Danyyyel

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.

And that is why most of these AF cameras, even Canon's DPAF is still not going to work well for serious stuff. Once you see something OOF you keep looking for it the whole time and not paying attention to the movie plot, or interview at all. Bad focus, Bad audio is just a terrible thing to have in Video or Film.

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.

Someone testing the z6 and seems some test of the zlog. I wouldn't call it a good advertisement for the zlog given the subject. I would really have liked to see what human beings etc and his first samples where completely overexposed etc, I don't know if he used zlog in there. 
 
 

I think that whatever Nikon decided to do it would have been heavily criticized. If ever they had done a bigger body everybody would have said that either they could not match Sony tech or that the idea about MILC was small size and portability, which was true at least until now. Since Nikon and Canon launch of their new mount with much wider size (more for Nikon), that give the possibility of faster lens, we are hearing that MILC can get you better and faster lens regardless of size.
Some part of Nikon PR mess was that they showed up only days/weeks before the Canon EOSR and eventual Pana S1. For example, they got ten times the negativity because of the 1 card slot than the Canon R. While they are giving a much better and robust XQD/CFexpress compared to Canon SD card.
For me when you look at the price and size of the Canon 28-70 F2, I am glad they stuck with the 2.8 aperture. Another thing people don't discuss is the 24 vs 28mm starting zoom range. I like the 24-70 because of its flexibility and loosing the 24 is a big compromise. With the higher ISO we can shoot now, for me the f 2.8 is the best compromise, anything lower would warrant a prime lens. In fact this f 2.8 looks at least shorter than todays 24-70 and with the size/weigh gain, you could even carry another camera prime combo easily.
That's the promise of the mount. The F4 kit lens (S is considered super for Nikon) being higher resolution than the top of the line older F-mount lens. The z7 already broke the record from the D850 with the 35mm f1.8 lens and by a margin in terms of resolution. That is why Nikon has been defending their 1.8 zoom as real professional primes and not just typical affordable primes for those that could not afford 1.4 primes. These things are more usable at 1.8 than some of the 1.4 primes at 1.8 and even beyond that. They say that their 1.8 lens are more reminiscent of 1.4 primes in capturing the light and I guess it is about the overall sensor plane and not just the center, with less curvature/distortion and I guess vignetting. 

I'll go... when shooting a story context is very important so that the audience can understand where the characters are. Overdoing DOF can work against the story. 
Ideally, before choosing a lens, one should consider what using that lens is going to convey as relates to the story. 
Additionally, tracking subjects with shallow DOF can present challenges. 
I like having options... like everyone else,  but given the choice of only one lens... and only shallow vs deeper DOF... for video,  I would not favor a very shallow DOF.

Yes, that's what I think is their strategy. Memory price have been very volatile and prices historically high, with CFexpress you might not need a big buffer anymore.
 
Nice z7 video