Danyyyel

REDCODE is compressed RAW for a dozen years, no one has complained in Hollywood included... Do you? :X

I hope your coffee machine can do actions photos like that. Care to give me the brand please so I can dish all my cameras. I prefer to take advise from actual professional than youtubers and website who never ever have any practical shooting experience and will spend one day with a completely new camera. Thtas his setting and feeling about z6 https://www.facebook.com/groups/NikonMirrorless/permalink/462911304234806/?comment_tracking={"tn"%3A"O"}
Here is another shoot with his account https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4340957
 
 
I am sure that your coffee machine can also be used in the staples center to photograph Lebron. below is the account of the shooter, a known sport shooter and not some random dude on the youtube or those dpreview guy that can't even shoot outside of test chart.
https://www.facebook.com/robert.hanashiro/media_set?set=a.10156360392953025&type=3
Nikon z6 Metallica  , and his account on the Af in challenging lights  https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4343245#forum-post-61973980
 

Sincerely, best evf and back screen for most, very very good Full frame IBIS, very very good video autofocus, outstanding body construction (lensrental rivaling best DSLR ones), 10 bit and log. What did you expect, it beats the A73 in everything except native lens choice (The adapted Nikon lens are still very good on the body). I don't what some people expected, perhaps a coffee machine option. The only body that would beat it depending if you want better slowmotion and internal 10 bit is the Fuji XT3. Now if for you IBIS and better low light is more important and the FF look, then the Nikon would win. As for the Sony, when the next one comes out, then we can compare to the z6, because for now the z6 is in every way better.

What until now I don't understand, not judging you in particular, but there are quite a lot of low light test, I guess by nw we know that we can use 6400 ISO and go to 12800 or even 25600 ISO. But no one was able to do a test with what is the real innovation of this camera and it is 10 bit log profile. That is the first test I will do with this camera when I get it start of next year, put it at 800 ISO, log, 10 bit and shoot some people and landscape. Just to know what is the ultimate quality of this camera.

I remember when you where saying that Nikon first gen would never compete against Sony third gen. You know what the Z6 is better than the A73 Sony MILC, better viewfinder, rear screen, ergonomic, 10 bit, construction weather sealing, 10 bit etc. The only thing it looses is Continous autofocus in.............. photo and not video. So what I expect is at least 1 or 2 firmware update for continuous autofocus to get it better. That does not mean that its photo autofocus is bad, it is just not at the same level than the Sony in Continous autofocus.
 
 
I can't understand people thinking, Sony sensor division is number one in the world, why would they handicap their reputation to protect 13% Milc Dslr market. They would alienate 90% of their own customer.

People are getting 4k TV by default , its not like they really really want it, it is just that you can get a 4k TV for 5-10% more than a 1080p one, or no more 1080p model. In fact if 4k was successful in anyway, there would have been a premium on that, but like 3D, no one cares. The reality is that young people are watching movies on their mobile phone or tablets. We are living the MP3 audio transition but for video. It is really sad for people like us who are a bit passionate about image quality but that's a big trend.
The TV manufacturers and as a lot of other consumer electronic product are experiencing a shrinking market because people just can't see a big difference between 1080p and 4k at normal viewing distance. The only thing that for me would push big sales again would be a cheap tech for much bigger screen size. If you could get 80+ inch screen for 1k etc, then people will go back buying TV. Display size does make a difference in the viewing at least for me.
Sincerely there is about 100 pixel difference between a 1080p and 2k screen. If you can tell me how there is a huge difference, i am happy to hear that. When I am talking about 1080p, I am not talking about Canon 5d style 1080p which is barely 720p, but true 1080p-2k from camera like the Alexa. In my country most screen are still 1080p-2k and until now I have never seen a pixel on 10 meter wide screen.

I expect to see this statement posted again in 2020 as well....

Well, on the road you can easily drive 160km/h with 100hp. With 400hp obviously, too. But on a normal viewing situation 4K is already a waste while 8k is simply for show off race car drivers were 99% of humanity just shake their head about this guy in a lambo. It is manly just penis size at this point and everybody knows size is very important and storytelling is completely unnecessary if you can have 8k or a lambo respectively.

I am still waiting for 4k next year for the last 5 years, oh wait I am still waiting for 1080p, because 90% of the world is still on 720p and SD. Japan and Korea are some kind of tech lab experiment that never represent the world. In fact 1080p is good enough and in a good sense for any normal viewing distance display for our human brain. Over and above that is really pushing it in terms of diminishing return. it is like moving from a 100 hp car to a 400 hp one to get .2 second better from 0 to 100, now that's for 4k, I don't even know what will 8k bring.

I don't understand the logic of this conclusion at all. I mean why should... "almost exclusively" be people with a large selection of Nikkor AF glass chose the z6.  It is nothing outrageous to say that the z6 is the best video MILC for now and only behind the XT3 if you really want 4k 60 fps and don't care about IBIS. So why should only Nikon users be interested in the top 2 best video MILC. As illustrated by the video below, the guy finding himself so much liking the z6 that he doesn't know what to choose between it and the A73 which he already has.
What some will point out is the native lens selection. If someone starts from zero for sure the Sony has more lens but Nikon has already put out a roadmap. By this time next year we will have most of the pro quality lens to cater for 80% of use, and in two years 90% of what most people use. We already have FTZ adapter which caters for everything. The only grippe with the Ftz is video, because of motor noise. But as seen by most account the F mount lens work very well with the z6 ftz adapter combo. But if you are serious about video you will never use the internal microphone but get an external one. Another thing with the FTZ adapter, waiting for native lens, I could buy new or even better used, a bunch of quality Fmount lens for the price of one new Sony lens.
The other thing about the Z lens mount is, do you buy into Sony system (which is already very costly) or buy into a new system that is planed to be future proof. With that bigger mount we can already see with Nikon and Canon that it opens new possibilities with higher quality fast lens and completely new formula as F2 zoom. Other innovation like third ring that can be programmed for smooth aperture or Iso change. So my conclusion of this conclusion, why should the z6 "almost exclusively" be people with a large selection of Nikkor AF glass, when ultimately it is at least as good and potentially much better than the competition. 
 
 

That's one of the attractions of the Swiss Army Knife approach of the Nikon. You can stick the same camera in small bag for spontaneous moments at unprecedented quality, but the same body can also be used in the studio for shooting 10 bit log for green screen, with a recorder and audio extras.

Yes, and I know some photographers that are asked by clients to dive into video, so the Z line might be attractive, instead of switching to Sony. It also could sparks an interest among a larger audience ; I'm reading more and more comments on forums (video oriented, or photo specialized with a dedicated video section), from video shooters that are really intrigued by 10bit/FF/ibis/robust construction.
Personally, despite having no Nikkor lenses, I've chosen the z6 over the a7iii, primarily for build quality and handling. Better evf, lcd and touchscreen, great ibis, desirable Nikkor G line-up and lovely colors are a plus. I will also attach a lot of non AF lenses, as I would've done with Sony. Won't be a problem to share it later with a bmpcc4k or a gh5s. But, if it had not been for the Z line, I would not be back to Nikon today (or only for stills).

I think it is your beta software, You have got this test between D750 and Z6 and surprisingly when you consider Dpreview lab test, the z6 is better than the D750. I don't doubt the test because the pink shadows is typical of the older Nikon camera and it has been better since the latest ones.
 

Nice example of AF video tracking and use on a gimbal.

I think it is your beta software, You have got this test between D750 and Z6 and surprisingly when you consider Dpreview lab test, the z6 is better than the D750. I don't doubt the test because the pink shadows is typical of the older Nikon camera and it has been better since the latest ones.
 

I will never understand, do you shoot or are you just some kind of geek. Because I will never understand people that says thing like that. I mean, can someone at real viewing distance even see more than 2k. The perfect example is the Alexa 2.8k sensor, I don't see anyone complaining about lack of resolution. It is just the geek that might find it sexy to be able to count every pores in an actress face when stopping the image.

I can't tell the difference on 1080 monitors without zooming in but I've never seen 4k on a 4k monitor or 8k on an 8k monitor. 

To me though 1080p is good enough for everything (unless you need cropping). 

The bigger deal breaker right now is internet viewing. 4k looks way better then 1080p on platforms like youtube due to compression. 

At a movie theater, ehh not really imho. 

I will never understand, do you shoot or are you just some kind of geek. Because I will never understand people that says thing like that. I mean, can someone at real viewing distance even see more than 2k. The perfect example is the Alexa 2.8k sensor, I don't see anyone complaining about lack of resolution. It is just the geek that might find it sexy to be able to count every pores in an actress face when stopping the image.

I will never understand, do you shoot or are you just some kind of geek. Because I will never understand people that says thing like that. I mean, can someone at real viewing distance even see more than 2k. The perfect example is the Alexa 2.8k sensor, I don't see anyone complaining about lack of resolution. It is just the geek that might find it sexy to be able to count every pores in an actress face when stopping the image.

I will never understand, do you shoot or are you just some kind of geek. Because I will never understand people that says thing like that. I mean, can someone at real viewing distance even see more than 2k. The perfect example is the Alexa 2.8k sensor, I don't see anyone complaining about lack of resolution. It is just the geek that might find it sexy to be able to count every pores in an actress face when stopping the image.

Brandon Lee review seems really  nice, it looks like it quite good. As a user of the Zhiyun crane 2, I am not very satisfied by its stabilization and sincerely those  heavy gimbal are very hard to use because you get fatigue very fast.

The thing is that for photo I can understand shooting at these type of apertures like 1.4 because even if you get 1 out of every 2-5 photos in focus it is ok. There is no continuity in photography, you can do 10 out of focus image, if you get one it is ok, more so in our digital world where you can take hundreds if not thousand of photos during an event. While in video you need continuity, you would need at 5 to 10 second for every scene , and unless you are shooting static subject it is near impossible to keep your subject in focus during those take, more so when using FF. For example I do interviews at least at F4 with FF at about chest level and it is still problematic. The person just has to move some cm in front and the focus is gone, so he just as most people move little bit in front or back as he is talking and gets out of focus. If it is only for some fraction of second it is ok, but if half your interview it is the case then it is a big problem.
The second thing is what I would translate as subject attachment to his surrounding. Just after the large sensor revolution with the 5d ten years ago there was that craze to use very shallow death of field that your subject is like floating in an abstract universe that was completely blurry. That's why sometime I think that cine 35 mm was perhaps the rel best medium, because it gave you enough shallow DOF for subject separation and nice bokeh, but not that crazy that it becomes artificial.

The thing is that for photo I can understand shooting at these type of apertures like 1.4 because even if you get 1 out of every 2-5 photos in focus it is ok. There is no continuity in photography, you can do 10 out of focus image, if you get one it is ok, more so in our digital world where you can take hundreds if not thousand of photos during an event. While in video you need continuity, you would need at 5 to 10 second for every scene , and unless you are shooting static subject it is near impossible to keep your subject in focus during those take, more so when using FF. For example I do interviews at least at F4 with FF at about chest level and it is still problematic. The person just has to move some cm in front and the focus is gone, so he just as most people move little bit in front or back as he is talking and gets out of focus. If it is only for some fraction of second it is ok, but if half your interview it is the case then it is a big problem.
The second thing is what I would translate as subject attachment to his surrounding. Just after the large sensor revolution with the 5d ten years ago there was that craze to use very shallow death of field that your subject is like floating in an abstract universe that was completely blurry. That's why sometime I think that cine 35 mm was perhaps the rel best medium, because it gave you enough shallow DOF for subject separation and nice bokeh, but not that crazy that it becomes artificial.

Yes, nothing more distracting after bad audio than watching a film or documentary where the focus is on the background or foreground of the actor or interviewee.

The thing is that for photo I can understand shooting at these type of apertures like 1.4 because even if you get 1 out of every 2-5 photos in focus it is ok. There is no continuity in photography, you can do 10 out of focus image, if you get one it is ok, more so in our digital world where you can take hundreds if not thousand of photos during an event. While in video you need continuity, you would need at 5 to 10 second for every scene , and unless you are shooting static subject it is near impossible to keep your subject in focus during those take, more so when using FF. For example I do interviews at least at F4 with FF at about chest level and it is still problematic. The person just has to move some cm in front and the focus is gone, so he just as most people move little bit in front or back as he is talking and gets out of focus. If it is only for some fraction of second it is ok, but if half your interview it is the case then it is a big problem.
The second thing is what I would translate as subject attachment to his surrounding. Just after the large sensor revolution with the 5d ten years ago there was that craze to use very shallow death of field that your subject is like floating in an abstract universe that was completely blurry. That's why sometime I think that cine 35 mm was perhaps the rel best medium, because it gave you enough shallow DOF for subject separation and nice bokeh, but not that crazy that it becomes artificial.