Shield3

Yeah, exposure is the same.
However, snip out a "crop" of the pic, and then blow that crop up to the size that the original was. Noise will be more apparent on the crop than on the original.
If you wanted the noise level to be equal on the crop as the original, you lower the ISO, and open the aperture to compensate.

No one is saying the EXPOSURE is different.  The same intensity of light is hitting the sensor.  I am saying all things being equal, a larger sensor gathers more total light and has less read noise than a smaller one.  Have you forgotten that the micro 4/3rds cameras struggle past ISO 1600?  This isn't about crop or camera exposure, but equivalent DOF.  You can't multiply the focal length without multiplying the effective aperture.  This is why the Nokton F/0.95 25mm is roughly a 50mm F/2 in FF terms.  Same rule is reversed when you go the other way.  Instead of having the full 24x36 sensor "gather" light for your video, the Canon in this case, it's the (almost) S16 dead center of the sensor "gathering" light.
Andrew gets it - the 28-70 F2 when shooting UHD on the EOS R is roughly a 48-117mm F3.5.

I make a good living and was ready to hand B&H my CC# for one + the 35 1.8 and the 28-70 F/2.  I told myself I would not if the crop was worse that 1.4-1.5 in UHD.  Canon shot themselves in the foot again.
Canon is like the EX you broke up with a couple years ago - she comes back around every so often - you have a good one night fling and romanticize about the past.  Go out to dinner, talk about the 5d3 raw back in 2013, hop into bed.  Then the next day you hear she's still doing drugs - hasn't changed at all.    There's a reason you two broke up.
I wanted to be wrong here - haven't been excited about a camera for a while - I hate the Sony colors and overheating, hate Panasonic's shitty AF, etc.
Yes, but are you 100% sure it's UHD out and not just 1080p out?  I don't recall any Canon bodies doing UHD HDMI out.

I make a good living and was ready to hand B&H my CC# for one + the 35 1.8 and the 28-70 F/2.  I told myself I would not if the crop was worse that 1.4-1.5 in UHD.  Canon shot themselves in the foot again.
Canon is like the EX you broke up with a couple years ago - she comes back around every so often - you have a good one night fling and romanticize about the past.  Go out to dinner, talk about the 5d3 raw back in 2013, hop into bed.  Then the next day you hear she's still doing drugs - hasn't changed at all.    There's a reason you two broke up.
I wanted to be wrong here - haven't been excited about a camera for a while - I hate the Sony colors and overheating, hate Panasonic's shitty AF, etc.
Yes, but are you 100% sure it's UHD out and not just 1080p out?  I don't recall any Canon bodies doing UHD HDMI out.

$3000 for a 28-70mm F2
In 4K with the crop factor it is a $3000 49-122mm F3.5.
Not so impressive, huh.

It’s funny the last time me and the girlfriend watched a movie... she mentioned that she couldn’t really follow the story because they were shooting with a 45mm lens instead of a 28mm.

I love this type of post, and the Internet / camera forums in general.  We go from arguing over how great a camera is going to be, to unboxing videos and camera lust / jealousy, to the inevitable honeymoon is over phase so quickly.
So in lieu of shooting something reliable and proven, we put loupes on our Sony bodies, worry about overheating, worry if the Metabones adapter is going to not work, drag around ND filters and step up rings, external mics, remember to overexpose 2 stops in log mode so we can squeeze 1/5 of a stop of extra dynamic range just to spend hours later grading footage of our....cats.  All while trying to avoid banding skies, black hole suns (Soundgarden anyone?) and instead of actually ENJOYING shooting a nice crisp 1080p signal (like my FS700) and worrying more about content - before we hit record we're trying to remember what our "knee" setting was for test shot #1047.
Hey, I'm one of you too.  Having gotten a proper ND filter / good built-in audio / slow motion FS700 the past few days I've just been shooting everything.  Mostly not even slowmo stuff - and (oh the horror) not $5000 adapted Cooke glass - I even tried the 18-55 Sony kit lens - which smoothly autofocuses and face tracks my subjects.  I locked the iris, set the ISO gain limit and just hit record.  Looking now for cool low angled shots, framing, keeping my subjects (my family) the focus and not the settings.  More "keeper" footage in 3 days non stop shooting than 4 months with the 1dc.
But, I am one of you - always on the quest for the best.  But at some point we are going to have to remember there is *no* perfect camera, nor will there ever be.
DSLR's will probably never have true built-in ND, XLR inputs (save the GH4 and the clunky poorly-powered YAGH), smooth AF in video mode and colors right out of the camera (and dynamic range) that we all like.
Camcorders will never be small, take exception stills, nor have the stealth factor.  I walked around Halloween with the FS and at least 3 people asked me if I was with the news.  At the baseball games with the 1d + 300 2.8 they asked if I was with Sports Illustrated.
 
Sigh.  /ramble off.
 

I've been using an A6500 + Zhyuin Crane + mostly the Sigma 30 1.4.  Just watch the RS and the image is great. 

There is a curious paradox that you're experiencing there regarding acceptance of more overt activity that you would think would put people more on their guard but its often the exact opposite.
Its a phenomenon that I experience a lot when shooting flavour stuff outside stadiums of spectators before kick off. My preferred way of doing it is using small mirrorless cameras as I can't stand people who ham it up when they see a chance to get in a newspaper and I much prefer candid shots. It has to be said though that people are far more on their guard if they see you pointing a small camera in their general direction as they think you are up to something furtive. This is also very much the case with security services who are now unfortunately part and parcel of major sporting events because of terrorism. 
So whilst we all want to strip everything down and not make a song and dance of our presence, it actually often pays to be less discrete as people just accept you must be doing something legit and authorised if you're wielding big stuff.
Its counter intuitive to say the least but its definitely a thing.
See also 'furry mic syndrome' where wielding a large Rycote encased microphone on a boompole is like some sort of magic wand that grants de facto filming permission in most public places

I couldn't disagree much more strongly. That kind of rigging is taking away everything good about a dSLR and adding nothing but headaches. The only exposure aid I need is my 758 cine (heck, with zebras I don't even need the spot meter) and the only sound I would use from an on-camera mic would be for syncing dual system sound. Even with the best pre-amps in the world, your mic is still in the wrong place if it's on-camera. I can see the handle or a small cage being useful for balance, or maybe a loupe in daylight being helpful, but beyond that I don't see the point.
That said, not everyone agrees with me! If it works for you it works for you. As I mentioned before, s union AC I worked with did the same thing with a C300 when shooting a super bowl ad, rigging it out like crazy... and it is not designed to be rigged out. I asked what the point was when the ergonomics are great (for me) out of the box, but apparently the operator wanted a large 435-like form factor as it was what he was used to, having a film background. He wanted the thing to weigh 50 pounds.
But for me the smallest rig is the best one. If I wanted to weigh it down I'd tape a barbell to it. I do often get asked to use a matte box or something so clients and insecure actors will feel like the small camera is a real "cinema camera" but nothing makes me more irritated than this request. "Is that a real camera? Yes, are you a real actor? If so it'll show in your performance. If it's a real camera it'll show in the footage." But when I get that request it doesn't even reflect on the camera it reflects on me. If you think you know more about my job than I do, you've already lost confidence in me just by asking for a larger camera. Project your insecurities elsewhere. I'm doing my job well, worry about doing the same. Ugg... actors. So insecure it even wipes off on camera department.
I'm not saying I complete disagree, though. The Black Magic cameras, for instance, have such poor ergonomics that they need to be rigged up. Just offering a dissenting opinion. Each will have his or her own preferences. (And for mirrorless still cameras like the GH5 and A7S I do think the ergonomics are so poor that they often benefit from having a small cage and an HDMI clamp, but beyond that I don't see the point.)

I just like a camera to get out of the way.  For me, the best one so far has been the C100 (Mark 1 or 2)  - Doesn't need a cage.  You can hand hold it easily without micro jitters.  Great image.  Super useful built in ND filters.  (I really dislike external ones, I do find them too time consuming for my liking, and it's an extra thing you need to deal with.  Heck, I don't even like changing lenses that much.)  A 17-55 with a 70 - 200 is a great combo.  I can handle run and gun and interviews without issue.  Only drawback for me was the codec.  It's fine for Web, but not for TV.  I shot 13 episodes with a ninja connected, which I also disliked.  The magic arm kept getting in the way or falling out of place.  I don't shoot it anymore because I like 4k, but don't have a great replacement at the moment.  Didn't like the C300 as much because it's bigger/heavier than I like.  Same with Mark 2. 
 

Not sure where you get the idea that weddingshooters prefer higher-end pro camera's, most are switching to a sony a7sII/a6500 set up and some do use a fs5 but mainly for longer recordings, the gh5 is also gaining popularity among the weddingshooter community and the canon 5dIII is also still widely used, the 5d4 is less popular. The canon 1dc is also still used by some high end weddingvideographers. The c100 is also a very popular camera but the c200 is not because of it's high pricepoint. From all these mentioned camera's the sony a7sII is by far the most popular one so to say that weddingvideographers only prefer the higher-end pro camera's is just not true, maybe for a few individuals but certainly not for the entire weddingcommunity. I know because I"m in a weddingvideographer facebookgroup that has over 13000 members and all the big names in the weddingindustry are member there as well so you get a pretty good idea what gear is used in general. 

How do you define creativity though?
Yes, if you film street photography style footage, a GH5 will offer more creative freedom than a fully rigged Arri.
If you are filming from a camera mount on a snowboard, then the GoPro will offer more creative freedom than a GH5
If you are filming fast moving skaters, then a DJI Osmo will offer more creative freedom than a GoPro
If you are filming the aurora, then a Sony a7s ii will offer more creative freedom than an DJI Osmo
If you are filming music video, a C200 will offer more creative freedom than an A7s ii
and on and on..... There is no one camera that offers more creativity for every type of filming.

Has anyone actually ever said production cameras are more creative? They are just better for production. Though NDs, better handling and better audio can be very creative features.
If I'm climbing a glacier... Then carrying up all the shit needed for a production camera is gonna hinder me.. (c300 is about as big as I'd want to go)
Horses for courses... As ever

People can't be creative while they're working? Or efficient when they're not?
Wedding and event shooters aspire to pro cams because they're sick of fiddling with NDs and tiny batteries and rolling shutter and too-big or too-small codecs. The time lost dicking around with these things doesn't make anyone more creative, it only endangers their paycheck/career, AND loses them creative opportunities.
There are plenty of subjects and shooting styles that lend themselves perfectly to photo cams and their slower, fiddlier workflow... and there are plenty that don't, even past weddings and events. And this is a separate issue from creativity and freedom vs. efficiency and appearances. Someone can be completely creative whilst shooting fast-paced or high-pressure situations- at least they can if they have the time to.
I do definitely agree that the IQ gap is so much smaller nowadays that this is a much blurrier argument than it was a few years ago. A7sII, GH5, etc vs. FS5/7, C200, etc is certainly a smaller gap than 7D vs. C300, or whatever other matchup from 4-10 years ago. Smaller price gap too.
The lack of IBIS in pro bodies is also definitely adding to the blur.

Sony & Panasonic didn't have as established a stills shooter customer base. The Sony/Panasonic stills shooters were casual weekend shooters. Conversely, Canon had and still have the vast majority of their customer base - the people buying their products - who are professional shooters.
Sony & Panasonic were able to be much more nimble in the market and take bigger risks because they had less to lose in that market. Canon takes a risk on a product - say on a product that caters to a smaller market - and they have a lot more to lose.
You're very good at being condescending, but perhaps spend more than 3 seconds comprehending what you're reading before jumping in with a comment. 
And really? Big words? I didn't know words like disingenuous were big words for anyone that passed middle school...

It's pretty disingenuous to use Panasonic as an example considering their sensor sizes are literally half that of the Canon. Use Sony's A7 series (which only the most recent iteration of included internal 4k, by the way - though sure they at least offered 4k externally before that), and a6000 series - sure. They've been able to make 4k internal happen in a much smaller body, though they still took longer than Panasonic. 

There's significantly more data to process on a full frame sensor in 4k vs an m4/3 sensor. 
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Video shooters are not a huge market for Canon DSLRs and mirrorless. That's why the compromise you talk about has come at the costs of video. That's why they're attempting to develop better photo feartures first. Does that mean they couldn't have developed the technology to do everything you want? Course not. But obviously their focus is and always has been still shooters in the DSLR line-up. That's why they have a Cinema EOS line-up to cater for video shooters.

Sony and Panasonic don't/didn't have the established customer base and were/are much more able to be nimble and take bigger risks. That's why they were able to make such a dent.
 

To add to the mystery, there is the possibility that someone within Canon leaked the possibility of 10 and 12-bit RAW video the ML forum.  That effort had been dead-as-a-door-nail for a long time.  If it wasn't for that anonymous tip, which is VERY technical in nature, we'd never know that Canon cameras can essentially record a kind of compressed RAW video; that is, much less than the current 4 gig a minute.  Even without 12-bit RAW, I don't understand why Canon doesn't  allow 4-minute RAW recording on their 5Ds.  The only real worry is temperature and they can easily fix that with a limit.  Bottom line, Canon could put 12-bit RAW on their cameras today.  The ML devs have recently proven that.
As for the C100/300/200 line, I no longer see a threat from their consumer cameras even if they had 4K.  The cinema sensors are built for cinema, that is, video resolution with large pixels, so you wouldn't get the same low-light video with your 80D 4K, say, that you would from the C100.  Then, of course, all the buttons, XLR, etc.  I've never bought the argument that Canon would hurt their cinema business no matter how powerful they made their consumer cameras.  Of course, that might not be the case in Canon.
In fairness to Canon, Sony can't seem to do 4K in-camera downscaling to 1080 well (at least in my 6300).  However, I can't see how they can't output 4K in teh 6D II and let those who are inclined, downscale on their PC.  So I see some merit in the argument that Canon is very dismissive of enthusiast video users.  They seem to take the position that unless it can be done in camera, they're not interested in what happens to video downstream.  
The 4K coming out of the A6300 and A6500 is incredible, to me.  And they're great cameras, period.  Sony keeps releasing more lenses.  Once you look at 4K out of those cameras next to Canon video it's hard not to see the difference. 
 

Andrew must have an exceptional copy of the 35G or he likes the wide open softness this lens exhibits.
I shot the original A99 for awhile and it was the worst A-mount lens I tried out of all the G and Zeiss lenses. Every copy I tried was soft at apertures wider than f/4 - for me the IQ was just to poor, even at heavily discounted used prices. The 24-70 was clearly sharper at the same apertures, so that's what I shot with most of the time. In fact my copy of the 24-70 was so good it almost never left my camera in the 3 months I owned it. With the A99II bump to 42mp and actual 4k/1080p resolution in video its flaws will be more obvious. Its smaller and lighter than other 35/1.4's because its was released in 1998 and its optical design is not competitive with modern designs in terms of sharpness and aberrations, the E-mount 35/1.4 is a modern optic and far superior in every measurable metric - thus the lens is larger.
The overheating bugs me too. Sony has a beast with the A99II, but it needs a few refinements and a few lens refreshes to make it viable for me. Some discount the AF issue, but for one-man-band, run-and-gun stuff, AF is a valuable tool. The workarounds are silly, Sony can fix all the issues. I just don't think the A-mount sells enough to dedicate significant resources to make the needed improvements when compared to the E-mount - which is clearly driving the robust imaging sales we've seen over the last couple years. Disabling the aperture is not a viable workaround if you want to use the lens at more than one aperture without having to take it apart every time.
Are you getting two channels of audio directly into the camera on the A7sII as well? If so, that pretty convenient. I'm thinking about switching back to Sony from Fuji and this would be another reason to make a move for me. Thanks.

If you want to ban someone for pointing out real log is different to your flat profile (which is really good and useful, btw)... Then ban away.... I thought you liked honesty though?

Please research what log means

So not a video camera, really.
 
It's a bit of a gambit. I don't know why people in the market for an FF with amazing autofocus in this price range would pick it over Canikon, where they have the best selection of sport lenses and bodies that won't be a pain to balance them on. With the A7 series they at least had the street market down pretty well.

Looks like a very, very capable camera but.....
Why were they whooping that lens?
If it is for sport, they're going to have the same issues as Fuji by having a body capable of getting them into the D5 and 1dXII level IQ wise but not having the lenses to go with it. 
The 300 and 500 primes they have are actually way more expensive than the Nikon and Canon equivalents and without a 400 at all they've got a major gap.

Also Dave Dougdale which have even more subscribers acknowledged that there is something "wrong" with the AF and he is waiting on a firmware fix of the issue.
From what I've seen I must agree. Something isn't how its supposed to be. The tracker follows a face perfectly and still its not in focus... The tracker should stay with the focus.

I can't bring myself to watch his version of events. I've seen and heard enough from him to last me a lifetime. Your report doesn't surprise me in the slightest.