wolf33d

21 hours ago, DBounce said:

 

Is the R bad at AF? I've not heard that good is the case. Quiet contrary, I've heard it's excellent and can even focus in nearly complete darkness. 

Sorry, I meant they totally screwed up the EOS R, not its AF. With the excellent AF technology they have, they had the opportunity to make a great camera for stills and video with the EOS R but they totally screwed up the camera according to me, for the reasons we all know. 

1DX2 video specs in a EOS R body would be very appealing. Pana S1 and Sony A7S III will have those, minus AF.

2 hours ago, DBounce said:

So I just shot 3500 images both Raw + JPEG with the Z6. Not sure what others are getting, but the battery still has a couple bars. I think the ratings are grossly underestimating the stamina of this camera. Also, from some video I recently shot at 4000 ISO, I can report that the low-light is very clean on the Z6. 

Still not sure what to make of the face detect AF. Nothing I try seems to redeem its dismal performance.

The AF in your video and in your comment does not relate all the things I saw on the Z6. Your dismal performance might be due to a combination of: 

- low light (the Z6 AF is known to suck in low light for stills)

- settings

- lens 

The 1DX AF is excellent but at $6K and 1.5kg it's totally useless to me. Canon had the chance to implement that excellent AF in a good photo video body with the R but they totally screwed up.  
 

3 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

Yeah but more resolution means smaller pixels, which means worse low light. That is the problem with most Hybrids. There is always a trade off, and usually the video side is the loser. That is why pure Cine cameras always win out. Most of them has crazy low resolution.

Yes but come on, A7 III low light level isn't good enough? I think in video FF we have reached an amazing level of high iso low noise now. 
24-36mpx is good I think. On top of that it allows for crop mode which the A7S cannot do. Crop mode in video is magical, 2 lenses in one without quality loss. 

On 12/27/2018 at 1:08 AM, yoclay said:

Personally, I would rather see less resolution and more of the updated processing power that is obviously being implemented given to the elimination of rolling shutter issues.  It is the single biggest dead giveaway that one is shooting with DSLR's.

I disagree. Well, I want more power too but this is a given.  More resolution is important for use for photo as well and compete with Panasonic S1. 
Today more and more people get mirorrless to shoot hybrid photo video

I was about to create a post saying merry Christmas everyone, and decided to check first if someone did. 

You did. Merry Christmas guys, may 2019 bring us the first ever FF mirorrless 4K60p 10 bit IBIS DPAF camera . we already know Panasonic won’t (no DPAF), and the canikon neither. Sony all hopes are on you to once again show the way, at least for specs.

cheers 

4 hours ago, Eric Calabros said:

605000 is too good to be true for this pixel size. Probably its a base-only HDR trick. 

Yeah this would mean 17.5 stops of DR  at a base iso of 12-15. Too good to be true unfortunately. 

I am dreaming of it though, a 36mpx A7S III with all of this new codec and DR and video modes. Problem is it would kill all Sony cameras including the A7R III. 36mpx is close to 42 and if it has better DR and better everything well... And the A7R III is a year old so hard to believe it will be renewed at the same time. 

Maybe an A7S III mid year and the A7RIV in October 2y after the RIII then. We'll see, hard to tell now 

4K60p h.265 10 bit 240mbps would be perfect for me. FHD240p 10 bit h.265 also. 

If the A7SIII is an A7III with the above + Venice colors then it’s definitely worth $1000 over the A7III for me. 

Twice the price of the Fuji but you gain IBIS and Full Frame for video and stills. Perfect.

On 11/26/2018 at 12:55 PM, Castorp said:

U mad bro? Hahahaha oh my god too funny

You quoted my honest post to the thread which was about autofocus and wrote something completely unrelated together with your usual shitty smileys.

In what way was your message meant to be constructive?

Address? Seriously? Hahahaha

Get a life. 

@Emanuel don’t bother answering to this guy. Could have been funny, but he is so retarded it’s actually sad. 

On 11/22/2018 at 12:03 AM, IronFilm said:

Or Nikon Z7 + Z6

Or Fujifilm X-Pro3 + X-H2 (if those two get an update in 2019? Maybe)

Nope because neither Z6 or Z7 have 4K60p, and the Fujis are no go for photo for me, no FF

I have been using Premiere, FCPX and Resolve and I always come back to FCPX. Much faster, much easier and a joy to work with IMO.

Today, new additions are coming which allow third party apps directly within FCPX. This video shows an exemple with Frame.io. Looks great. 

14 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

Meanwhile at DPReview:

So much for free speech!

And their feedback section has plenty of concerns about the amount of sponsored content they have been running lately

https://***URL removed***/forums/5001

Which I criticised... Hence the ban on my links.

Are we living in China or the west?

That's crazy if not scary 

What the hell. 

Who cares anyway? 

2 weeks before EOS R the guy was saying no FF mirorless until 2019 LOL. 

The difference is huge.

Panasonic "XT3" specs with GoPro 7 like stabilization, Medium Format organic sensor and 8K60P, here we come 2025.

2 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

I am not even going to watch this one. Did he reveal his settings this time? Did he even bother to say what lenses were used? Camera is only half the story when it comes to AF in video mode.

I see from the YouTube poster frame he fixed the Z7 skin tones though. Maybe not so bad after all!?

You are a bit hard. He spend a third of the video explaining what lenses he uses and settings in the test and so on. He actually do the test with different settings.

Overall the Canon doesnt do better than the competition. Worst in some cases. The fuji is impressive. All do a good job.

On 11/7/2018 at 10:13 AM, DBounce said:

Not sure what you mean by that. I don't make a dime from photos and video, it's only something I do for fun... And last I checked cameras do not deserve people... Cameras are inanimate objects. If taking personal pictures of my family is not deserving... well you can go fuk yourself. I don't recall begging you for the $15k I dumped into the Fuji system. And for the life of me I fail to recollect you chipping in for the $30k plus for the 1DXMk2 with lenses and support gear. So to that end who cares what you think deserves what?

I simply shared my personal experience and you look at it as an opportunity to launch a personal attack. Having hardware fail is not "fun" in my experience. But if you enjoy that aspect.. well, what can I say... have fun?

Sorry but @androidlad  is not totally wrong and your words are a bit disproportioned. While I would not allow myself to say that a "camera can or cannot deserve someone" like he did, I am a bit shocked at the quality of your outputs versus the equipment you have. No offense meant at all just my point of view. 
Good for you that you can spend 45 000$ on 2 camera system, but again what is the point if you get those results (stills you posted above)? You would get the same results (and could get better) with a Canon T2i. I am just a bit shocked.
Anyway, you are totally free to buy what you want and do the pics you want, and I imagine I can also go fuk myself too...

As far as the hardware failure is concerned, I am hopeful for Fuji that it is an isolated case, and sorry to hear it happened to you, it sucks for sure especially twice in a row. Good that you can return them for sure. 
For the canon, at $6000 and 1.5KG it better be reliable!
 

Well, what I can tell is that from the Mavic Pro 1, my 2 has much much better overall IQ.

Also it grades well, and noise level is low. I find the sharpness too soft at 0, but perfect at +1 (unhappy people above can choose +2 ..). 
I do not think it lacks details. Those are 1in sensor not FF so in any case it has its limitation. 
Also there is 0 debate for me on the P4P and this as it so much smaller and lighter I bring it everywhere. I had a P3 Pro before, no way I go back to a full backpack dedicated to a drone. No way. 

1 hour ago, Andrew Reid said:

You should try writing an email right now to a rumours site with anything at all in it.

They'd probably publish it.

Then I'd comment on it here like it's fact.

I tried that once because I thought the same thing. Didn’t work. 

Might have to rework my dream specs lol 

Cool. Do you have any footage comparison with Flat profile (instead of standard)?

4 hours ago, stephen said:

IMHO Tony actually did a very good test/survey. Blind tests are rare. Certain parts may be questionable but general conclusions are valid IMHO and quite revealing:
1. Color perception and preferences are subjective. Both for professionals and nonprofessional viewers. 
2. Brand loyalty skew personal opinions even more. 
3. Slight variations of colors usually gets unnoticed by the general public(viewers) and even by professionals. We start to see the differences when we compare different cameras / images. Quite true IMHO.

This was my point too. The video has good points. Not everything but some good points. 

1 hour ago, Mako Sports said:

Cine 2 is honestly the goat. That profile plus the  "cinema" color space always gives me good results.

Me too. My result with a 5 min grading in total (not per shot) in my Cuba video proves it. 

Now guys and @Andrew Reid what about this test? 

"PDN (Photo District News) did a more scientific test for color accuracy using the X-Rite ColorChecker SG color target and measuring the results using a calibrated spectrophotometer. This objective test backs up the subjective testing by Tony.

Sony cameras proved to be the most accurate at reproducing the color chips of the color target with the A7III at the top of the heap closely followed in second place by the A7RIII which tied with the Fuji X-E3 and Leica CL. The Sony A9 was third. The first Canon (M50) came in fifth with the 6DM2 finishing seventh. Read the full review at this link:"

https://www.pdnonline.com/gear/cameras/the-best-cameras-for-color-reproduction-ranked/

1 hour ago, Andrew Reid said:

 

So this is not a Colour Science video. It's a White Balance test in artificial light.

Nope. Poll Includes outdoor portraits. 

“I gave 1,500 photographers a blind poll and had them pick the image with the best color in several different scenes, including portraits in different lighting and outdoor photos”

I think people should stop yelling fake news and click bait each time anything is released on internet. There is always an amount of bias, affiliate and so on somewhere. Just analyze and pick the info you need. There are multiple useful info in this test imho. 

@Andrew Reid I think you missed the point of the video. Instead of trying to explain why his test was scientifically wrong you should see the interesting points. 

For example the fact that changing WB makes people change their mind on what is the best image. 
The fact that most movies have very strong color shifts. 
The fact that in one click you get a completely different image.

I always got great results with Cine 2/4 on Sony. I think people's debate on color science is overrated. 
It's more the ergonomics, touch screen and things like that that bother me on Sonys a lot more than the color science. 

Very, very good video.

Seems like a confirmation that the S1 will be a lot more video oriented. 

I am looking at buying 2 bodies one for photo one for video in the same system to be able to use only the same lenses and one menu and button layout. 

It seems the only option in 2019 will be Sony A7SIII + RIII and S1 and S1s. 

Can’t  wait to see those on the table.

10 hours ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

Z7 looks bright but doesn't hold much detail. 

My comment was ironic. The Z7 looks like a zombie with makeup 

Then people say Sony has zombie skin tones. Lol not bad Z7!