use CPUs with more and faster cores and much more performant GPUs that beat anything possible in a laptop.

I didn't realize professional recorders were that expensive. Am I correct in assuming that the higher cost is due to better analog preamps and ADCs, reliability, and ergonomics versus a prosumer recorder like a Zoom? I doubt it's due to the digital audio section as cheap, modern ICs can easily handle 24-bit/192 kHz, which is vast overkill for audio.

I have the Sachtler FSB 6 MK II fluid head and the Sachtler 75/2 carbon fiber legs. The head's specs say it'll support 17.6 lbs (8 kilos for the Imperially-challenged). The C300 Mk3 is about 6 lbs, and with a 2 lbs cine lens and 1 lbs battery, comes out to around 9 lbs, leaving a margin of around 8.5 lbs.

Why do some cameras have 23.976 and 29.97 FPS settings, but not 24 and 30 FPS settings? I know the history behind how 23.976 FPS* came about, but what I’m asking here is why some cameras don’t support 24 and 30 FPS when it’s just a simple software change. *For anyone who doesn’t already know, and is interested, it came about when color TV was introduced in the U.S. in 1953. B&W sets used 30 FPS (actually two interlaced frames at 60 per second), and when color was added, in a way that had to be compatible with existing B&W sets, it was found that the color subcarrier and sound carriers interacted and created a stationary dot pattern in the picture. This was fixed by reducing the refresh frequency by 0.1% to 59.94 Hz. When a film shot at 24 FPS is shown on TV, it’ll run four seconds longer per hour, so the frame rate was changed to 23.976 FPS and we’ve been stuck with it ever since, even though NTSC video has been dead for years.

I won’t be using vintage or stills lenses and I won’t be on a set. It’s just me out in nature with no real time pressures (like a crew waiting on me to change a lens).

I always go for the latest in computer hardware, and would go for the M3 in this case. In addition to the hardware H.264, HVEV, ProRes, and ProRes RAW decoding on the M2, the M3 adds hardware AV1 decoding, and probably has increased performance for hardware decoding over the M2. The M3 also supports up to 128GB of RAM, and more RAM usually equates to better performance on large editing projects. If it was me buying an Apple laptop, I’d get one with an M3 Max. Alas, I’m a Windows guy and won’t be buying an Apple anytime soon. Now if we could only get Nvidia to support H.265 4:2:2 on their GPUs…but it seems they’re more interested in AI these days…

How does Nikon get around the RED patent on internal RAW? Do they pay a license fee to RED, or is their RAW a watered down RAW like BRAW and Canon Cinema RAW Lite?

My frontrunner at the moment, the C300 Mk3, is easily switchable between EF and PL. Only four screws.

Several issues with photo lens: Most have focus-by-wire, which I find extremely annoying. Most have very short focus throws. Most have no aperture rings and can only set aperture electronically. Most have lots of plastic and aren't as robust as cine lenses. None have 0.8 MOD focus and aperture gearing. Most don't have consistent front diameters across the line. Little correction for focus breathing.

Now that I've got the ACES workflow more or less under control in Davinci, I went back and redid the S1H footage I downloaded and I like the results. I'd expect the BS1H would produce similar results since it uses the same sensor as the S1H. Is the L mount used on the BS1H strong enough to support typical cine lenses? Anyone know if the BS1H can do internal recording using an H.264 codec? The specs on B&H's website indicate it can only do H.265. This is a concern to me as although I have a very capable PC (32 cores, 128GB RAM, beefy Nvidia GPU, and RAID-0 SSDs), H.265 footage plays and scrubs sluggishly in Davinci while H.264 footage is smooth. I'd hate to have to transcode everything before editing it.

Thanks, but I’ve never been a fan of the BM pocket cameras. I don’t like their form factor or pretty much anything else about them.

Lots of great discussion, which I find very helpful--thanks guys! I thought I'd offer some clarification of a few things. First, let's avoid too much talk about wasting money and motives. As I've said, I'm just a hobbyist and spending $10K on a new camera is not a financial burden at all. As I originally stated, my main application is scenics. Not necessarily wildlife, except where wildlife happens to be present--we don't go out of our way to shoot birds and other wildlife, hence we have no need for long lenses. Weight and bulk aren't too big a concern either as most of our work is done close to the car or within a mile of the car. I have a cart that I use to carry things when walking more than a hundred yards from the car. My prior still photography experience is large format, so I'm used to carrying big, bulky things. Several have mentioned budgeting for other equipment. I already have most of this covered as I have a nice Sachtler fluid head and tripod, a Zoom sound recorder and Rode shotgun mic, filters, etc. Sure, I could upgrade some of this, particularly the microphone as some suggested, but I think I have most of the basics covered. Regarding sound, most of what we record near the camera is unusable due to crowds of people talking, cars passing on the road, wind noise, etc. I end up replacing 95% of recorded sound with music anyway. For lenses, I plan to start buying cine lenses in PL mount. I wish I could afford ARRI Signature Primes or Zeiss Supreme Primes, but that's not in the cards. I'm looking more along the lines of the DZO Vespids, so in other works, around $1000-1500 per lens. I'll probably get these in FF even if I end up with a Super35 camera, just to make them a little more future-proof. One big want is reliability. I try to buy the most reliable things I can. As a private pilot, I'm especially sensitive to reliability concerns--I've never had to make an engine-out emergency landing on a golf course or highway, and I prefer it that way! I want my camera equipment to be just as reliable. Covering some of the other points people raised: Slow motion. Don't need it. I think it looks too cliché in nature videos. DR. Yes, important. Sharpness. Important. Low-light. Somewhat less important. Twilight yes, nightline shooting, no. AF. Absolutely not needed. TC. Not important. Gimbal compatibility. Not important. Shallow DOF. Not important. I prefer lots of DOF. RAW. I think I'd like having RAW based on experience grading RAW footage I've downloaded. Rolling shutter. Not an issue as I shoot on a tripod 100% and do slow pans. Battery life. Not a big deal as I'll have spares close by. Internal ND. A real plus, but not a dealbreaker. Anamorphic. Nope.

Define "wasting".

If video was my profession, I'd agree 100% with you. But it's not my profession and I'm not spending money to make money, just to have fun with it. My car will do 200 MPH even though the speed limit around here is 65 MPH. Overkill? Yes, but I enjoy driving it despite not being able to use it to its full potential, and because I can afford it. The same principle applies to my choice of camera--I want something I can use and enjoy even if I'll never make a cent with it.

Thanks for the link to the video. I’ll take a closer look at the Komodo-X. I wonder, however, if it’s worth $4000 more just for some incremental improvements over the original Komodo? The Komodo-X is $1000 more than a Canon C300 Mk3, and requires an external monitor, battery, charger, etc., that come in the box with the C300. What would the Komodo-X offer over a Kinefinity Mavo Mk2 S35 at $4000?

I've only had a chance to try it so far with some Canon RAW Lite footage that I downloaded. It made a big difference. One of the clips had a sky background and it previously was a blank blueish white with no detail. With the new method, I could manipulate some sliders and I discovered there are clouds in that sky that weren't there before.

I spent some time learning more about color management and think I have a better system for color grading in Resolve. I create two nodes. The first one is an ACES transform and converts the color space from that of the camera into ACEScct, like this: The other node is also an ACES transform that converts from ACEScct color space to Rec.709 for display on a monitor, like this: Then I set the timeline color space to ACEScct, thusly: I then create additional nodes between the node that converts camera color space to ACEScct and the one that converts ACEScct color space to Rec.709 and make all adjustments to those additional nodes. That seems to be a much better way to color grade in Resolve, and the HDR color wheels seem to work much better and more predictably.

I've taken another look at the Kinefinity MAVO Mark2 S35 camera since I learned they have a U.S.-based sales and service entity in Southern California. I also learned that I was completely mistaken about ProRes support in DaVinci Resolve Studio. I was under the assumption that ProRes wasn't supported at all, but have learned that only ProRes RAW isn't supported. I've downloaded a bunch of ProRes footage shot on the Kinefinity and have noticed that it plays very smoothly in Resolve. Much better than typical H.264 footage and far far better than H.265 footage. No need for proxies at all. If anyone knows of any Kinefinity horror stories, please let me know. For now, it's back on my short list.