gethin

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

Yes it would. But main purpose is to have voters focusing on the image and cinematography, rather than voting for their favourite camera!

It is allowed.
Fun competition. The rule book should not be 100 pages long.

"The other adapter I will be trying in the full review is the Sony A mount range, both for full frame Alpha glass – of which there are some rather nice ones, indeed some of my favourite of all time, and the superbly cinematic Minolta AF range."
I also think they have a distinctly cinematic quality.
It's nice to hear I'm not the only one who thinks that.  Ya know, when you mention the word "Minolta" some cinematographers are like, "What are you crazy?" 
Fuck them.  LOL.
 

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?
 
 

Yes I think I remember it mentioned as supported but again need to check.
I can't agree. While they are not bad lenses it doesn't make sense to invest $$$ in lenses which can't be adapted, especially ones as boring as the small Z range released so far.
I get much more value from my Canon EF lenses as they're usable on so much.
Whereas E-mount lenses make more sense as well.
My Sony FE 35mm F1.4 has the Zeiss pop and 3D rendering. It is superior the Nikon Z 35mm F1.8. That lens is by no means a BAD lens but my Sony cost less (used in very good condition) and is flat out superior, faster, and better built.
My Sony Batis lenses, 25mm F2 and 85mm F1.8 are also Zeiss glass, and look incredible. Nikon doesn't even have an answer for Z mount. No fast 24mm or 85mm primes yet! What were they thinking?
F4 is too slow for a zoom for me, and 70mm too short, so the 24-70 Z, while relatively affordable and compact is BORING, compared to Canon's incredible 28-70mm F2.8 from the 90's which is par focal and $300... And what's more, I can use these lenses on countless Sony bodies, and not just my Z6.
Nikon's main mistake with the.Z series lenses so far, has been the pricing. Charging $600-$900 for F1.8 primes, I don't care how good they are, it doesn't match market expectations when everything else in this region by Canon, Sigma, Sony and Nikon is F1.4 and their F1.8 lenses are in the bargain bins. See how much a Canon 50mm F1.8 costs you or a 35mm F1.8 Nikon.

missing my 4K 60 though. 

The 3:2 full frame 6k is great for the marketing world. We normally have to shoot two or three times for 16:9, 1:1 and vertical video. 3:2 gives us a lot more flexibility. 

Framing in post is definitely a thing, but I could never learn to shoot wider than what I needed - my framing while shooting habits were too strong!  The extra resolution definitely wouldn't go astray for you either.

Yeah we are forgetting 6K is up there with the big boys. When we Really find out all the specs it might be one of the best FF Hybrids you can buy if you are really serious about this stuff. We sure arn't going to buy any of the big boy toys.

I just saw some footage from DJI's new action cam. HDR video! WTF? Sometimes I wonder why I dropped $5K on a camera setup when I could just shoot my real estate vids on an action cam, and most people wouldn't notice the difference. I just bought the 14-30 lens for my z6, and I'll buy the mozo aircross 2 to replace my ronin-s when it comes out, because 3.6kg of camera setup is killing me. But to think someone could just buy this and a wee gimbal, or the pocket osmo, and even begin to compete is head scratching. 

Can't stress enough how much better the Mavic 2 Pro is vs the old one, even though the whole 1" camera seem like rushed from DJI and has some unexpected flaws. The 10 bit 1" sensor is there.

I’m going to pass on this version. Give me the same thing with a 1” sensor and I’m all over it. 

I posted this because of some footage I'd seen. Honestly it was nearly shit enough for a $500 camera. It had no right to be so good. It made me positively angry.  ?