The specs look an awful lot like the DJI Zenmuse X7 camera available for the DJI Inspire 2 quadcopter drone. Both offer 6K CinemaDNG @ 30FPS as their highest resolution. My guess is, both sensors are identical. And so:
This camera == $8000.
DJI Zenmuse X7 camera == $2700 ($5300 cheaper).
BUT... the DJI Zenmuse X7 camera also includes a stabilization gimbal !!!
Each of the four prime lenses (16mm, 24mm, 35mm, 50mm) for the DJI Zenmuse X7 camera cost $1299 each... or save a bit and pay $4300 for a set of all four lenses.
Add the DJI Inspire drone for another $2700 and you have an almost complete camera package.
That's $2700 for drone + $2700 for camera with gimbal + $4300 for 4 lenses == $9700 total (or $5400 with no lens, or $6700 with one lens). Compare that to the above camera at $8000 with no gimbal or lens and... the DJI looks much better value.
Realistically, one must buy other accessories like batteries, controller and other accessories for the Zenmuse X7, which adds a few hundred bucks more to the DJI solution. But the total DJI cost is still much lower and includes remote control, stabilization gimbal, lenses and other accessories... unlike the other camera.
To fly the drone (not just buy the drone to operate the camera + gimbal + lenses)... another $5,000 to $12,000 is necessary to end up with a complete package (with lots of batteries, two drone/camera/lens wireless remote controllers, two big LCD screens and so forth.
So a complete drone + gimbal + camera + 4 lenses + huge set of batteries and controllers and LCD screens and other accessories will cost $15,000 to $22,000. That's clearly more than the camera described above... BUT... to own a camera like the one described above and NOT have a stabilization gimbal and drone is just nuts. Which means, the only reasonable comparison is a comparison of the bundle of all these elements (in my opinion), and the DJI comes out way on top in any such comparison.
Except a full cinema setup does cost $20K... actually about $21,700. The $10K package omits important elements. Note that the drone costs $3,000 and the other components (many of which the drone cannot operate without) are grossly overpriced.
Question: Do other companies make 3rd party alternatives to these other components?
I've been in the market for a camera along the lines of Arri Alexa (maybe LF) or RED 8K Monstro VV (or the S35 version) and have looked at a boatload of comparisons (including videos). What stands out to me is... Arri cameras always show more pleasing skin tones. The very best I've seen a RED do on skin tones is tie... however, very rarely. On nature shots and where ultimate resolution matters, the RED often wins.
While high resolution is more important to me... at least for the next year or so... it does bother me that nobody seems to be able to produce better skin tones with a RED camera. Not once (yet) in my research. The RED images usually seem to have too much contrast (which is adjustable in post, so that's strange), and the skin color rarely looks nearly as good (which also should be adjustable in post).
Perhaps the reason for this is the fact that RED is generally higher resolution, and extra fine detail may emphasize skin imperfections enough to make a difference. If so, that's a positive feature of RED (higher resolution) shooting itself in the foot. However, I don't buy that logic. I have to assume people who shoot with RED know how to compensate for this when skin tone is important.
At any rate, I know what I should do... and hopefully will... is to rent both cameras and run my own tests. Nonetheless, I'm bothered by what I see, and would love for someone out there to explain this phenomenon to me. Oh, in every comparison of Arri Alexa against ANY other camera, the Arri Alexa always wins on skin tone. So they must have paid a lot of attention to skin at Arri... or so it seems to me.
Can anyone explain this?
I found the article, examples and comments below interesting and informative... to a point. The main reason for "to a point" is probably 95% due to limits in my experience. Nonetheless, I want to ask the following question.
Why wouldn't someone attempt to get the very best results out of both cameras (both during the shoot and in post-processing)? Isn't that a more realistic test? After all, someone who regularly shoots either of these cameras will be quite familiar with what they need to do with THEIR camera to get the best results in each kind of situation. Or am I missing something that makes this form of comparison test more helpful? As someone who is considering buying a RED 8K with large sensor for a fairly long-term nature/documentary type project, how would you choose one camera versus another? PS: To me, the RED did not look good in this test, which surprised me. So... wondering whether this test is worth paying attention to or not.