BasiliskFilm

52 minutes ago, Otago said:

I'm engineer so not directly relevant, but might be based on what BasilikFilm has said above. I was never asked what school qualifications I had after I got into University, I was never asked what degree I had after I had a few years work under my belt, I haven't been asked what my first few years of employment were like now I have 15 years under my belt. Each time those credentials or qualifications made the step to the next level easier, it would've been possible without them but I have seen others coming from a less traditional background take longer to get their foot on the first rung. A traditional path with good grades gives everyone in the hiring process a bit of comfort and can be the differentiator between 2 candidates but this is only true at the early stages of a career, after 10 years of experience I care far more about personality. 

I work at a University now and there would be 2 things I would check if I was going to do a masters.

1. See who the tutors are, if they are academics that have worked their way up via bachelors, masters then a phd I would be a little cautious because there are some great people who have done that and some people who have learnt and excelled at academia and not just their specialist subject.

2. Who are the other students, if part of what you want is to build a network then students who don't stay in your location ( either because they don't want to or aren't allowed to ) or aren't fluent in English then it may not be as useful to you. In our institution ~70% of masters students are Chinese and American and they are there for the credentials and don't stick around afterwards. 

I am not dissing education or training. The thing is the academic route was set up when access to professional tools and equipment were limited and you could only get to practice with expensive kit by signing up. Now that a digital camera, a few lenses and a laptop with software are in everyone's hands, the colleges are no longer the gatekeepers, and work can be shared on-line. Even if you go to college you probably still need to buy your own kit, in addition to fees. So think of what else you could do with that time and money.

no one ever asked me about my degree. OK that is many years ago now. It is all about skills, portfolio and word of mouth. If you are a self starter you can build these yourself.

I didn't watch in detail. But a couple of points that need clarifying.
1. Mostly one girl/woman, rather than "girls"
2. What about the poor guy, who has quite a lot of screen-time?
3. What film was this shot on?
4. Isn't it 2019 already?

Does a Tamron 28-75 f2.8 FE (adapted) focus as quickly/smoothly on the Nikon as the native 24-70 f4?
I have to say the Tamron f2.8 zooms are a big attraction, budget-wise, of the E mount system, but if they can be adapted well, or Tamron produce a native Z version, then Nikon looks much more attractive. 
Maybe Tamron needs to get someone from Techart to work on their AF protocols?

Is the Leica M AF adaptor smooth enough for video (when used on a Sony body)? I have seen that it is accurate, but thought it was not very smooth.

Two things keep me from coming down on the Z side of the fence. Lens selection, which is probably years behind, especially when you consider decent value f2.8 zooms from Tamron. And AF performance for action photo/video. 
Maybe the solution is to get the Z6 with the Techart adaptor, Sony glass, and an APS-C Sony (A6400?) for the best of both worlds?

Nikon video AF looks fine, but currently Sony seems to take it to another level, with magical levels of stickiness with object tracking. Considering a camera that is capable of wildlife and action video/photography, this could be a deciding factor.

4 hours ago, tellure said:

@BasiliskFilm That would be true if we were only using the center 50% of the sensor here.  But in this proposed feature we are still capturing an 8K image from the entire sensor, and cropping it during the encoding process.  So the image circle projected on the sensor and sensor size remain the same.  It's literally the same as taking a full-frame 8K photo and then cropping it in post, which I'm guessing you'd agree wouldn't require any multiplication of aperture because the depth of field is already baked into the original full-frame 8K photo.

The image from a crop sensor camera using a 50mm f1.8 lens will be identical to an image shot with a full sensor camera with the same lens cropped to match in post.

If you keep all variables the same it doesn't matter if you crop before or after shooting. The image is the same.

I honestly don't mind if you disagree with me though. 

2 hours ago, tellure said:

 

@BasiliskFilm I had that same thought and I'm happy to be proven wrong here since I sat out the aperture equivalence wars but I don't think it applies here.  As I understand it, aperture equivalence should be calculated when comparing sensors of different sizes with equivalent framing.  But here we're talking about one sensor size - 8K - just cropped down to varying sizes and downsampled to 4K for the final output.

Think of it this way - imagine you took a series of 8K photos of a fencepost at 50mm f/1.4 and stitched them together into a time-lapse video.  There's lots of creamy bokeh in the background since you're shooting at f/1.4.  Because the final output of your video is 4K you have lots of room to crop in post.  So you add some zooms in your thrilling fencepost video to get more detail by cropping the image.  In the final seconds of the video you end at a 2x zoom, and now the *framing* (and only the framing) of the fencepost photo is the same as it would have looked like with a 100mm lens.  All that creamy f/1.4 bokeh in the original shot is completely unchanged since the contents of the original 8K photo are unchanged, it's just been cropped.

Unlike regular aperture equivalence calculations where the image being compared is being projected on different sensor sizes, in this (wishlist) feature the image projection is always over the whole 8K sensor.  Internally the camera would be cropping and downsampling the image before encoding it into the 4K video stream.  Hope that makese sense, but again happy to be proven wrong, I'm not an expert on the hotly debated topic of equivalence.

You are turning a full frame camera into a crop frame camera - the centre 50% of the sensor is about the same size as a micro 4/3 sensor. The standard way of working out full-frame-equivalence is to multiply the focal length and aperture by the crop factor, in this case 2x. The actual focal length and aperture remain the same, obviously.

your 24 f1.4 prime would become the equivalent of a 24 f1.4 to 48 f2.8 zoom. Aperture equivalence is proportional to frame size.

If they had turned the lights on someone might have noticed the starbucks cup

Shooting dialogue or a talking head, the option of capturing the equivalent of a midlength shot and a portrait shot simultaneously is a no-brainer for saving time in shooting and edit.

Mostly I deliver in 1080p, but oversampling for best quality never hurts: C100 does it in camera and produces a nice result, but that is for technical reasons that should no longer apply. If you could have the full sensor output, why would you not?

I had full frame 35mm on my Olympus Trip 35, 40 years ago. So you are not going to persuade me that APS-C is anything other than a poor compromise for stills photography. Progress in chip manufacture means that you can get full frame for £800 (original A7) now and that will only come down. Nikon could make a cut price Z5 by skimping on a lot of features (digital vs sensor stabilisation) lower res EVF and back screen, smaller buffer, simpler controls. 
They can cater for APSC by making an EVF version of the D5400. It is pretty small already and they can continue with their current lens lineup until demand fizzles out.

6 hours ago, IronFilm said:

Waiting for Nikon to release a "Z60" DX mirrorless to take on the Fujifilm X-T30 and Panasonic G95 etc, then Nikon will have a very attractively priced sub $1K camera to fight against everyone in the sub $2K market as well. 

Is it really worth entering the mirrorless crop frame market? It would need a whole lot of extra lenses for it to make sense, and even Sony who have sold shedloads of A6xxx bodies hasn't really got serious with dedicated APS-C lenses. Would Nikon actually produce a more compact body, when one of the things that folk appreciate about the Z series (over Sony) is the useability and ergonomics? Canon, Sony, Fuji, Panasonic, Olympus, started with smaller sensors on mirrorless before full frame was practical, but having cracked it, Nikon should keep with full frame (with a good crop mode), and possibly bring out a stripped down low end model like Canon have, rather than waste resources on a backward looking crop format body. Filmakers can shoot in S35 on the current Z models, and most stills shooters appreciate the benefits of a FF sensor.

2 hours ago, Mako Sports said:

Nikon Z6 and Z7 have just received price reductions. Definitly a red flag.

Canon now have a low end RP model, and Sony is still selling the A7 and A7II low prices. Nikon may still have the best value full frame hybrid model in the Z6 (as Canon still doesn't do full frame video on mirrorless), but they don't want to vacate the sub £2000 market altogether. Sony is offering a similar discount on the A7III in the UK. 
The mirrorless market has suddenly got very crowded, and price competition is a new and mostly welcome thing. It doesn't mean they won't make it back with overpriced lenses though (as was always the case with e.g cheap inkjet printers and expensive cartridges...)

3 hours ago, homestar_kevin said:

Yup! all the 110 lenses do.

Don't expect sharp corners. Or middles while we are on the subject...

Cue more idiot directors saying - "we will fix it in post"
Seriously it is pretty clever stuff. Not just items with a clear consistent outline on a plain background. In some ways this can be done more cleanly in video than stills, as there are more chances to find a clean backplate to clone from.

5 hours ago, kye said:

Surely a curved sensor for all lenses would be a better fit on average than having a flat sensor for all lenses?

a lens and sensor curved to match might be ideal optically, but switch to a different focal length, especially with a long lens, and the calculations get more complicated rather than easier, I would imagine. Also your lenses will be worse than junk on any other non curved sensor, so forget adapting them.

22 hours ago, Mako Sports said:

Really hoping the A7siii has the same or similar video af system to the A6400/A9

Dpaf got bodied in this test ? 

Both cameras may be at f4 but the larger sensor on the full frame camera means there is more OOF blur. So it isn't a direct comparison. That doesn't mean the Sony AF isn't amazing, and the ability to pick up faces when they are a long way back and moving fast is pretty impressive.

Once you have good quality FF glass, then going to crop seems a backward step, especially now that FF full sensor video is available at sensible prices. That is not to say that there are some nice fast-ish primes for Fuji, but it is tough to get the  look of an f1.4 lens on full frame, while I already have several vintage f1.4 or f1.2 lenses for full frame.

It may have the same chip and processing as the Z6 - as it is cheaper to manufacture in bulk than come up with a custom design for a cheaper model. Where they could save on costs is by omitting IBIS. The problem there though is that Nikon seems to have made the (sensible) decision to keep stabilisation on the body, to keep the lenses lighter and smaller (and hopefully cheaper). Canon has taken the other road of stabilising lenses, and not bodies. So if Nikon brings out a budget, unstabilised body, do they also bring out a new budget stabilised kit lens (like the variable aperture 28-85mm on my D600)? 

To be honest, I am holding fire on a decision until I see the new firmware. Sony have stepped up their AF on the A6400/A9 and I am guessing there will be a video oriented release taking on the z6 (A7SIII, A7IV?) which will have to be competitively priced. Can Nikon improve their already good AF to keep up with a firmware update? Particularly in the field of action stills, the Z6 is not really a sports camera, the DSLRs still have the edge for stills. The ideal hybrid video/stills action solution is still not there; the A9 is perhaps the closest, but still expensive and lacking key video features like profiles.
 

Looks like it is the 6DII - with a Digic 8 rather than 7, so that might help a bit. But latest spec rumour seems to have lost the 4K prediction... Looks like Canon has a surprise up its sleeve again. 

Canon is great at keeping secrets, so everyone gets a surprise at release. No-one anticipated the video crop on the EOS-R, so be prepared for surprises! Will the new model have full frame video or full sensor readout? I know where I would put my bet.

8 hours ago, hansel said:

Why was it painful to shoot, to much weight? Video looks very clean.

camera 1lb, lens 2lb - not the easiest setup to balance, I imagine!