Adobe might be a bit more concerned about how they’re going to get their software to run on Apple’s new proprietary Mac CPU’s starting in 2020. lol (This template sounds like a good idea, though.)
I don’t think I’d shoot a live event with the a7 cameras— I’d prefer a video camera with a live Ethernet or WiFi output.
For “production” I’m sure there’s a situation where this makes sense, but I can’t quite think of one, especially since this camera doesn’t record in 4K, and even more, because the “look” from its small sensor would be so different from video captured on a 35mm FF sensor.
Maybe tutorial videos or instructional videos— but in that case the GoPro 6 at $399 seems like a much better option.
Maybe version 2 will make more sense to its general audience.
The FS7 II doesn’t record raw internally. Like the FS7, you add the $2,000 adapter, then you can record in raw with an Atomos or Convergent Design monitor/recorder.
Regardless, this camera is a complete mess, IMO. The 50 to 100 people that bought the first C700 are either going to be angry, or happy, given what this new sensor can (and can’t) do.
What does “full frame” mean to y’all at NoFilmSchol? Because, to many of us, it means 35mm (135) at a 3:2 aspect ratio— which gives you the ability to shoot “full frame” with anamorphic lenses, etc. The Sony Venice, at roughly the same price, makes this school bus of a camera look like a bit dumb. I’m sure Canon has a target market in mind with this product (that’s what Canon is good at— designing by committee) but I can’t picture this fitting in anywhere with its proprietary everything, and no (or little) 3rd party support. I’m not the biggest RED fanboy, in fact I wouldn’t shoot with RED given the option, but RED does raw well, it has loads of support for raw, and it comes in at about the same price. If Canon can’t even beat out RED at pricing, I don’t know what kind of value they’re adding.
How is this relevant news for your NoFilmSchool audience? If you gained some focus and expertise in the audience you claim to serve, you wouldn’t have to throw everything at the wall and hope it sticks...
You “suppose the CP.2 is rather cheap in Zeiss’ lineup”? Within the Zeiss brand you have several ranges of lenses that are great for shooting video. The Milvus range, which are marketed to both photo and video shooters, cost less than half what the CP.2 lenses cost, and they’re generally higher performing than the CP.2’s when it comes to pure optical performance. Zeiss now sells the CP.3 line which brings major updates to the CP.2’s. The CP.3 line is a better value than the CP.2’s if buying new.
“Will we be getting a Panavision DXL version of the Gemini? Let's hope so.“
Who is the “we” in that sentence. The Panavision DXL isn’t for sale, it’s rented out to big budget productions. Isn’t this “nofilmschool.com”? And what’s $20K doing listed as a spec. As your article states, it sells for $24,500 (sans everything you need to get it up and running, including a power cord). This feels like an article written by an AI algorithm. Is that the case?
I feel like this article was written by a bot. All of its logic is skewed in a way that doesn’t make sense to someone with experience on the topic.