Leaderboard

And when he also did a test of standard Vlog vs Arri log, the standard Vlog looked a lot better to me. Someone else and I forget who now (but it was someone UK) also did a side by side between the S1II and S1RII and all though he made a case that the S1II was better, about 90% of the comments including myself, disagreed. I was playing with building a new custom non-log profile based on a download from LUMIX Lab, but heavy rain has stopped play 😒 Agree as it stays on and there is less risk of touching the glass and getting fingerprints on it or having to put it somewhere safe every time. I also had mine flip down rather than up as it looked less crap. I might go back to it now I back to primarily shooting one video designated unit as I could make a VND work better with that, but as above, was working on a non-log profile with an ISO of just 80 which in most scenarios, would remove any need for ND. But ground to a halt thanks to the crap UK weather...

Something else I forgot to say was the difference between the S5II/S9 video and the S1RII is how clean/nicer the latter is. Working with all 3 on the same timeline, especially with lower light stuff, it’s very clear which is which because the S5II/S9 footage whilst not muddy, seems muddy when compared with that coming from the S1RII. This is partly why I have moved the S9 into a very limited secondary role where along with the S5II, they will be responsible for pretty much just 3 scenarios resulting in 3 pieces of footage, albeit in the case of the S5II, that means full length wedding ceremony and full length speeches. Anyone using these cameras together will probably confirm the same difference.

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.

For comparison its his ZR test At 0.1 High S/N ratio, DR is 6 stops. In his R6III test its only 3. Not only he is not curious at all why its so low, but doesn't even notice the drastic fall of it (from 8.26 to 3.04). As a reviewer I would dig into the data. I seriously feel he's not interested about what he's doing anymore. He's like "AF is good". What? How you tested that? Where is the evidence that its good? Canon website says its good, what else you know? And good for who? and why people should pay near $3k to have "good AF" when their current camera already has good AF? I assume R6III AF is "better" than R6II, but I need to see the evidence in practical situations. That's the job of someone who reviews gears for living.

I saw one part when he was saying that it was a little annoying that they did not get exact time remaining for recording. The same guy said that it was totally unacceptable a cine camera did not give exact time remaining on the card. OK, it is written cine, but it is still a 2200 USD camera, and h265 by its nature is variable bit rate. Simple example on a sitting interview with a static background and the bitrate goes a lot lower, while have dynamic shot with lots of movement or movement in the shots and the bitrate goes up drastically. The just couldn't find any thing to say positive at the camera except about Nikon color and his luts, that he sell!!!