Andrew Reid

Interesting run down of those cameras. How close would you say the C200's image is to the 1D X Mark II. I have heard they are VERY much the same, in fact the 1D X II might have the edge with the higher bitrates in MJPEG 4K.

No need to worry about a harsh high contrast look with the Nikon Z7 flat profile. It's very smooth. With a LUT, it's up to you what the contrast is. So I don't really understand the debate?!

Can I make a small request. If you see a post you want to comment on and it has, like 6 massive images, do us all a favour - don't quote, just reply under it and mention the username. We don't need to scroll through 20 of the same images on one page, thanks!

Yes, it's not good news on that front. It's a shame as the image is actually very pretty. Review coming soon.

The Pocket 4K has a lot of interesting features, of course, but somebody needs to do a proper comparison of 8bit, 10bit, ProRes, LOG, RAW, etc. Because the image quality is closer between them than people realise, when it comes to the end-result. I've had Blackmagic cameras in the past, and it's fun pulling around a raw file in Resolve and seeing all that dynamic range on demand, but then I have also had a lot of enjoyment out of 8bit S-LOG and Canon LOG too. Seeing how silky smooth, noise-less the shadows are in low light from a full frame sensor, being able to fluidly play it back and slap on a LUT over Canon 1D C footage - wow - you wouldn't know THAT was 8bit. Instantly nice colour and dynamic range. Same with Hybrid LOG Gamma from an A7 III, or V-LOG with the GH5 and F-LOG on an X-T3. Even the EOS R, for all its faults, has an amazing ALL-I codec with film-like colour - and it's 8bit. We are trading a lot of things on the Pocket 4K for that RAW codec. 10bit too, but others offer that now, so it's not unique to Blackmagic. Out goes a large sensor, out goes decent video AF, out goes IBIS, out goes articulated screen, battery life, high quality body, weather sealing and more besides. So it is important not to over hype it, as some have been doing on this thread. I have nothing against the Blackmagic Pocket 4K, but it has to be seen objectively. I do have a little bit of annoyance pent up at the company, for their lame availability and non-support of EOSHD despite the tons of work I have done over the years to bring people's knowledge up to speed on their cameras and Resolve, but I am not going to let that influence the review once I finally get one. Still no luck on that front BTW.

EOSHD TV in 2 years: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVHAd3jwZy0

Yeah well backlit, underexposed faces will do that. It's not the camera's fault is it?! It's the cinematographers job. I think maybe we have so much technology now, we expect the camera to fix everything, rather than getting it right ourselves in terms of the light and grade.

Pretty confident the Z6 sensor works in a similar way to the A7 III, but I prefer Nikon's colour science and higher bitrate codec to that camera, so for the same price as the A7 III along with the better ergonomics, it's a good choice... going to be more attractive than Sony for a lot of people. Now, if only they would release the damn thing in the shops. What we shouldn't get too hung up on is the pixel binning, vs 1:1 readout, vs supersampling. I am not sold on a "sharp" 4K image. As long as it doesn't have a moire & aliasing problem, I'm fine with the amount of detail I get across a very broad range of 4K cameras. I don't mind that the EOS R is on the soft side. It actually helps it when downsampled on YouTube, or on someone's 1080p laptop screen or TV. A sharp Sony A6500 image tends to get GH2-syndrome and people say it looks too digital, because the downsampling of a streaming browser player creates nasty aliasing and a fatiguing image from that sharp detailed 4K file. That's not nice. With the EOS R, the image is soft to pixel peep, but nice to actually WATCH in the real world. In fact I am warming to it having seen the images, it's not all about specs. We engage emotionally with images when we watch a film. We don't count the pixels. However when we try to qualify the quality of an image from a camera, in a review, we DO count the pixels! It's a strange paradox, a disconnect between how we actually need the image to be on screen, and how we think we need it to be.

You're imagining that I'm afraid. The 6D II has a lot of aliasing going on, a lot of moire. It's a step back from the 5D Mark III, which had this under control. What you perceive as more 'sharpness' is due to false detail. The Canon body you want for the best 1080p is actually the 5DS, believe it or not. I don't know what footage you've been watching, with undisclosed amounts of digital sharpening applied in post and different shots revealing different perceived amounts of detail but if you look at a chart you will see the truth. It goes 5D3 and 5D4 pretty much identical, 5D4 maybe a bit more digital sharpening applied but same 'real' detail as 5D3, that is to say not much, then step up to 5DS and A7S (full pixel readout). Really though? For me the 1080-look stands out a mile as dated, low-fi. If that suits the intentions of the documentary then ok, maybe it's about being minimalist, anti-technology, anti-4K. Getting back down with nature, or whatever. The content in that trailer is great, but it's not a piece of amazing cinematography - nothing unique or special about that look at all. For me that trailer is just not cinema. At this blog we have spent the past 7 years trying to get closer to film, not closer to 2009 Digital. In 4K however, sharpness is a different story. Canon's 4K is soft as well, but here is where I don't care. I find a more natural, softer per-pixel detail and contrast in 4K beneficial to how cinematic the overall picture looks. If it is too sharply detailed like the Sony A6500, you can end up with quite a fatiguing image on the big screen. You can see that the GH5S and NX1 clearly have the "technically" superior fine detail levels. But the 1D X II / 5D IV / EOS R have a mojo to their un-sharpened images which helps make detail look more natural when downscales to fit a 1080p TV or projector, NOT pixel peeped, i.e. viewed normally full-screen.

Wait for the full review and I will show both side by side. I have a 5D Mark III and EOS R so nothing to stop a good old 1080p comparison, like it's 2009. I also have a 5D Mark II. When the III came out, people complained it wasn't more detailed than the 2009 camera 10 years later, I can't believe we're still having the same fucking discussion.

Well, I am sure it will sell well. It's not like it has any competition or anything ?

Yes. I have a professional obligation to my readers. It's a shame you don't show any professional duty to the person hosting your comments, by the way.

How am I "easily swayed" exactly, smarty pants? And don't think I didn't notice the veiled "not a major player" insult. Unless you can also write a camera blog that has 450,000 visits per month, I don't really think you're quite yet in the position to call someone a bit player ?

No, I have the camera sitting right in front of me right now. Let me just show you how to grade it. In fact I'll have a book on it ready by 9am tomorrow!

You can scale down raw as well. Raw can be pixel binned. How do you think Magic Lantern 1080p raw is possible from a 22MP sensor? Raw can even be multi-frame composites like on the Google Pixel 3. You need to realise that raw video exists on every camera that shoots compressed video. It sits there in the frame buffer, before being sent for processing.

I haven't got a fucking camera, genius boy!

The problem with tests like these is they may as well be a review of the tester's grading skills. Ever since RAW and LOG first came out we have had the same issue - are we watching badly graded footage or is the camera to blame?

The Z7 is far superior to the A7R III, and I own both. Guess which one will soon be available on eBay

Snow & ice sealing test in their freezer!

Got to the end. Not once does he mention the extreme rolling shutter in 4K! It's like going for a test drive, the dealer not mentioning the steering wheel is bent, and the driver not even noticing! They are both soft. It looks similar to the old 5D Mark III (stock video mode) in 2012. There's 6 years of Canon progress for you.

It's complete sponsored content and no amount of hipsters on hover boards will convince me otherwise. I am 5 minutes in and not even a mention of soft 1080p or severe rolling shutter issues in 4K. Just a load of glossy shots on a slider. It's pathetic. His generation more than ever before lacks a punk spirit. They are so beholden to consumerism, it's almost laughable. Canon gave him a camera and now he's going to say mostly lovely things about it. Maybe the bad stuff will be buried at the end in about 5 seconds.

Dan Chung is the guy to ask about those, he showed us them briefly in a restaurant They were indeed cool. By the way, I just realised the interview with Dave takes place between two ferns. Will have to invest in a better backdrop next time!!

Ah nice. I met Kipon at Photokina and will be trying some of their adapters including that one. Leica M - Nikon Z and EOS R adapters also, and that is a good 'universal' adapter as you can then go Leica M - Canon FD, or similar.

Nice to see you here Jordan. I think for 4K you'd be better off throwing an 18-135mm IS in the bag. It's a lot cheaper than the 24-105 too. Then again in EF-S crop mode, the stills are only 12MP and at 135mm the rolling shutter is going to be unmanageable anyway the moment anything moves. I am surprised you didn't mention the rolling shutter in the DPR TV episode, because it's BAAAAD. Surpassing some of the worst I have ever seen... and I have seen the A6500! There are also strange limitations on Canon LOG, like it has to be used in full manual mode only. I do a LOT of shooting in Aperture Priority mode - why can't you use LOG in that?! Can on other cameras. The other thing driving me mad is I find the 3 presses to get in / out of video mode is really unnecessary.... considering Canon used to have the nice live view switch. What happened to that?! Did you manage to find an EF Speed Booster with autofocus?

I suppose it's easy to forget that a lot of clients aren't very demanding on image quality especially when it's destined for the web. If it gets the job done, then great. What about the X-T3? Going to take a look at it?