BlueBomberTurbo

Wow, I'm part of a bunch of Sony communities, and I've never seen any complaints about this kind of issue. Especially SAR, where they nitpick every single last possible (and impossible) thing.

Sounds great! Will definitely be getting fans for the cameras, at least for the first few long shoots and first few hot/full sun outdoor shoots. Can't be too careful. Might upgrade to the 17-40/1.8 later on, but almost certainly starting out with the 18-50/2.8.

Yup, I'll be using mostly adapted lenses for both cameras. Thinking of picking up the EF 70-200/2.8 L IS II for the R8. Already have the 50/1.8 STM and 55-250 STM, which I can't wait to use on the R7 for reach. Thinking about the 17-55/2.8, too, but will probably just go for the Sigma 18-50/2.8 for the best AF performance. Will also be picking up more weather-sealed Meike EF/RF adapters with the swappable VND/UV filters, as I like the one I got for my R50V. Saves a lot of hassle carrying and swapping front-mounted VNDs. And yes, already have a Sabrent 512GB V60 UHS-II card for my R50V, and I'll be picking up more for these cameras. Regardless of positioning, Canon STILL forces the camera to shut off when the card door is opened. 🤦‍♂️

Well, this will 90% be used for video, and around 40% of that handheld. Might throw in some flash work (weddings, galas, etc.) requiring the shutter here and there, but I've mostly moved away from that. The rest of the photo stuff I shoot is at high ISO in very low light where flash isn't allowed, as I've been doing since nearly the beginning. Usually use my A9s for that, but I'd also toss the R8 in depending on what lenses I end up with for it. I do like the R50V for its price/performance ratio. That, and paired with the RF 10-18, it's umatched for FOV, size, and capture quality. Nice to have a good amount of controls on a small body from Canon, too!

Been looking at ditching my m4/3 cameras (OM-1, GH5) for something better in terms of IQ and AF. They've been reliable in terms of not overheating or losing files (same as my Sonys), but the quality is meh at best. OM-1 worked well enough for handheld stuff in terms of AF and IBIS, but the quality from the camera is the worst out of my lineup (A7 III, A6600, OM-1, GH5, R50V). Poor excuse for Log, digital patterning in the noise structure. GH5 is just noisy once you start cranking the ISO, and at least 50% of the events I shoot are in low light. Wondering if the R7 and R8 were reliable, as I've read about issues of overheating around launch (like many Canons), but not much news afterward. Plus, there are now plenty of fans out there to add on back, which should solve the problem in everything except maybe summer sun. And yes, I know the R8 is crippled with a 2hr time limit like my R50V. I rarely need more than 2hrs, but I can (most likely) trigger a restart with an intervalometer like I do with my A7 III.

Been getting back into video editing lately, and have been digging deep into optimizing my color grading, workflow, and output with the modern Premiere Pro. What I've found is a myriad of settings that alter the way footage is initially displayed, and how it responds to editing. I've found one group of settings that I like (Wide Gamut [Tone Mapped]), in terms of footage flexibility and starting point. Thing is I (here we go) want to put out a set of LUTs for a specific purpose, but I'm not sure how they'll work across other people's preferred color settings. Sure, I can include starting point settings with the LUTs, but if the settings aren't common, they can negatively disrupt workflows, which is the opposite of what LUTs are used for. I know no LUTs I've purchased before have anything to say about NLE settings, only camera settings. So my question is, is there a proper, agreed upon, industry standard set of settings for Sequence Settings > Color Management in Premiere Pro? I'm working with 709 output from Log input (8-bit 4:2"0 to 10-bit 4:2:2), and I want to make LUTs that will work universally, but everything reacts very differently depending on the Color Management settings. The default Direct Rec. 709 (SDR) settings are pretty disastrous in terms of being waaaaay too contrasty and oversaturated with 709 LUTs, and difficult to correct into something pleasing. Gives old school DV vibes (which might not be out of fashion today...). OTOH, Wide Gamut (Tone Mapped) is extremely easy to work with, gives very smooth color and tone, and makes color work a breeze. What settings should I be aiming for in terms of LUT creation?

So, how is everyone monitoring ProRes RAW video accurately? On my Olympus OM-1, I get highlights on the Ninja V monitor blown out by about 3.5 stops, but they're easily recoverable in post. I tried creating an LUT to pull back the exposure on the monitor, but all it did was lower the white point while keeping things looking clipped. I've seen the internal PQ LUT mentioned as a solution for RAW monitoring, but it still heavily clips the highlights while making everything else punchier. My biggest issue here is that the shadows are maxed out SOOC. Meaning there's absolutely nothing left to recover in them, and they're noisy as it is, so this isn't close to an ideal situation. I'm viewing the bottom 1/2 of the dynamic range, presented as a normal exposure. Having that extra 3.5 stops of highlights back would help a LOT, both in maintaining my sanity in terms of knowing what's actually clipping (even zebras can't see the extra 3.5 stops), and requiring a lot less/no post NR by letting me drop the exposure to something normal.

Multiple different sensors in the RX100 ecosystem RX100: FSI RX100 II - III: BSI RX100 IV - VA: BSI Stacked RX100 VI - VII: BSI Stacked 2nd Gen The sensor changes every 2-3 models.

With DXO, it's really not much of an issue. What I am seeing, if all things are 100% equal in this comparison, is extra green shadow noise. Can easily be cured with a 1 second EXIF edit, but still annoying (A9 had some, too).

More like the silent majority. The ones that don't look like idiots when posting on forums/social media like the average Liberal does.

Shooting internally or externally? S-Log3 is too much for the internal codec to handle. Comes out fine on higher quality external recorders. S-Log2 is also fine internally.

I do agree that DXO's rankings are a bit questionable, but not too far off. There are generally valid explanations of the issues you cited: NX500 over 5DS and NX1: I've personally handled 5DSR files, and can say that the IQ is terrible. Even Canon stated not to expect much more than their old APS-C cameras in the IQ department. I've read a few times that the NX500 is considered to have higher IQ than the NX1. By how much, I don't know. But viewing test RAWs of the NX1, I'd say DR and high ISO are around 1/2 stop behind the Nikon D7200. DXO One: Its Super RAW literally is super. It takes 4 RAW files, stacks them, and averages out the noise. The difference is dramatic. While the detail level isn't the best at high ISO, the lack of noise is well beyond FF capability. This is similar to Olympus' high res RAW mode, but instead of increasing resolution, it reduces noise and increases detail at the same output size. D3X over D5: The D5 is a bomb below ISO 1600, nearly matching the 5D III. Even crop sensors beat it. The sensor is tuned for mid/high ISO performance, though current technology only goes so far. The gains, while there (+1/2 stop vs 1DX II), really aren't worth the trade off for the flexibility in low ISO RAW. Worthy of note is that the D3X has a Sony sensor, while the D5 is Nikon's own creation. D600 over 1DX II and P40+: It's true. The D600 kills the 1DX II in DR at base ISO, and at worst, ties it the rest of the way up. the 1DX II literally has years-old crop sensor performance in that area, despite Canon's massive gain in their new generation of sensors. High ISO is also neck and neck. Vs the P40+, the sensor in the MF camera is quite old. Despite having the resolution advantage, it loses out in DR and high ISO by quite a big margin. By ISO 1600, colors turn to mush, which doesn't really happen on the D600 at any ISO. D3s and D700: I've also worked with files from a D700 multiple times, and can say that yes, its sensor is outdated at this point. It's competitive with today's crop sensor cameras (minus Canon's) at best. The A7S/II sensor has been compared to current medium format in its DR and ability to reproduce color. Once again, the D3s/D700's sensor is Nikon's own. Nikon isn't very competitive when it comes to sensors, and probably had its best attempt at competing with Sony in the D4/s/f. All of the rest of their sensors just don't stand out, though aren't as bad as Canon's. I have a feeling that resolution plays a big part in DXO's rankings. If you downscale the A7R II's files to A7S II size, they will certainly have an advantage in their "Sports" rating. It might also be why the A7R II beats the D810, when the D810 clearly has about 1/3 stop advantage at high ISO. My friend tested 2x A7R IIs before returning them and keeping his D810. #IQsnob. For DR and high ISO, they test noise up to a certain amount. How they get to that amount, who knows, but it's a cutoff point they chose that represents the transition from "OK" noise to offensive noise. So while sensors may have DR response up to a certain amount of stops, after a point, it becomes wiser to turn things back a bit in software. Where that happens is up to the user, as it's a more subjective choice. And "Color" is more about correctly reproducing color in RAW than how the final JPG is rendered. Color in the Canon sense is highly subjective. Color against a known testing scene/chart isn't.

If it's only 20MP, how would it get 6K? Especially with a 4:3 sensor. The A6300 crops from 3:2 to 16:9 to get 6K from its 24MP sensor as it is...

Just ran the test clip through 5DtoRGB using 601 (709 has no change) : Nice highlight recovery. :)