Inazuma

Ok

Ok

Mostly you'll be wanting to loads of hard drive space so you can make prores/dnxhd proxies of your footage which are much faster to use during the editing process. I have an Intel I7 and Nvidia 1070 8gb and its still a bit choppy with h264 4k footage. 

I don't want or need 8k.
 

Put the camera on a large gorillapod and use it as a chest/shoulder mount

People who shoot 4k on an eos R.

Wait. Shooting a dark scene does not necessarily mean crazy high ISO.
You really need to think about what you are exposing for. Do you want to see beams of light, with body shapes looming out of the shadows? Or is it important to see the actors faces, even when they are in the dark parts of the set?
Darkness is suggested by high contrast, not just by making everything dark. So the trick is to get some specks of bright light hitting just the things you want the audience to see.
Also, it's common for dark scenes to be lit slightly higher than intended and then 'crushed' somewhat in post (the shadow values taken down). This allows you to preserve a bit of detail in the shadows without the crazy ISOs you are correctly trying to avoid. 
The problem you will have with this last method is that, as I mentioned before, the real trick is to preserve high contrast, and if you raise the shadows, you also have to raise everything else - in other words, your flashlight and accent lights will then have to be pretty powerful.
Spot metering is your friend.
Do some tests. Grade the tests.
A monitoring LUT might help on set if you are doing a kind of 'day for night' job.

Your raw processor can make a huge difference to colour though. For example, Panasonic and Sony RAWS look far better in DXO PhotoLab than in Lightroom

Resolve crashes more than Premiere for me??

Oh Gawd....don't go giving them ideas for new episodes...

I've had this before as well!
Turned out to be one browser was showing it according to the Display profile in Mac OS and the other one was using SRGB or doing it's own thing.
At the time I had an LG 4K monitor and when I changed the monitor colour mode in the LG monitor menus to match Mac OS the problem went away and both browsers were the same.
A lot of people do see colour differences between computers and that's why it causes so many arguments about camera colour!

So which is the most accurate? By manual WB are you using a grey card/exp disk or just setting both cameras to the same Kelvin and Green/magenta tint values?

Your raw processor can make a huge difference to colour though. For example, Panasonic and Sony RAWS look far better in DXO PhotoLab than in Lightroom

He mentions that color science apply to JPG photo and video. RAW allows you to change colors as you like when developing. Test was for JPG photos. He also says that there were indoor scenes and outdoor scenes, so in my understanding it's not only the photo he's showing in the video. There were several photos/scenes but he’s showing only one as an example. He says nothing about the creative style / picture profile used. So assume standard was used for all cameras.
Dave Dugdale has a video comparing all Sony A7 III creative styles. With picture profiles off, standard creative style seems to be the best for skin tones in video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6VyspXsS5I
Tested it in other scenes and scenarios. Surprisingly it works well and am quite pleased with the results in most of those scenes. Dynamic range is not the best but not all scenes need it. Use standard for video quite often. So  this is one more confirmation Sony colors in last generation cameras (A7 III, A7R III) seems to be accurate in Standard style. 

I was referencing 1080 on the GH5. Perhaps I should have said GH3 instead of GH5. 
You put out great content Andrew but sometimes it is worrying skewed with confirmation bias. 
Anyway, i find this whole place insufferable these days, so slay me here now if you wish. 

Just stop making excuses for canon not to involve or even try harder
what if the EOS-R II comes out tomorrow ,and still do 4K with a crop 
Canon just tell everyone that some  pro users  did some tests and proved the IQ as good as the supersampling one,forget the fXXking  supersampling , you don't need it!
 
 

You go out of your way to try to disprove/discredit another reviewer for their fair criticism and still deny you're biased?

Once again Andrew you're blinded by your inherent Canon bias. 

He is brand agnostic, but like many others here there is still an inherent bias towards Canon because at the end of the day, they put out a nice image and nice bodies even if they fail in many technical areas.
Like a few others here, I don't care for sharpness, so it really doesn't matter to me. BUT if people are on the subject of comparing sharpness - which is not a very subjective issue - then people should talk factually.
If you actually look at the tif images at 100% (not even 400%), the sharpened EOS R image clearly has a lot of sharpening artefacts which the XT3 doesn't have. And it would only be more apparent if we saw the moving image.  So no, the XT3 is not digitally sharpened (or not to a noticeable amount anyway). The Canon 4k image is softer than most others but its sharp enough. However, its a real shame that the image is only just sharp enough, despite the huge crop and low readout speed. 
Ultimately I think it's a shame to discredit Max Yuryev when he's put out footage, which, sharpened or not, you can clearly see the EOS R has less detail. It's not at all disputable. 

 

He is brand agnostic, but like many others here there is still an inherent bias towards Canon because at the end of the day, they put out a nice image and nice bodies even if they fail in many technical areas.
Like a few others here, I don't care for sharpness, so it really doesn't matter to me. BUT if people are on the subject of comparing sharpness - which is not a very subjective issue - then people should talk factually.
If you actually look at the tif images at 100% (not even 400%), the sharpened EOS R image clearly has a lot of sharpening artefacts which the XT3 doesn't have. And it would only be more apparent if we saw the moving image.  So no, the XT3 is not digitally sharpened (or not to a noticeable amount anyway). The Canon 4k image is softer than most others but its sharp enough. However, its a real shame that the image is only just sharp enough, despite the huge crop and low readout speed. 
Ultimately I think it's a shame to discredit Max Yuryev when he's put out footage, which, sharpened or not, you can clearly see the EOS R has less detail. It's not at all disputable. 

 

Take a look at the shots above.
Looks fine to me.
And that is vs the most detailed 4K camera I own - the X-T3 with the 6K oversampling.
Max Yuryev's test video 
In this thread there was some talk about Max's video.
It has been basic knowledge for filmmakers since the 5D Mark III that you can apply different sharpness in-camera, but that it's always better to dial it down to zero in-camera with the option to sharpen in post.
The natural look is at 0 but if you want more pop, you just drop the Unsharp Mask or Sharpen effect on in Premiere.
Max shows the unsharpened camera file and claims it's a performance problem with the camera.
Yet with the digital sharpness applied in post, you can see it matches the X-T3 for fine detail above.
This is in 4K even when pixel peeped at 1:1. At normal viewing distances, you'll want to dial it back down to 0 for a more natural less digital look.
No digital sharpening is a GOOD THING out of camera
Canon is doing the right thing and they are getting blasted for it.

That's the original file. Big difference.
What I don't get about Max is surely he knew about this basic stuff even from the 5D Mark III sharpening in post days.
At the same time other people are complaining that cameras like the GH5 are too sharp and you can't turn off the digital sharpening in-camera(!!!) and they all want to go off and shoot RAW on the Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera 4K to get a more natural image.
I bet some of these same people are now complaining the EOS R is too soft!!
Blow-ups on YouTube
The biggest joke of all is the 400% digital zoom people use in YouTube to magnify the unsharpened detail, which together with YouTube's compression makes a complete mush.
Even just the digital zoom itself results in mud. Here I did it with the unsharpened EOS R 1:1 crop.
If this is how we are to judge the performance and image quality of 4K on YouTube it's seriously misleading.
Click this to view at 400% and see how muddy it is (and that's a TIFF!!) -

**************************************
Original TIFFs direct from Premiere (3840 x 2160)
X-T3 with whatever sharpening in-camera it seems to be doing in F-LOG
x-t3-sharpness.tif
EOS R sharpened
eos-r.tif
EOS R unsharpened direct from camera (Canon LOG, zero sharpness)
eos-r-unsharpened.tif

Not such a big problem.  You either buy one really good camera, or the other really good camera.  Happy days.

Why is everything a scandal with you?

Yes, but f/2.8 - as you said - is same DOF as f/4 on a full frame camera and with a FF camera you can bump up the ISO one stop and have same (or less) noise than the X-T3. Or to put it better, using f/2.8 on an X-T3 doesn't really gain you anything over using f/4 on full frame (we are not taking ergonomics or other things in to account here, just ISO values and DOF).
So it is kind of a wash.

The Nikon Z7 could well be the best ever camera for adapting manual focus lenses.
Read the full article