noone

VIVID... noone, you heretic 😀  Mr reid you now have the forums permission to sacrifice noone on the alter of c-log... 
call me an atheist but i'd hope for a thicc bone density xray, other than that i think its all bit naff. Maybe people are trying to carry something over from the days of film.  You remember film surely ? when every home home had one of these (ok maybe not every home 🤔).
My point being digital and film are fish swimming in different oceans as much as people like to emulate film with digital. I hold grave concerns when it come to technical terms of film being applied to digital. it all sounds a  little suss to me.  I'm normally a fan of the things you do here on the forums kye, but i cant help but wonder if your not overthinking it this time.

Thick Negative sounds like two of the bullet points written on my school report.

one of these beasties then. To be honest my kit lens doesn't get a lot of love. 9 time out of ten there is a m42 adapted to the canon or on the p4k. Although some years ago i did buy a katzeye microprism screen for the  canon kinda shows you i tend to like my mf  😀 I also find mf on the 18-55 a bit ordinary even a touch rough. the af works fine however. i just dont use it much.
 

It's not my terminology - it's what I've put together over reading many threads about higher-end cameras vs cheaper ones and how people try to quantify the certain X-Factor that money can buy you.  I've heard it enough over the years to get a sense that it's not being used randomly, nor only by one or two isolated people.  
I've seen first-hand that there are people who have much more acute senses than the majority of people.  Things like synaesthesia and tetrachromacy exist along with many others that we've probably never heard of, so just by pure probability there are people who can see better than I can, thus, my desire to try and work out what it might be in a specific sense.
Interesting.  Downsampling should give a large advantage in this sense then.
I am also wondering if it might be to do with bad compression artefacts etc.  This was on my list to test.
Converting images to B&W definitely ups the perceived thickness - that was on my radar but I'm still not sure what to do about it.
Interesting concept from DXO - I learned a few things from that.  Firstly that my GH5 is way better than I thought, being only 0.1 down from the 5D3 and also that it's way above my Canon 700D which I thought was a pretty capable stills camera.  People always said the GH5 was weak for still images and I kind of just believed them, but I'll adjust my thinking!
Yes, and then streaming video compression takes the final swing with the cripple hammer.
This has long been a question in my mind about how we can evaluate the differences between a $50k camera and a $100k camera using a streaming service that uses compression that a $500 Canon camera would look down its nose at.
I suspect that it's a case of pushing and pulling the information in post.  For example, if you shoot a 10-bit image in LOG that puts the DR between 300 and 800IRE and then you expand out that DR to 0-100IRE then you've stretched your bits to be twice as far apart, so it's now the equivalent of a 9-bit image.  Then we select skin tones and give them a bit more contrast (more stretching) and then more saturation (more stretching) etc etc.  It's not hard to take an image that was ok to begin with and break it because the bits are now too far apart.
We all know that, but the thing that I don't think gets as much thought is that the image is degrading with every operation, long before it 'breaks'.  Even an Alexa shooting RAW has limits, and those limits aren't that far away.  Have a look at a latitude test of an Alexa and read the commentary and you'll note that the IQ starts to go visually downhill when you're overexposing even a couple of stops.....and this is from one of the best cameras in the world!
My take-away from that is that I need to shoot as close to the final output as possible, so I switched from shooting HLG to Cine-D.  This means that I'm not starting with a 10-bit image that I have to modify (ie, stretch) as the first step in the workflow.  
Agreed.  Garbage IN = Garbage Out.
Like I said above, if you're having to do significant exposure changes then you're throwing bits away as the first step in your workflow.
I think there's a couple of things in here.  You're right that accurate colours isn't the goal, Sony proved that.
But my understanding of the Portrait Score wasn't about accuracy, it was about Colour Nuance... "The higher the color sensitivity, the more color nuances can be distinguished."  What you do with that colour nuance (or lack of it) determines how appealing it will look.  Of course, any time you modify an image, you're stretching your bits apart, so in that sense it's better to do that in-camera where it's processed uncompressed and (hopefully) in full bit-depth.

I've also checked out DXO's portrait colour rating. The last thing you'd want for a nice portrait is accurate colours. Perhaps it's better to call it a colour accuracy rating then (and who knows whether their methodology is sound or not). But accurate colour is not nice colour.
Reality looks kind of shitty, in terms of colour, compared to how its colours can be represented in photographic images.
Colour accuracy should not be the goal, IMO, unless you're reproducing artwork or products. I would like my images to look better than reality, when it comes to colour. 
So I would absolutely not expect the top rated DXO cameras for portraits to make nicer portraits SOOC than those lower on the list. 

Yes, density of a negative increases with exposure. It's measured with a densitometer. 
That's where the dense/thick terminology comes from, where it is an observable quantity. 
For digital, it's a qualitative assessment and its meaning might vary from one person to the next.

Don't know what it/they will be but worth tuning in.
 

I have the Nikon version and its a great performer, though I used it as a short tele rather than a macro.
Judging by the charts he was showing comparing them, this new one improves on it significantly. 
 

Dark is TOO dark for me but I like the "new" slightly darker light version better than anything.

More first impressions...

- The 4k100fps is excellent. To have this feature in 10bit, in 1.1x full frame, in a camera this small is fantastic. Makes the EVA1’s downsampled 2k100fps look like mush. 

- The extended ISO at 100 in SLOG3 certainly limits the DR, certainly in the highlights. I wouldn’t recommend it, only if you are desperate. 

- Active Stabilisation works a treat. Tried a “gimbal shot” and did a fair job with stabilisation. 

- Footage doesn’t look overly sharp with a ProMist 1/4. Recommended. As the image itself is really very clinical. 

- Colour is definitely better. Don’t care what the naysayers say. Don’t know how good we can get it yet. 

- But, the skin definitely has a tinge of yellow in SLOG3. Dialling it out is fairly easy. Bit annoying but not a huge issue. 

- The 4k 10bit files in XAVC-S aren’t playing back on my Mac too well. Will try again as FCPX may have needed a reboot. Maybe not. 

- XAVC-I seems the tiniest tiniest tiniest bit sharper. You can barely tell though. 

- The colours with Gamma Assist On looks like classic Sony zombie look on LCD. I wouldn’t use the standard Rec709 LUT ever on SLOG3 in post. 

- I definitely need to play with Ninja V. Screen is too small to really get into the image. 
 
This early experience is just me filming cats, trees, kids, babies... whatever I can see. I’ll be putting it in the deep end soon. 
I’m impressed so far but I think the Canon C70 reveal hurt it’s thunder. The crafty buggers released the camera that I once described as my perfect camera. Read my mind. I’m suing. 

I also took ownership of the A7SIII last week. A few minor inconveniences but for the most part a solid camera. Here's a few things I have found on the negative side of things:
No Clear Image Zoom in 120p, all other frame rates it works. No animal eye detect in video mode, only in stills. Human eye detect does work in video and stills mode. In video mode, tracking only works by using touch on the display to activate. No way to assign a button to start tracking when using the viewfinder. Strange and frustrating if you plan to use the EVF instead of the display. Another note, at least on my 3-year old iMac, 4k 422 10-bit is hard to edit @ 120p in either XAVC S or XAVC HS while 420 10-bit edits fine with both of those codecs using DaVinci Resolve. I ran some tests using 422 10-bit and 420 10-bit and cannot tell them apart, even when applying heavy, excessive grading. I could use All-I but will probably stick with XAVC HS 420 10-bit for what I do.
The EVF is really amazing.
I am waiting for a CF Express type A card to test 240fps HD and high-end All-I 120fps 4k using S&Q.

Got mine Saturday. Agree about the EVF, its incredible. The larger grip compared to the a7III is really nice, still wish it was about 2cm taller so my pinky doesn't wrap under and a 1cm or so further away from the lens mount - its pretty tight with fat lenses. Touch tracking is amazing, it sticks to everything. 4k120p in something this small also nuts. And you can use v90 SD cards for just about everything, as opposed to something like the R5 which needs the CFexpress cards. Haven't tinkered with raw/Ninja yet either. There's so much to this camera. So far no regrets.
Cheers
Chris

Haven't tested it yet, but Clear Image Zoom does a 1.5x crop in 4k and a 2x crop in HD. On the a7III there's no IQ loss.

Clear image zoom is not the aps-c crop, its a 1.5x digital zoom. I use it for quick punch-ins on the a73 all the time. Just haven't got around to trying it on the s3 yet.
Chris

I will always have a soft spot for Pentax but they are history and toast.
Ricoh saved it as a brand from total oblivion and Ricoh is a big enough company that it can exist as a pimple on the arse as long as it does not lose too much money.
I have had a M42 Spotmatic SLR (still have it and a K mount film camera actually) a couple of other film K mount cameras, an IST*D, K100D and Kx DSLRs and a Pentax Q and loved them all....Thing is that my little Sony RX100 iv is probably better than all of them.
The K100D and the Q both died prematurely probably because I over stressed the IBIS.
The Q was a lot of fun and if I came across a cheap one I would buy it in a heartbeat (but not particularly looking).
Do not forget, Pentax tried the mirrorless APSC route with the K-01 in 2012 but that used the K mount so was very niche in a brand that had already become very niche in itself so maybe 1% of a brand that had about 5% of the market at the time and has gone backwards..
I would only buy another DSLR IF it was cheap enough, FF and Canon and just to use my existing Canon mount EF AF lenses.
The only Pentax I would consider is that cheap Q if it hit me in the face in the likes of a pawn shop or charity shop.
The Pentax 1.7x AF adapter was worth the price of entry to K mount (probably still is for some people).
 

you may bring one attendant each. You can toss a coin over who gets full frame and who gets the equivalent in not full frame. Period attire is mandatory. Should make for an interesting short. 

can i get you boys dueling pistols for xmas ? then we can settle it once and for all 🙄

Crop at full size from the Kanagroo shot.
Then downsized a bit.
You can still make out single hairs!   Even from a lowly 12mp camera!
Would love to try a more modern less abused 300 2.8 though again, this one will do me.
 

I love my ancient 300mm 2.8 Tamron adaptall. 
Not the best 300 2.8 made but probably the lightest (and there were NO bad 300 2.8s ever).   Still over 2 kilos though!
Even so, as I get older I have to seriously think about if I am going to take this lens anywhere (usually walking and usually will have it in a backpack).
It is getting close to the time when I will have to give it away (to a relative) but maybe not for a year or three yet.     I just might have to limit it to trips to the zoo and festivals now and for video, just outdoor music festivals on a tripod.
My old Fuji superzoom will have to do when i want a long lens otherwise if not now, soon enough.
I have had a few others over the years but this old Tamron 2.8 has been with me across systems for must be going on twenty years.   I still have an old Tamron zoom to 350mm but none have been to my liking more than this old Tamron 2.8
IF I had the time and the room, this would be my first choice as a portrait lens most of the time too (though being MF, a lot of misses for every hit).
I can not afford a newer better lens but this will do me fine for now (would love a 200 f2).
I nearly got a Nikon 300 f2 many years ago, glad I didn't as that would be too heavy for me now (though might have made a tidy profit selling it).
I have had several greyhound racing pics in a national (Australian) Greyhound racing paper and Australian football pics in a regional daily from it and even though i dropped it a few feet onto a hard ground that made it very hard to remove or replace the adaptall, still works fine for me.
A couple of zoo shots from today (glad i took it instead of the Fuji superzoom).
The Kangaroo shot was also with a bit of clearzoom for more "reach".
What longer lenses are you using?

Controversial cameras do generate more discussion. Thus no surprise for me that the BMPCC4K is ahead of the GH5. As many people love BMD vs the haters of BMD.

"Tricky" cameras also get more discussion. (what powering system? What memory cards? Just two points of endless discussion for Blackmagic, while for the Panasonic GH5 that is an open and shut case for most)
  
Yes, it does reflect that the average person here doesn't use those on a regular basis. 

Doctor, doctor. Help me, I'm crazy.
Doctor: What is it Andrew? Divorce? Famine? Starvation? War?
Ah it's just Canon.
Doctor: Ah. Ok.
They keep cripple hammering things.
Doctor: Next patient!

A few surprises there.
No A7s but the RX100 makes the list?  Have both, love both but for video?, no contest, the A7s is my all time favourite camera and the RX100 my all time favourite pocket camera.    The little RX100 does have some party tricks though.
It does seem to be two lists in one.
cameras that are good video camera but cheap and top end hybrid cameras.

Great so you DO you think the sensor size has nothing to do with any difference so we do agree!   
Of course if you do not agree with that, you would be able to prove it with science since you cannot prove it with photos (as any differences in photos taken with systems not identically scaled can be explained by difference in the systems.).
 
Now unless you CAN provide something (ANYTHING) showing how  (often tiny) differences in photos  could not even remotely be explained by differences in the equipment, I think we have gone several pages too far and I am out Really really really this time).
 

Got the A7SIII as wanted a small body that could do 4k120 10bit with high calibre AF tracking for gimbal work, and more.
Coming from the EVA1 and GH5. 
No footage yet to show. Haven’t used it on a job yet but I’ve took it for a casual spin in the park.
Is the hype real? Not sure yet. Need more time. 
Some observations: 
1. The body is very very light. The buttons are nice to press. The screen is a little thin. The menu button is in the wrong place. The grip is far better than before. It’s much bigger. 
2. The EVF is insane. Never seen an EVF that clear and sharp, ever. 
3. Menu’s make sense, finally. Woo woo. 
4. AF tracking is great. Feels like cheating. I’m not sure how I feel about it as part of the craft though. Feels less rewarding, if that makes sense? Lovely on a gimbal though.
5. Working on a screen this small makes me feel disjointed from the scene. Much less clarity than the EVF. Good I’ve got the Ninja V to test then! 
6. Dynamic range is impressive. Very nice roll off. 
7. There’s a “Shockless” WB. When you change it, it transitions smoothly while recording. Same with ISO and shutter speed. Nice!
8. How am I using ISO 100 in Slog3? Thought this was BANNED. 
8. Rolling shutter looks gone. Ran off. Away.  Thank the Lord. 
9. Battery life - hmmm. Not Panasonic standards. 
10. Tamron 70-180 seemed a bit drunk with close distance AF. 
11. Image looks quite clinical. Used ProMist 1/4 - not judged it yet. Seems better. Will decide later. 
12. Why is the skin tone in FCPX yellow looking when the skin is on the line in the vector scope? Not that the skin tones are bad (they are good off the line),  just doesn’t make sense. Maybe I’m blind. 
13. Colour is better. I’m not sure how much better yet. Definitely an improvement. 

I need to get this thing on a proper shoot. Got a triple music video shoot in Turkey coming up so I’m going to throw it in the deep end on that one. 
Overall, I’m impressed so far but I can’t help feel a slight bit of disappointment when Canon announced the C70, which is the camera I described some years back as the one I would love to have. Now it exists. Funny world. 
 

Sigh!    I do not need to address each point as I disagree with YOUR (no one else its seems) theory that you have shown NO, zero, nil, zilch nix, NOTHING in evidence to support  other than saying there are (often tiny) difference so it MUST be because of the sensor size difference.
That article explains things pretty well to me and I can not understand how YOU can not understand that ANY difference in a system can explain very tiny differences in photos while at the same time you think those differences are explained by sensor size difference without a shred of evidence why ?
The fact that this amounts to many many pages of yes, no, yes, no is reason enough to end it now.
This thread should be locked.