I have been testing quite a few video or cine cameras recently because – no pun intended – this is where all the action is at the moment. For various reasons, things have gone a bit quiet in terms of new mirrorless cameras, which are, as is now a popular phrase – ‘photo first’. In comparison, things seem to be ticking along very nicely in the world of cameras which are primarily intended for video applications – from social media posts all the way up to television or cinema productions. Both Canon and Nikon are really ramping up their video activities with Nikon, in particular, diving in at the deep end with its acquisition of RED, which is already a well-established name in professional cinema cameras.
However, the hot category at the moment can be loosely classified as the compact cine camera… as exemplified by Nikon’s ZR, Canon’s EOS R6 V and EOS C50 and Sony’s recently-arrived FX5… ultimately to replace the hugely popular FX3. The Canon and Nikon models are hybrid designs so they’re also well-equipped in terms of their stills capabilities… largely using the same sensors and processors as cameras in their systems that are more traditionally photographic. Video, of course, is an immensely powerful communications medium and everywhere these days – even on advertising billboards, once the exclusive domain of professional photography – so it’s not surprising that demand for higher-end ‘video-first’ cameras is increasing, but would you necessarily go down this route when the higher-end hybrid mirrorless cameras are also now so good at video?
A distinguishing aspect of the compact cine camera is its form factor, designed primarily to make for easier use with a gimbal or in a cage. To some extent these applications also dictate the control layout and the user interface plus – in most examples so far – the deletion of a built-in viewfinder. This primarily allows for a smaller, lighter, and more uniformly shaped camera body.
Yet an attraction of the compact cine camera is that it can be used handheld with all the mobility and spontaneity that this allows… which is when you’ll be wanting an EVF, right? So Sony is offering an add-on finder for the new FX5 and this looks like a good compromise solution because, for the times when you don’t need eyelevel viewfinding, you can simply take it off. ‘Smart’ hotshoes make the accessory EVF easy to do these days and I reckon it’s just what this camera needs so it’ll work as well for photographers as videographers.
An interesting aspect of the ZR is that its external control arrangement and largely monitor-based operation – ostensibly optimized for video – also work equally smoothly and efficiently when shooting stills. And, in this department, it’s pretty well the same as the Z6III except for the absence of a physical shutter (not such a big deal given the faster read-out speed of its partially-stacked sensor). With the option of an add-on EVF, would the ZR be a better buy than the Z6III? The cost of the accessory finder would reduce the current price difference, but for some photographers – especially those also shooting video for clients – the ZR could be the more flexible camera, not to mention its smoother operability compared to the old-school DSLR-derived mirrorless bodies.
It really was a revelation how nice the ZR was to use for photography – with the absence of a viewfinder being its biggest failing in this application – so perhaps if video is going to be a key driver of future mirrorless camera designs, it will actually be a positive for everybody. Flexibility and adaptability are the essentials of today’s professional imaging business – both for the practitioners and the equipment. And because of the widely varying demands now on them, these are the inherent design elements of this new breed of compact higher-end video cameras. Fitting whatever accessory component is needed for a particular application – an eyelevel viewfinder, for example – was the brilliance of Victor Hasselblad’s original modular 6x6cm SLR – and it could now also be the future of professional cameras… hybrid in both function and form.
