dahlfors

First time I am doing a project in 4k:

This cam continues to amaze me.

Metabones XL & Sigma 18-35.

I did a shoot yesterday with my 1DC and Contax Zeiss glass and loved the results. It was a nice reminder how great it is. Low light, color science, and full frame all great on it. Such a clean but beautiful image. Still gonna hold onto the 1DC until I do proper GH5 tests. 

Jimmy pls, the average viewer actually ONLY cares about DoF, dynamic range and how heavy the rig was.

The point has been missed a bit.... I'm not suggesting the iphone is a great tool for wedding videos... or that it is a cheap way to do it.
All I'm saying is that the composition, editing, sound etc have made this look really good and something we often lose focus of

Sony a6500
I changed a few settings to the profile but this was pretty much eoshd pp with eoshd wd1 Lut.

Cary, I have to thank you for reminding me about this because I did actually forget about it. The easy way to fix the problem actually (in Premiere Pro anyway) is just to use the Fast Color Corrector and change the white OutPut Level frm 255 to 235.
Before:

After:

I've never heard of any fellow film shooter that pours E-6 in the drain... they would be total outcasts in our community.
And we can always compare the environmental impact of Chinese camera factories, mountains of "old" digital cameras that quickly gets replaced, trees for their boxes, diesel for the container ships, the batteries, the plants to provide the power, etc.
Nothing is good for the environment these days.
On Topic!
 
 

Because of their methodology; They do the noise measurements from prints (if I remember correctly it's around 8-12 Megapixel prints).
Downsize ANY noisy image in Photoshop - and you'll reduce the perceived noise of the image - especially with such a hefty downsizing as 30 MP -> 10 MP. High resolution sensors with fine-grained noise will gain the most in DXO's test.
DXOmarks sensor testing is very well done in an unbiased way. But you need to understand their testing methodology and how it applies to what you do with your photography to understand how the sensor will perform for your use case - or if the use case is covered enough by the DXOmark testing. You shouldn't spend much on the single numbers they present either, but rather look at the graphs! And when you do, always always keep in mind that it isn't a measurement done directly from sensor data, but that it has gone the route through downsizing and printing. If you know how those processes function, you also know how that will impact the test outcome.
If you care about using the full 30 MP images and how the noise pattern from a camera looks like at 100%, DXOmark is definitely NOT the place to look. It's a good estimation of noise performance at print-sized photos in a magazine - or for photos downsized to fit screens / websites. If you want very large size prints or like to export 100% crops of photos, the noise characteristics can't be extrapolated from the DXOmark data - you'll have to find other tests than theirs.
A short summary on how to make use of DXOmark when you're going to buy cameras:
1) Realise that it is only the sensor & processing performance of raw files that get tested
2) Make sure to read and understand the methodology
3) Look at the graphs and compare the cameras that interest you!
4) Due to the downsizing methodology - check elsewhere for sensor and processing performance at different ISOs to get a more complete picture.
5) Now you know a bit about the sensor performance for still photography, which shouldn't really be the main reason for camera choice. Handling, lens choice, video performance etc will have to be tried & tested and read and learnt about elsewhere.

They also offer "screen" results for the pixel peepers.

Because of their methodology; They do the noise measurements from prints (if I remember correctly it's around 8-12 Megapixel prints).
Downsize ANY noisy image in Photoshop - and you'll reduce the perceived noise of the image - especially with such a hefty downsizing as 30 MP -> 10 MP. High resolution sensors with fine-grained noise will gain the most in DXO's test.
DXOmarks sensor testing is very well done in an unbiased way. But you need to understand their testing methodology and how it applies to what you do with your photography to understand how the sensor will perform for your use case - or if the use case is covered enough by the DXOmark testing. You shouldn't spend much on the single numbers they present either, but rather look at the graphs! And when you do, always always keep in mind that it isn't a measurement done directly from sensor data, but that it has gone the route through downsizing and printing. If you know how those processes function, you also know how that will impact the test outcome.
If you care about using the full 30 MP images and how the noise pattern from a camera looks like at 100%, DXOmark is definitely NOT the place to look. It's a good estimation of noise performance at print-sized photos in a magazine - or for photos downsized to fit screens / websites. If you want very large size prints or like to export 100% crops of photos, the noise characteristics can't be extrapolated from the DXOmark data - you'll have to find other tests than theirs.
A short summary on how to make use of DXOmark when you're going to buy cameras:
1) Realise that it is only the sensor & processing performance of raw files that get tested
2) Make sure to read and understand the methodology
3) Look at the graphs and compare the cameras that interest you!
4) Due to the downsizing methodology - check elsewhere for sensor and processing performance at different ISOs to get a more complete picture.
5) Now you know a bit about the sensor performance for still photography, which shouldn't really be the main reason for camera choice. Handling, lens choice, video performance etc will have to be tried & tested and read and learnt about elsewhere.

Because of their methodology; They do the noise measurements from prints (if I remember correctly it's around 8-12 Megapixel prints).
Downsize ANY noisy image in Photoshop - and you'll reduce the perceived noise of the image - especially with such a hefty downsizing as 30 MP -> 10 MP. High resolution sensors with fine-grained noise will gain the most in DXO's test.
DXOmarks sensor testing is very well done in an unbiased way. But you need to understand their testing methodology and how it applies to what you do with your photography to understand how the sensor will perform for your use case - or if the use case is covered enough by the DXOmark testing. You shouldn't spend much on the single numbers they present either, but rather look at the graphs! And when you do, always always keep in mind that it isn't a measurement done directly from sensor data, but that it has gone the route through downsizing and printing. If you know how those processes function, you also know how that will impact the test outcome.
If you care about using the full 30 MP images and how the noise pattern from a camera looks like at 100%, DXOmark is definitely NOT the place to look. It's a good estimation of noise performance at print-sized photos in a magazine - or for photos downsized to fit screens / websites. If you want very large size prints or like to export 100% crops of photos, the noise characteristics can't be extrapolated from the DXOmark data - you'll have to find other tests than theirs.
A short summary on how to make use of DXOmark when you're going to buy cameras:
1) Realise that it is only the sensor & processing performance of raw files that get tested
2) Make sure to read and understand the methodology
3) Look at the graphs and compare the cameras that interest you!
4) Due to the downsizing methodology - check elsewhere for sensor and processing performance at different ISOs to get a more complete picture.
5) Now you know a bit about the sensor performance for still photography, which shouldn't really be the main reason for camera choice. Handling, lens choice, video performance etc will have to be tried & tested and read and learnt about elsewhere.

Yes cause correlation implies causation in some perceptual realities I guess. 
Why don't we just start by reading a scientific paper they wrote on this matter:
Does resolution really increase image quality? Christel-Loïc Tisse, Frédéric Guichard, Frédéric Cao DxO Labs, 3 Rue Nationale, 92100 Boulogne, France

Dxo marks always been like that. 
It's not THE reference ..it's only a reference for those who actually know how to read the graphs and analyse some of the results. Overall score means as much as saying that the sky is blue. 

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.

DXO has their explanations.
https://www.dxomark.com/About/Sensor-scores/Overall-Score
 
https://www.dxomark.com/About/Sensor-scores/Use-Case-Scores
Low light score in particular is an actual ISO and I think the easiest to explain.
"Sports & action photography: Low-Light ISO
Unlike the two previous scenarios in which light is either generous (studio) or stability is assured (landscape), photojournalists and action photographers often struggle with low available light and high motion. Achieving usable image quality is often difficult when pushing ISO.
When shooting a moving scene such as a sports event, action photographers’ primary objective is to freeze the motion, giving priority to short exposure time. To compensate for the lack of exposure, they have to increase the ISO setting, which means the SNR will decrease. How far can they go while keeping decent quality? Our low-light ISO metric will tell them.
The SNR indicates how much noise is present in an image compared to the actual information (signal). The higher the SNR value, the better the image looks, because details aren't drowned by noise. SNR strength is given in dB, which is a logarithmic scale: an increase of 6 dB corresponds to doubling the SNR, which equates to half the noise for the same signal.
An SNR value of 30dB means excellent image quality. Thus low-light ISO is the highest ISO setting for a camera that allows it to achieve an SNR of 30dB while keeping a good dynamic range of 9 EVs and a color depth of 18bits.
A difference in low-light ISO of 25% represents 1/3 EV and is only slightly noticeable.
As cameras improve, low-light ISO will continuously increase, making this scale open."
 
It has nothing to do with AF etc so I think the sports scores are pretty reasonable maybe more so if you just consider them as low light rather than sports and remember it is based on their criteria.       I am fine with using an A7s for night time sports.      I use an old manual focus 300 2.8 anyway so it just means I can use a higher shutter speed.     None of the shots would be printed huge so 12mp is fine.
A modern FF DSLR would be a better sports CAMERA most of the time but does it have a better sports SENSOR (given DXOmarks criteria)?
The overall scores are a bit based on voodoo as the bits that go into that are subjective without full explanation as to weighting.
I think some of the anomalies might be because of a low number of samples tested given many cameras get slightly different scores with the same sensors.      A slight difference might be just enough to take a camera a bit over or a bit under their marks.     I don't think the A7s is any noisier than the A7sii and It seems the colour depth might be why the A7sii gets a lower score for low light (the point they cross 18 bits for colour sensitivity).
For video it is all a bit silly though as they are only testing RAW stills and most video is Jpeg.
I would love to see a site test sensors for video.    RAW and otherwise.
 

@wolf33d Very nice. I envy your great view on top of the volcano. I went up on a volcano on Tenerife about 2 weeks ago and it was a cloudy, windy & snowy mess. Not much of a view, just freezing cold up there.
I've lugged my share of camera equipment up mountains too. My advice is to NEVER bring only one camera. You really should have one really tiny camera that can shoot high quality shots, that you can keep either around the neck or in an accessible pocket. The larger cameras need to be in backpack, especially on the way up mountains, but certainly on longer hikes too. If you have a camera that is easily accessible, you can get shots that you'd never get with your DSLR - just because you can't be bothered to bring it out of the backpack.
On the way down I tend to use the best I have - which is a Nikon D800 - as long as the terrain isn't too tricky and I'm not roped up in a rope team


 
Another great tip is to keep something to clean up lenses with in some accessible pockets. Sometimes you get really horrible weather - but interesting light or environment for shooting photos.
Whatever 120 fps camera you pick, or whatever mirrorless / dslr you choose - do bring something very portable and closely accessible to use on the way - or you might regret it. I've regretted not having a portable camera for many great sceneries since I couldn't be bothered about getting the camera from the backpack.

I get 3 batteries for the drone. Multiple batteries for the cameras and also 2 bank power of 13000mha each for my phone which will be the GPS and any camera that can be usb charged (RX100 for exemple). 
I will have all necessary safety gear for sure.
Here is a picture of me on the summit of a volcano, 4000m altitude. I did not have any drone and regretted this more than ever. Imagine the drone footage here... (click on image for better quality, photo done with RX100. Similar one without me on my gallery done by the Nikon. See how much better, cleaner and nicer is the Nikon one) 

The thing below my hand is another volcano. That was in Guatemala. There is another volcano on the right that we dont see on the image. Super active. A picture is in my gallery: https://500px.com/photo/168838135/fuego-on-fire-by-loup-fsr?ctx_page=1&from=user&user_id=860266
We spent the whole night camping in front of it, at 3600m before summiting before sunrise. 
Never regretted that much not having a bloody drone with me to fly above the eruption. Would have been a world class incredible footage. Damn 
And by the way the 5200m we did in Bolivia was a preparation Trek for summiting a 6100m summit which we did not do cause a friend broke his collar bone and got surgery in La Paz. Thats the reason why there is actually no video of this Guatemala/Bolivia trip even though I have tons of footage (erupting volcano timelapse anyone..?  ) 

I do humble camping trips and keeping it light and easy is a nightmare. 
I do some walking, but nothing extreme (not even close to exotic places), and the weather here in south east Europe is rather mild (or if it is snowy like right now, we don't even go out for work!) and still I am trying to pack as less as possible.
How are you going to move all this equipment on site? It can be a logistics nightmare.
I usually take in one camera bag a NX3000 (this is my "crash" cam) 230gr, NX500 292gr, NX1 550gr, and 10mm 72gr / 12-24 208gr / 16-50S 622gr / 45mm 115gr.
Maybe you should choose between systems, Nikon or Sony, it can be more convenient for batteries, accessories etc, these are taking space and some weight too.
Also the big decision is if you really need full frame or not, that can make a huge difference in size and weight ratio.
 

What's the purpose of telling anything technical related in threads on EOSHD?
I've myself learnt a great deal on EOSHD, and I've myself picked up quite a lot of news that I probably would not have, had it not been because someone had made a thread about it. So, in the same sense, since I hadn't seen it mentioned on EOSHD before, I figured that the topic would interest others than myself on EOSHD!
...and for the film vs digital for myself:
I started out shooting stills on film and I really like the look of film. The practical parts of shooting with digital is keeping me in the digital-only camp for now though. But maybe I'll some day venture back to film - and then I'm really happy if there are some good films left. Hence it makes me happy to read news like this.

http://menexmachina.blogspot.com/2018/07/lightroom-skin-tones.html

To be honest. If she wants to go tiny, certain micro four thirds options would be better suited. However, it sounds like she's been convinced by some online reviews that Sony cameras are where it's at. Instead of just buying a Sony mirrorless, get her to try them out in a shop properly. Get a feel for the controls, shoot raw photos, shoot videos. Preferably do it side by side with some Canikon and perhaps Panasonic models - so she knows how they compare.
What others have said here about the colors of Sony is true. It just isn't where Canon or Nikon is. With my old Sony NEX-5R I could take great shots. But the colors never were possible to tweak as good as the Nikon shots with Lightroom only. Personally I'm not happy if getting good color means having to work with masks in Photoshop... I'm afraid that this is something she'd only notice after a few months going from Canikon to Sony unless she does serious tests in a shop.

Quite a surprising move. I didn't expect this!
---
Kodak Brings Back a Classic with EKTACHROME Film
Las Vegas, NV, Thursday, January 05, 2017
To the delight of film enthusiasts across the globe, Eastman Kodak Company today announced plans to bring back one of its most iconic film stocks.  Over the next 12 months, Kodak will be working to reformulate and manufacture KODAK EKTACHROME Film for both motion picture and still photography applications.  Initial availability is expected in the fourth quarter of 2017.
Full press release at: http://photorumors.com/2017/01/05/kodak-to-brings-back-ektachrome-film/
 

Quite a surprising move. I didn't expect this!
---
Kodak Brings Back a Classic with EKTACHROME Film
Las Vegas, NV, Thursday, January 05, 2017
To the delight of film enthusiasts across the globe, Eastman Kodak Company today announced plans to bring back one of its most iconic film stocks.  Over the next 12 months, Kodak will be working to reformulate and manufacture KODAK EKTACHROME Film for both motion picture and still photography applications.  Initial availability is expected in the fourth quarter of 2017.
Full press release at: http://photorumors.com/2017/01/05/kodak-to-brings-back-ektachrome-film/
 

Quite a surprising move. I didn't expect this!
---
Kodak Brings Back a Classic with EKTACHROME Film
Las Vegas, NV, Thursday, January 05, 2017
To the delight of film enthusiasts across the globe, Eastman Kodak Company today announced plans to bring back one of its most iconic film stocks.  Over the next 12 months, Kodak will be working to reformulate and manufacture KODAK EKTACHROME Film for both motion picture and still photography applications.  Initial availability is expected in the fourth quarter of 2017.
Full press release at: http://photorumors.com/2017/01/05/kodak-to-brings-back-ektachrome-film/