gethin

So I guess you're only shooting with Arri and Red cameras (because they're professional) using Zeiss Primes (because they're professional) and put it all on O'Connor sticks (because they're professional)? Anything else and you should expect 480p TOPS (because it's not professional) ? 
 
I hate these kinds of stupid comments. He should absolutely expect a perfectly usable product for 200 euro. Not everyone needs 3km range and perfect crystal clear full spectrum audio that will make sure bride's "yes I do" will be transmitted on hollywood level never seen before on a damn youtube wedding video.
 
I've been using my Rode Filmmaker Kit with zero issues in tightly packed convention centers. My drone has more issues being on 2.4 Ghz than the Rode.

I was expecting this post!!! Thanks Andrew! EOSHD is the only website to acknowledge that the two cameras have nothing new, but they are a rebadged mashup of the previous APS-C cameras, they just added a flip screen, HLG, autofocus and processor from the A6400 and only the batteries from the A73 series. Otherwise, pure shit. All of the other websites praising the new battery, the AF speed, come on, it's the same camera.
I changed from Sony to Fuji because I needed to shot lots of 1080 50p (I live in a PAL country) and I was tired of the constant decreasing quality of the 1080p on Sony APS-C cameras, it's a REAL shit, It's canon-like shit, it has no detail, lots of moire and aliasing, and not even gonna talk about slow-mo which is even worse. The 1080p quality started to decrease from the A6300, which is worse than the A6000. As you can check out here, I had both and it's true.

I bought the X-T30, because I was a bit short of money..
And I'm more than happy, the colors are awesome, you can get a nice baked in color if you want or a really flat image with lots of information without having to use F-log, you have way less rolling shutter, you have plenty of options for dynamic range, it has a beautifully detailed 1080p image, and from that an almost unchanged 1080p 100-120fps. You could just shoot everything in 100fps that you wouldn't notice the difference, but you have no audio   ?‍♂️ . You can shoot with an HDMI monitor and you DON'T loose you LCD scree image, none of the Sony can do that. The only thing I miss from Sony is the AF on video... that is something that Fuji is bit behind, you got less options, it's not as reliable, for tracking a face it's fine, other things, not as much as Sony.
You can check out video resolution in here, it's a great tool to know the resolving power of cameras in different resolutions. It's for sharpness only, you can't check other features like iso, dynamic range, etc. But it's good enough and quite reliable.
https://***URL removed***/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr29_0=sony_a6300&attr29_1=fujifilm_xt30&attr72_0=1080&attr72_1=1080&normalization=full&widget=636&x=-0.04440091689095804&y=0.2513405105351813

So much this.  WTH/F Adobe?  There's no reason with their budget that they couldn't have released a cohesive "PRO" version of their editing software with strict hardware requirements and support so it's an effective reliable tool.  Nope, just an endlessly buggy BS.
My favorite new annoyance is this:  I do a lot of slow-mo, and I like to shoot in 60p.  So, I batch apply 50% speed to my clips for my 30p sequences.  In bins I can scroll the thumbnails, which is helpful.  However, latest version, for no discernible reason, will now "blank" all thumbnails of clips with any speed variance applied.  They get turned to black.  So now I'm looking at a bin full of black thumbnails.  Basically, making thumbnails of clips with speed adjustment useless.
https://forums.adobe.com/thread/2622768
Yes, it's not the end of the world, but it affects the workflow.  One needs to fight Premiere to work effectively.  That's always been the problem.  It just doesn't play nice. I've been using Premiere on and off since version 1, so I know it's always been a problem child.  
Had a 15 year run there when I was on Final Cut and that was nice.  One of my colleagues is still using FCP.  I might return to it although I don't find it as appealing as the traditional version.  Ugh, I dunno.  Gave Resolve a spin but their version of using proxies was unreliable and everything I do is proxy editing...so still looking.

whert? theres only 5 reasons, and none of them are that interesting. I only own the 14-30 f4. It's really handy, but it's not great, soft at 14, and farking expensive for a plastic focus by wire lens. And on that - what in gods name is good about it? They are a pain in the arse to fcus manually, let alone focus pull.  The 14-30 is soft enough that even zoomed all the way in focussing by wire is a nightmare. Nikon touted it's lens mount as enabling super-duper lens design, then brought out f1.8 primes and f4 zooms aimed at a consumer market. Totally batso strategy and SNAFU for nikon.  The only native z lenses I'm going to consider buying are wide, or light lenses, Because once you get over a certain size and weight, you may as well buy f-mount and keep your mounting options open (ie you can adapt them to everything else, whereas z-mount lenses are for z-cameres only). 

My lens research over the last few months has been on the
zhongyi 85mm f1.2, 50mm f0.95
laowa 10-18. 12mm zero d, 105 f2. 
sigma and nikon 105 f1.4, 
even if z versions are released, I still might consider buying e or F mount versions of these lenses because it leaves my future options open. 
If nikon had released z versions of a 12-24 f4, 16-40 f2.8, 50 f1.2 that is a similar size to it's existing f1.2 lens (with similar rendering),  and 20, 35, 85 f1.4 primes I would've looked hard at all of those.  And why not have a focus by wire option that keeps the travel of the lens ring locked to how much the focus changes? how hard can that be?
 
 

Feels so good. Not sure it'll still feel good in 2 weeks time when my subscription runs out.  I have 20 odd years of Adobe workflow to re-do.  (I may end up resubscribing to Photoshop and lightroom but if Snapseed was a desktop app I would think about ditching them too).  So resolve is the no-brainer choice.  Can i get away with the freebie version?  And if not should I buy the bmpcc4k? I cant remember if the free version includes their warp stabiliser equivalent. 
Any other software I should look at?

omg andrew whoo iss sheeee in your new iconnnn
/adobe = im over it!!!!
resolve = god tier. using v. 16 rn and im lovin it™
heres a short i made last year that i did 100% in resolve, the free version, NOT KNOWING WTH I WAS DOING (lol). came out ok~!
>>> for real: im teaching my friend resolve rn, and what im telling him is, "It's easy, but the learning curve is steep, and Resolve may seem pretty odd at first, it did for me~! Nodes are like layers in Photoshop, etc etc..."

Congratulations ?
The stabilizer is included in the free software

I've been using the free version of Resolve and have pretty much overcome any learning curve I had, outside of Fusion which I still can't wrap my head around. I plan to upgrade but have been waiting on whether or not I pull the trigger on the Pocket 4K or not (decisions!) 
It feels good to be out of the Adobe system overall. I'm quite pleased with Affinity Photo and their apps. I just need that After Effects replacement! 

Well Chris I have grown to hate Adobe with a passion. It's not because of the subscription model, its because the subscription model has earned them billions, whilst their products have stagnated and their support has gone down the toilet. I was an unofficial adobe evangelist. Photoshop was amazeballs in 1997, but it essentially hasn't changed much. Their algorithms remain untouched. As do the paradigms. But all of that is nothing compared to the towering magnificence of their ability to ignore bugs.  There is one that dates back to lightroom 2. I had a workaround, but now that's broken too. It's broken my workflow. Their tech support is a joke. It's like falling out of love with someone: suddenly you realise the love is gone and all those little things you out up with for years now drive you nuts. In fact you realise you can't stand them and never want to see them again, the treacherous harpies!  
There's probably a meme out there with that guy turning round from his gf and looking at a girl he's just walked past. Well, that. 

Feels so good. Not sure it'll still feel good in 2 weeks time when my subscription runs out.  I have 20 odd years of Adobe workflow to re-do.  (I may end up resubscribing to Photoshop and lightroom but if Snapseed was a desktop app I would think about ditching them too).  So resolve is the no-brainer choice.  Can i get away with the freebie version?  And if not should I buy the bmpcc4k? I cant remember if the free version includes their warp stabiliser equivalent. 
Any other software I should look at?

Fusion is the after effects replacement, it just is a completely different interface. I'm trying to wrap my head around it as well.
Keeping up with software is a job in and of itself. With Blender's recent overhaul I'm committed to learning it to the point of doing 3D animatics for storyboarding and basic visual effects like tracked fire and explosions. We'll see how successful I am with that endeavor!

I ditched Adobe over a year ago. DXO PhotoLab and Black magic Resolve are superior to Lightroom and Premiere Pro imo. There are also plenty of Photoshop alternatives. 

Feels so good. Not sure it'll still feel good in 2 weeks time when my subscription runs out.  I have 20 odd years of Adobe workflow to re-do.  (I may end up resubscribing to Photoshop and lightroom but if Snapseed was a desktop app I would think about ditching them too).  So resolve is the no-brainer choice.  Can i get away with the freebie version?  And if not should I buy the bmpcc4k? I cant remember if the free version includes their warp stabiliser equivalent. 
Any other software I should look at?

it looks to me like there is artifacting in there due to time warping. I suggest it was shot at a lower framerate.  

Don't see it.
Sounds like you aren't watching in full screen, that sometimes introduces false moire.

anyone interested should hop on the facebook group an petition for a small-flange version of the s35 and FF models, due to be released with EF and PL mounts only.  Kinson Loo is active on the page - one of the most appealing things about the camera: the management and techs are on there, and there is a sense they are learning and constantly perfecting the camera software. 

Very keen to try the 4K 160fps internal recording and upcoming RAW codec.
https://www.eoshd.com/2019/07/the-2000-z-cam-e2-gets-upgraded-to-4k-160fps-with-firmware-update-raw-coming-later/
S35 version should definitely take a leaf out of JVC's book and be Micro Four Thirds!!

Nikon still do not understand video, and they don't want to.
I contacted Nikon Australia to point out that the auto mode had a minimum shutter speed equivalent to 360 degree shutter and no way to change it and they said: meh.  (And when I bring this up so many people blether on about shooting in manual mode and fail to imagine a circumstance where having a fixed aperture but smoothly variable shutter would be useful, so don't feel you need to waive your lack of imagination around now ?) . The fact it works like this is emblematic of Nikon's attitude to video: an annoying bolt-on they've been forced into and driven more by their marketing Dept than by their engineers. 
They can't imagine a time where stills will be the secondary function for photographers. A bit like Nokia before smartphones. 

I think it's about outcomes and priorities.  If you're a working pro then a lot of it (or maybe almost all of it) is about getting the job done and getting paid and feeding your family, which is just as relevant a goal and perspective as any other, including the pursuit of art.  My goals are to have fun, shoot stuff for my family, and learn new things, so I have minimal time while shooting (because I don't want shooting to be too impactful on my experiences) but I have heaps of time in post to play with footage because I have no deadlines or expectations.
If you can get what you want SOOC then that's perfect because it's more efficient.  Film-making has more aspects to it than anyone can possibly master, which is why it's always best to focus on the things you're good at and only work on the things that you're not good to ensure they're acceptable.  Working in post is a pretty narrow aspect of the whole picture, so even though I'm into it as almost my main focus, I can understand why relatively few people overall give it the attention that I try to.  

Huge reason I like using the EOS-R for pro shooting. I've set a PP in camera and don't grade at all, just exposure adjustments. Looks fantastic.
It's very close to my workflow with stills which is also very minimal.

Yeah, I agree.
Although, personally, I separate out the weaknesses / requirements of the camera into things that I could work on and things I can't (or have chosen not to).  For example, if people shoot run-n-gun with the GH5 and get great low-noise footage then I'm very interested in how they do that.  If they do that by having great lighting then that doesn't apply to me and how I shoot (I shoot exclusively in available light) but if they've achieved that in post then I will absolutely work my butt off to learn how to do that.  So in a way, I will use the best examples of what is possible as 'inspiration' for me to push myself and learn more about the craft.
The GH5 is a funny one actually, because for me the GH5 produces absolutely glorious images and so (for the most part) I can just look at the camera as being infinitely good, and if there's issues with my films then it's basically my fault.  I know it's not true for low-light shooting (for example) but mostly I push myself super-hard to create magic.  It means that I'm basically always disappointed with the results, but it makes me learn at the fastest rate I can, so in that sense it's still worthwhile.  Every now and then the factors I've chosen not to control will come together and magic will get recorded to the SD card and it makes me really happy and makes everything worthwhile.
I also have a big skew in my approach because I completely accept that my shooting will be far from perfect, but then I work super hard in post to get the best results I can.  In this sense I think that tests like this are great for reminding everyone that there are many cameras that produce workable images, and my personal opinion is that if you know what you're doing then you can really elevate your work by colour grading and otherwise manipulating images.

I agree.  In my mind, you have to judge a camera by:
what it can do in the best of situations (and in the best hands) as this tells you what it is capable of what it typically does in the majority of situations in the hands of people around the same skill level as you and where the limits of its performance are, both in technical aspects as well as usability If you employ a Hollywood crew to shoot the demo reel any camera will look great, but some will be much harder to get good results with than others, and we're all closer to the middle rather than the top end, so we have to be realistic in that way.
However, @Mattias Burling gives us an excellent opportunity by doing a blind test - which is to get a view of what each of us sees when we're not looking at the images through our own prejudices.  For me this is particularly useful as it reinforced some of my beliefs about myself and gave me a bit more confidence in my own judgement.  I also learned more about what I care about in an image and why.
When I looked at the images and saw one I liked, instead of saying "oh, I like that because that is from <camera X> and that is a great camera" I had to actually evaluate what I was seeing and pick it apart as to what tangible thing I was seeing was causing my reaction.  I noted that I really liked the colours of the EOS-R options, and the creamy rendering of the out of focus areas.  I disliked the aliasing or oversharpening on many shots, and in the end it was these factors that lead me to make my selections.  
Now I am armed with more knowledge about what I like in an image.  This is useful because the more I know about what I value in an image the more that I can adapt my equipment, shooting styles, and general approach to maximising those things.

I probably should keep my big fat yap shut, and I have a lot of respect for Mathias and I agree with the sentiment about technique and worrying less about specks but (obviously there going to be a but...) I try to tell potential clients that if they're comparing photographers to try and look at all their output, not just their portfolio pics. And that anyone should be able to get 20 good shots together. It's how they handle the most difficult situations and the level of consistency that is the mark of a professional, and I'd humbly like to suggest the same is true of gear.  It's when you push cameras to the edge of what they're capable of that you find out which ones work for you.  I'm constantly shooting in very high dynamic range situations. The z6 is a better fit for me than the gh5. I prefer the highlight rolloff on the z6 and like how much you can push the shadows. The same test shooting the dog backlit against a window would be more enlightening. Can you recover shadow detail, highlights, does the image still look nice with the background overexposed etc. 

Which you can't hold. 

Man might ditch other camera and go for L mount exclusively, 4K raw in such tiny body! Paired with the 45 2.8 this is pretty compact, lighter than a7iii body by itself