maxotics

Looks like the camera to the far left is a Canon :-/ 

Look at the new voigtlander. 40mm 1.2 for the E mount.
The diagram looks like a speed booster behind a medium format lens, the samples look medium format to me, although bokeh at 1.2 looks ugly.

http://www.cosina.co.jp/gallery/iida-40-1_2/01.html

Move the 35mm back and this image is dramatically different. And yes it will match a 90mm since all that matters is distance to subject, not all this lens compression nonsense. This article explains/demonstrates it perfectly.
http://admiringlight.com/blog/perspective-correcting-myth/
"The perspective in a photograph is 100%, completely dependent on the photographer’s physical distance between them and their subject.  That’s it.  Not the lens, not the format, nothing but the distance.
To create an image with telephoto compression, the photographer backs away from the subject and uses a longer focal length to keep the framing the way they want.  The key point is: It’s the backing up that changes the perspective, not the lens.
If I am 1 foot from my subject, and the background is 100 feet behind, and I frame the subject with an ultra-wide angle lens, the difference between me and the subject and the subject to the background is 1 to 100.  Now, if I back up 10 feet and frame the subject so they’re the same size in the frame as my original composition by using a short telephoto lens, now that ratio is only 1:10.  This causes the background to appear much closer to my subject than in the first instance."
Shoot both lenses from 15 or so feet away and crop the 35 to match the 90, images will be identical. If you try to get the same framing in cam, the 35 will be much closer to your subject, creating the unflattering look with people, minimizing background elements - like making mountains and buildings look smaller and so on.

Yeah, this is pretty impressive stuff.  I'm used to Canon h264 footage, so this 3.5k raw stuff is a little difficult to comprehend.  Here's a dng still run through ACR.  

And thank you to Don Kotlos and maxotics for your explanations on the raw/log.  Makes total sense to me now.

Thanks for the explanation.
For me though, the always being positive thing is common amongst YouTubers. It's not something that I like because it doesn't feel genuine. But I have heard multiple YouTubers in the travel niche say that any amount of negativity on their channels garners a massive barrage of dislikes and negative comments about being "ungrateful" about living a "dream life". So for some, it's just taking the path of least resistance in a career where you're completely open to criticism from the entire internet.
Not sure what Peter's deal is, but it could just be that.

I like Matt Day a lot. But that's more analog.

Women are different.  I have three girls.  The middle is close to a "rocket scientist" and recently said, "if Apple doesn't get its shit together I'm moving to PC".  She also dropped her state-of-the-art smartphone and instead of replacing it with the next model bought a model 2 revs back because she said the new phones weren't worth the money.   Like it or not, many men do buy cameras as statements of their power, or whatever you call it.  It makes them feel good.  Makes me feel good.  Just like many women feel good with the right shoes or handbag.  This is what I see; I don't understand all the fuss.
What shouldn't be confused is that women understand what's important about the tech just as much as men.  The only difference is they don't make a fetish of insignificant technical differences.  So @Arikhan 's Mom is moving towards Nikon because (I assume) she focuses on the one thing she wants--stills image quality.  She doesn't care about video, doesn't care about skin-tone "color science".  She just wants the best dynamic range camera she can get that won't die by a single raindrop (like the Sonys).  The ONLY people who knock Nikons are the ones that 1) don't have those priorities and 2) haven't used a Nikon camera.  
Nikon probably also considers this--men talk cameras.  They write blogs.  Show me one big camera GEAR blog-site run by a woman.  Again, it's not that a woman may not be as good as a man to represent Nikon, it's just that they won't talk up the cameras the same way.  So Arikhan's mom tries Sony because of her son (I assume again) but she knows her own mind.  
At the end of the day, I'd wager there are more successful photographers that are women, or just as much as men.  Who Nikon wants to push their gear has nothing to do with that.  In short, women don't push cameras but they do recognize when the camera gives them what they want.  Nikon should include women.  Not because they deserve a spot, but because I ACTUALLY want their take because I do feel they're often more practical.  When my daughter gives her verdict on some piece of tech I don't second-guess it for a nano-second.   Same thing for movies btw.  My youngest has an uncanny ability to predict whether I will like a movie or not just by lookng at the advertisement.  

You are just using the wrong tool. Youtube is not made for delivery. It's a free video streaming platform and you get what you paid for.... For your client use dropbox, Gdrive or any other online storage services to send them the full quality source file.
Plus most people watch video on cell phone or tablet now with the low resolution default or adaptative mode....

Funny, I have the inverse problem. Clients complain that Vimeo is too slow. Even with a fast connection, HD is still very inconsistent.

Vimeo is as bad or worse than YouTube in my experience, so I don't agree with the "you get what you pay for, and YouTube is worse than Vimeo because it is free and Vimeo is not." I have the PRO account on Vimeo, and EVERY ONE of the videos I uploaded to Vimeo turned out to be similar to or worse than on YouTube, so I just don't get what you guys are talking about. To be sure, there are other benefits (no ads, can replace video, have custom links, etc.), but WRT to picture quality I don't see any benefit.
If you guys can show a single example of the exact SAME FILE uploaded to YouTube and Vimeo, with Vimeo generating better PQ, I'd love to see it.

At least (until things change) you are not the only one. I suspect the problem with YouTube is that their goal is to service all platforms at all connection speeds at all times. Consistent high quality playback is always the trade off until the whole world has sufficient affordable bandwidth to support HD/4K streams on billions of devices. Just as they do, I suspect some people will then complain that they can't view 16k HDR video on our watches. Current Codec developments can only improve web video presentation so much, the ultimate fix is with speed of connection and its lowering of cost for mass implementation.
I'm old enough to remember in 1999 having to wait 30mins+ for a 480x320 QuickTime download of the Phantom Menace trailer on an average speed dial-up modem. 6 years before YouTube even existed - so don't forget how good we have it now, back then there was no macro blocking...it was massive blocking.

I fucking hate YouTube and am done working with clients wanting to use it. That's my New Years resolution.
 
Don't get me wrong. I love it as a monetary platform. I almost-maybe-kinda make a living off a few channels I run.
 
But as someone trying to deliver a great product it makes me want to cry. Feed it whatever the fuck you want:
DNxHD ProRes High bit rate h.264 Crazy compressed formats Abide a 100% to the recommended spec  
It does NOT matter! The YouTube encoder will take your work and compress it to shit.
 
Case in point, the last shot I delivered looks awesome on desktop and laptops. It was encoded right out of the gate to VP9. Video has netted twenty-ish thousand views. A few night ago I get an e-mail from the client complaining about how the video looks.
 
Sure enough, YouTube is delivering h.264 for iOS and Android. The 1080P looks like complete crap. Macroblocking, banding and tearing EVERYWHERE. Knock it down to 720P and it's perfect.
 

Your translation is maybe wrong. More like; white men that blames others that they are losers, and voted on the latest president because they belied he will save them. 

I follow a young woman on Flickr because she liked one of my photos.  She's a young photo enthusiast, not a professional, just a "consumer", somewhere in Europe.    I saw this in my feed so believe Andrew is right in his "nightmare" assessment.
Then she reached out to her friends.  So women may not "market" your camera, but they sure as well will "badmouth" it! HA HA.  
Her text below:
Cheval Tatin
Following
Fuck you, Nikon.
I've always wondered why their cameras had such a bad rap. Then I owned one and kinda understood... but it might as well be terrible PR.
But, hey! It's a good pretext to tag the female photographers we like on this platform!
 
Anne-Sophie Landou
Alison Scarpulla
Britt Grimm
BellaJCosta
Christine Francou
d i a n e p o w e r s
Edith VdW
Esther Hernandez
Jane M
Kathleen Mercado
Katharina Jung
Liz ▴
luci d'inverno
Lauren Withrow
Maria Kappatou
Mo Vidal
Olivia Bee
Rachel Baran
Silvia Grav
Veronika Gilková

 

I agree!
And I wish there were more women on this forum. Why aren't there?!

Hey, I have time on my hands, and I do like to spend it here.  

Women are different.  I have three girls.  The middle is close to a "rocket scientist" and recently said, "if Apple doesn't get its shit together I'm moving to PC".  She also dropped her state-of-the-art smartphone and instead of replacing it with the next model bought a model 2 revs back because she said the new phones weren't worth the money.   Like it or not, many men do buy cameras as statements of their power, or whatever you call it.  It makes them feel good.  Makes me feel good.  Just like many women feel good with the right shoes or handbag.  This is what I see; I don't understand all the fuss.
What shouldn't be confused is that women understand what's important about the tech just as much as men.  The only difference is they don't make a fetish of insignificant technical differences.  So @Arikhan 's Mom is moving towards Nikon because (I assume) she focuses on the one thing she wants--stills image quality.  She doesn't care about video, doesn't care about skin-tone "color science".  She just wants the best dynamic range camera she can get that won't die by a single raindrop (like the Sonys).  The ONLY people who knock Nikons are the ones that 1) don't have those priorities and 2) haven't used a Nikon camera.  
Nikon probably also considers this--men talk cameras.  They write blogs.  Show me one big camera GEAR blog-site run by a woman.  Again, it's not that a woman may not be as good as a man to represent Nikon, it's just that they won't talk up the cameras the same way.  So Arikhan's mom tries Sony because of her son (I assume again) but she knows her own mind.  
At the end of the day, I'd wager there are more successful photographers that are women, or just as much as men.  Who Nikon wants to push their gear has nothing to do with that.  In short, women don't push cameras but they do recognize when the camera gives them what they want.  Nikon should include women.  Not because they deserve a spot, but because I ACTUALLY want their take because I do feel they're often more practical.  When my daughter gives her verdict on some piece of tech I don't second-guess it for a nano-second.   Same thing for movies btw.  My youngest has an uncanny ability to predict whether I will like a movie or not just by lookng at the advertisement.  

Women are different.  I have three girls.  The middle is close to a "rocket scientist" and recently said, "if Apple doesn't get its shit together I'm moving to PC".  She also dropped her state-of-the-art smartphone and instead of replacing it with the next model bought a model 2 revs back because she said the new phones weren't worth the money.   Like it or not, many men do buy cameras as statements of their power, or whatever you call it.  It makes them feel good.  Makes me feel good.  Just like many women feel good with the right shoes or handbag.  This is what I see; I don't understand all the fuss.
What shouldn't be confused is that women understand what's important about the tech just as much as men.  The only difference is they don't make a fetish of insignificant technical differences.  So @Arikhan 's Mom is moving towards Nikon because (I assume) she focuses on the one thing she wants--stills image quality.  She doesn't care about video, doesn't care about skin-tone "color science".  She just wants the best dynamic range camera she can get that won't die by a single raindrop (like the Sonys).  The ONLY people who knock Nikons are the ones that 1) don't have those priorities and 2) haven't used a Nikon camera.  
Nikon probably also considers this--men talk cameras.  They write blogs.  Show me one big camera GEAR blog-site run by a woman.  Again, it's not that a woman may not be as good as a man to represent Nikon, it's just that they won't talk up the cameras the same way.  So Arikhan's mom tries Sony because of her son (I assume again) but she knows her own mind.  
At the end of the day, I'd wager there are more successful photographers that are women, or just as much as men.  Who Nikon wants to push their gear has nothing to do with that.  In short, women don't push cameras but they do recognize when the camera gives them what they want.  Nikon should include women.  Not because they deserve a spot, but because I ACTUALLY want their take because I do feel they're often more practical.  When my daughter gives her verdict on some piece of tech I don't second-guess it for a nano-second.   Same thing for movies btw.  My youngest has an uncanny ability to predict whether I will like a movie or not just by lookng at the advertisement.  

@Lars Steenhoff
Nice video, thanks for sharing. Remember the hateful title of the thread? "...d850 nothing to see here - move along ...". It seems, the GH5 and the a7r ii have to "move along" in some case...
No offense for Pana and Sony fanboys and pathetic mirrorles advocates, just a suffisant remark...
Disclaimer: I use Nikon gear, but emotional investment in a brand is absolutely counterproductive.

I don't know what's worse, that they didn't notice that there weren't any women on the list, or that they came up with the weak sauce excuse of "well we invited them but they all* declined". 

* I wonder how many female photographers they invited vs male photographers? I'm going to guess the invited list wasn't 50/50.

Does it have a bigger buffer than the RX100 V? Seems unlikely to me as the buffer memory is part of the sensor, and they have the exact same sensor.
I am actually surprised Sony bothered with this model... They should put it on a 2 year cycle with bigger differences between models.
If the RX100 V style AF dramatically speeds up the telephoto end of that lens it will be a miracle as well

Interesting: Sony just announced the new RX10 IV bridge camera (fixed lens F2.4-4.0), capable to shoot high bursts - 24fps per second with a buffer of 249 images, even in RAW. That means 10 seconds of RAW video. Great!

5DIII has better 1080p. Its RAW     

The odd thing about Sony with that camera is I'm not even really seeing them trying that hard to break in.
I was sure that I'd have seen at least ONE shooter using them at the Champions League final, for example, but there were absolutely none.
Asking around the press room and no one had been approached and offered one which I just found really odd.
So, once again, the only freak shooting on mirrorless for the game itself (a few people use mirrorless for general build up shots) was me
I'd have thought they would have approached us via our national and European press associations offering roadshows or open days or whatever but there's been absolutely nothing.
The resistance wil always be about the glass of course when they do but even so its still surprising.
One thing that is a bit of a misnomer though at least for sports photographers covering pro sports is the concept of a hyrbrid camera.
The rights issues involved for motion versus stills makes it a complete non-starter and its expressly forbidden in our accreditation agreements. Rightly so of course as broadcasters pay literally billions of pounds to cover an event whilst we photographers pay zero ! Putting the camera into Live View mode is enough to set the alarm bells and risk ejection from the event. Its why stills extraction isn't a real thing at pro level either because the very act of filming is forbidden itself irrespective of if you then want to deconstruct it. 

@Mattias Burling
I shoot horse sports (including World Cup events) for years now...NEVER seen a mirrorles camera in the hands of a press or horse photographer.
The German market in horse sports event area is clearly dominated by Canon. Considering this fact, I have to agree @Andrew Reid, saying Canon missed some good chances...It did...Though they offer one of the most reliable video AF methods at the moment, they missed the opportunity to get the Canon photographers - using their DSLRs - into their "video boat". 
OK, there is a big separation in Germany between photo and video journalism, but still...Canon did nothing to inspire or to educate Canon DSLR owners to shoot video. The MJPEG codec is for 99,9 % of my colleagues BS, they simply don't have the computering power to edit this kind of footage and most of them simply refuse to handle this big amount of data...

@Andrew Reid
Yes, there is a separation between "pro" journalism and prosumer/enthusiasts oriented market. But - as I already said - even the video journalism is in Germany completely in hands of small sensor cameras (broadcast standard, 3CCD, etc.). Canon XF200 --> 305, etc. rule with their overpriced devices and mushy image quality. During the last three months, I've even seen some Sony EX1...
BUT: These facts show too, that the "mirrorless/DSLR video revolution" is more a parallel universe created by loud first movers than a reality nowadays. Dedicated video cameras rule - probably.at max. 3  percent of video market. Rest of video market is ruled by smartphones...