GH6 with ProRes
- Thread starter roxics
- Start date
The argument that the most expensive and rare camera in the movie industry is Medium Format isn't well thought out?
Oh, those ARRI idiots. They can't make a good camera to save their behinds.
Peter C.
Veteran
No I'm actually using facts to back up my opinion. You are expressing the idea that is popular on forums bigger is better and cameras can only get better with bigger sensors. Which isn't true.
35mm was the dominant format to take pictures in the 70s, 80s, and 90s. It's was only natural that once it became affordable to produce in a digital camera it would become a popular format.
Last edited:
Thomas Smet
Veteran
Yes but the APS-C options are going to be featured limited and their budget line. Unlike m43 which have high end options like the GH6. Even on the Sony side the APS-C options can be nice cameras but they are far from the high end models. APS-C is just not an option for serious professionals. Never has been and never will be. We will never have a APS-C R5.
The point about medium isn’t if it’s possible but if it’s needed or practical. What precisely is FF not capable of right now for great 4K, 6k or 8k video? FF is already way beyond the DOF typically used in Hollywood. How much more will productions gain for the added cost? Not much and few viewers will care. It’s really only a conversation point for nerds.
Even on the photography side there isn’t anywhere near the demand for medium as there once was. In the 80’s and 90’s medium totally made sense for wedding photos. Now most prefer digital FF even limited to 20 MP over medium for many applications.
Again my point isn’t that medium will have no place but that it’s going to be a very small niche market. It’s a moot point right now and I think it’s going to be a tough sell for a lot of people.
APS-C will be the bottom feeder line. Medium will be the extreme high end niche. That leaves FF and m43 as the two mainstream pro formats.
We can predict the future markets with the same degree of accuracy as the Russian General Staff can plan an operation.
But it's pretty clear that the $25,000-$50,000 MF cameras of the decade ago have come down in price significantly ($4,000 for the new Fuji GFX50s) and, with the officially released specs for the 128 MPX global shutter sensor, the trend is pointing toward that direction on the high end photo gear at the very least.
And the second question here is the work preferences and requirements for a professional photographer, as offered by the photo-video cartel. The sports/action/wild life/BiF are going to remain with R5/C, 1 DXIII, Z9 (with Sony A9III on the horizon). But MF will take over many other jobs because the latest models are going to be a little better than the top of the line FF and yet very affordable for the commercially successful professionals. The proliferation of articles and videos about the MF is likely a preparation for either the already shown Hasselblad (now in the DJI hands), Fuji and probably Sony itself.
https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/b...-format-camera
Right now in South Florida, an average portrait photographer charges ~ $300 for an hour long session. A $6,000-$10,000 camera + lens package should be well within his/her means.
PS. Film directors would have loved to shoot more on 65mm film but were faced with the absence of the 65mm movie theaters (there, 65mm was scammed onto the Vista Vision or 135). Plus, the costs of shooting on and printing 65mm were way, way higher than on 135. Today, these problems don't exist. You can shoot digitally, edit on a computer and then either stream or project in any format the location allows. It's all part of the same ecosystem now. Only if Alexa65 wasn't so expensive.
But it's pretty clear that the $25,000-$50,000 MF cameras of the decade ago have come down in price significantly ($4,000 for the new Fuji GFX50s) and, with the officially released specs for the 128 MPX global shutter sensor, the trend is pointing toward that direction on the high end photo gear at the very least.
And the second question here is the work preferences and requirements for a professional photographer, as offered by the photo-video cartel. The sports/action/wild life/BiF are going to remain with R5/C, 1 DXIII, Z9 (with Sony A9III on the horizon). But MF will take over many other jobs because the latest models are going to be a little better than the top of the line FF and yet very affordable for the commercially successful professionals. The proliferation of articles and videos about the MF is likely a preparation for either the already shown Hasselblad (now in the DJI hands), Fuji and probably Sony itself.
https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/b...-format-camera
Right now in South Florida, an average portrait photographer charges ~ $300 for an hour long session. A $6,000-$10,000 camera + lens package should be well within his/her means.
PS. Film directors would have loved to shoot more on 65mm film but were faced with the absence of the 65mm movie theaters (there, 65mm was scammed onto the Vista Vision or 135). Plus, the costs of shooting on and printing 65mm were way, way higher than on 135. Today, these problems don't exist. You can shoot digitally, edit on a computer and then either stream or project in any format the location allows. It's all part of the same ecosystem now. Only if Alexa65 wasn't so expensive.
Last edited:
but the slow AF of big MF lenses reduces morgan_moore
Major Contributor
I did some informal tests a while ago anfd found compression ratio more destructive than bit depth https://vimeo.com/163942387
in general most delivery is 8 bit so 10 bit will give you a post flex to make nice 8bit.
in theory 8bit has no 'space' to grade wherase 10bit has about 400% space (300% more data) to grade.
Now why would one grade..
to push a wide DR scene into the 709 space
to correct for wb exposture
to add an 'artistic' tone
So if you are good at lighting and exposing and your lights are 'true' and you fully undersand the artistic intent of the production you dont need to grade and will get nothing but wasted data from 10bt
Usually some degradation free wiggle room helps..
in general most delivery is 8 bit so 10 bit will give you a post flex to make nice 8bit.
in theory 8bit has no 'space' to grade wherase 10bit has about 400% space (300% more data) to grade.
Now why would one grade..
to push a wide DR scene into the 709 space
to correct for wb exposture
to add an 'artistic' tone
So if you are good at lighting and exposing and your lights are 'true' and you fully undersand the artistic intent of the production you dont need to grade and will get nothing but wasted data from 10bt
Usually some degradation free wiggle room helps..
ahalpert
Major Contributor
I assume you mean compression levels using the same schema, Sam?? Theoretically you can get equivalent quality with half the data in H.265 vs H.264. I'm sure there are compression artifacts if you know where to look. But you shouldn't suffer as much as if you halved the bitrate using the same compression algorithm
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
that video was done with tiff and jpg.. by I feel the point stands .. harsh compression breakss think more tha bit depth (or lack of)
of course all compression is not equal.
of course all compression is not equal.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
one thing that always amused me about RED stans was they would say, "Look at the amazingly low data rates I can get shooting 8K at 12:1 compression!" But when you read the pixel-peeping reviews, it became clear that 8K at 12:1 had basically the same amount of detail as 4K at a much lower compression ratio
Andrea at Sony Alpha Rumors thinks that Sony will come out with a super-duper high end medium format camera within a year or so. This camera will have a greater than a 2,000 mm2 200 MPX curved sensor, thereby protecting Fuji's GFX line with its 1,450mm2 Sony made data collector, and take the lead in the ultra high end niche. To go along with this new mount, Sony will also make a few primes. There are some patents out for those already.
IMO, this makes a lot of sense for Sony in terms of proving its credentials as an innovating engineering company. Which will help it sell more "every day" gear. And it will help push the high end market toward the medium format, although this particular camera might be the high end of the high end. Fuji GFX will likely dominate the sub-$10,000 MF portion of the market, where it has long established a bridgehead.
Me thinks a package of camera and two primes will run around $15K but will still undercut Phase One, Hasselblad and Leica medium format offerings.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
from what I saw, f/2.8 primes. so, no increase in light-gathering or reduction in DOF vs f/1.4 FF primes. (Slightly worse-off in either department)
That product is really all about optical quality and MTF charts. Anyone who's happy using in-camera corrections is not the target market for such a camera. and as far as I can tell, the majority of dvxusers are okay with in-camera corrections. those that aren't are probably using cine cameras and lenses anyway
in other words, it might be cool but it's probably not for us. it's for high-end studio photographers
That product is really all about optical quality and MTF charts. Anyone who's happy using in-camera corrections is not the target market for such a camera. and as far as I can tell, the majority of dvxusers are okay with in-camera corrections. those that aren't are probably using cine cameras and lenses anyway
in other words, it might be cool but it's probably not for us. it's for high-end studio photographers
While you're probably correct on the above, Sony's going to try and make the MF the filet mignon of formats. That will push the "affordable" MF into the sub-$3,000 category - Fuji GFX 50R with the old 50 mpx sensor and poor AF is currently discounted to that level already - which would greatly expand the niche for many pros. It's unlikely to be sports/action/BiF but portraiture/architecture/landscape/product ought to be the right fit for it.
Meanwhile, the overall unit sales are tanking still. A hunch is that pricing - the intervening inflation notwithstanding - has something to do with it.
https://www.cipa.jp/stats/documents/e/dw-202202_e.pdf
And if you go high end, you might as well go medium format.
https://www.cipa.jp/stats/documents/e/dw-202202_e.pdf
And if you go high end, you might as well go medium format.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
from their perspective or ours?
there are maybe 3 million camera people in the world. (120k in US. extrapolate by multiplying by 25 because the US is 4.25% of global population.) 500k cameras/month = 6 million cameras per year. maybe it'll drop to 250k/month if it's only pro camera people buying them, at a rate of about 1 per person per year
Theirs but that's what drives what remains of the photo-video industry. Smartphones got everything else.
(granted, full frame is currently where most of the money is, with APS-C nearing near-starvation, but Sony wants more, more, more so because it already makes MF sensors while its main competitor Canon doesn't)
PS. iPhone 14 will apparently make a huge jump from its predecessors 12 MPX modules to 40 MPX. Purchase orders to the subcontractors have long been issued and this is a big deal because the US is the creme de la creme of the high end and Apple has a dominant share of it. And an owner of a 40 MPX mobile phone camera isn't likely to purchase a 20-40 MPX stand-alone model just to have fun with it. And so cartel has to push higher and higher - higher res and a larger sensor. And so they will.
PPS. There are plenty of smartphone brands that have had 40-50 MPX or greater res camera modules but, Samsung aside, they had a lesser effect on the US market. Even Samsung itself had some engineering problems with their 108 MPX (namely the auto focus that lacked phase detection). Apple's entry into the higher res stills business - whereas the company has been busy promoting its 4K video component and codecs thus far - could really be a death knell for the photo-video industry as such.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
Maybe, but I feel like there are plenty of reasons for most professionals to continue needing an actual camera. If not, then I suppose they'll just use phones, too. But I feel like as long as photography careers can support six-figure incomes, it will always make sense to pay the extra money for an actual camera to obtain superior handling and operation (at a bare minimum).
Some corners of the industry might be affected by the ubiquity of high-res phone cameras. But the reality is that so much of crafting shots relates to staging the mise-en-scene, and a phone isn't going to do that for you.
So, my feeling is that phones may wipe out the prosumer camera market entirely, but someone will be left selling cameras to pros.
Pros and some very discerned or well heeled amateurs. But that's a very small market. There are around 35,000 working pros in the US.
https://www.zippia.com/professional-photographer-jobs/demographics/
BTW, the Americas - North and South - share of the global shipments is around 25%. So, let's say there are about 150,000 photo pros across the globe. How often does one buy a camera? Once every two-three years? More often when there's a jump in performance? More in wealthier parts of he world?
FWIW, the luxury car market in the US is over 2,000,000 units annually. So, there is plenty of money available. The question then becomes a necessity, given the ubiquitous alternative for taking snapshots.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
I'm not a photographer and I buy photo cameras. I'd be counted among the 30k videographers Zippa lists. USA is 4% of global population. Seems to me like the customer base is over a million worldwide? I feel like I buy a new camera every year, but maybe the average is lower. Of course, people also buy used cameras which doesn't increase manufacturer shipment numbers.
but I imagine that whatever market remains might be enough to sustain canon and sony
but I imagine that whatever market remains might be enough to sustain canon and sony