EduPortas

And also the fact that most of digital media today is being consumed on 6 inch screens at 480p or 720p where a higher resolution is almost impossible to differentiate. That goes for movies and YouTube "content". 
We lot are doing this camera stuff for the pleasure of actually holding the damn camera or videocamera (not talking about the high-end production professionals, of course)

Native Z lenses give the absolute best AF performance so you should be set. 

Thanks man, much appreciated.
With the prices of newer cameras, it's always good to have more options that are not insanely expensive, especially if the actually AF correctly like you said (I only use Nikon Z lenses for fan boyish reasons, though).

To be truthful I’ve been a bit surprised at the latitude and dynamic range Nikon FLAT offers. Maybe not as much as NLOG, but there is definitely info in the shadows if you dig deep enough. It handles highlights terribly, so it’s best not to overexpose. And the shadows still do have limits, if I have to dig too deep then I hit a threshold where yes there is detail, but it’s undersaturated and some color-noise/mud is introduced. That being said so far I’m impressed with how much I can pull back from the shadows without destroying the image. Then again, lighting conditions were nice on my most recent shoot. I’ll have to do some mid-day stress tests and comparisons, and I’ll let you know what I find. I may start a new thread where I compare NLOG to Nikon Flat. 

It definately can.  FYI I currently only have 1 lens, a Tamron SP 45mm 1.8, being used through the FTZ adapter.  AF works well enough for talking-head purposes, but it can hut a tad bit at times, and the lens will occasionally lock up, warranting a restart of the camera.  I believe it is specific to this lens however; I was able to try some native Nikon F-mount glass through the FTZ; autofocus felt snappy and confident without hunting issues.  Even with the Tamron I trust it for simple talking head footage.

That's great, man. At the price used Z6s are going right now it's impossible not to consider it for serious work.
What's your opinion of the AF in video? Can it hold it's own in talking-head scenarios?
(I've only used my Z50 for this purpose and it was good  in AF-F mode with the kit lens. It has no eye-detect AF, though, just face AF)

Nikon Z6 looks very good. Considerably better than the other cameras. And it's FF, as a bonus.
Also, it has competente AF for video. Not Canon or Sony level, but certainly good.

Nikon Z6 looks very good. Considerably better than the other cameras. And it's FF, as a bonus.
Also, it has competente AF for video. Not Canon or Sony level, but certainly good.

Nikon Z6 looks very good. Considerably better than the other cameras. And it's FF, as a bonus.
Also, it has competente AF for video. Not Canon or Sony level, but certainly good.

Get the Sony. If you want a cheaper videocamera take a look at the AX100. One incher. 4K. Canon has one interesting 4K offering that is in the same budget range you are at (XA40).
I find videocameras have a spot in any pro's rig because they magnify the image during recording with the press of a button, have unlimited recording times, and of course dedicated microphone and headphone jacks.  Only very few MILCs offer all these functions as standard.
So unless you're recording caves for a new Werner doc you'll be ok. 
 
 
 
 

I'm actually excited about the cam.
I think it's the least expensive FF interchangeable pro videocamera ever, not counting the Z cam FF model?
The latter does not include a monitor or XLR handle, so the price difference is actually not that much between the two once you add those expenses.
As of of right now you can purchase the FX6 for USD$7K with a 24-105 Sony lens. 
That's a huge price difference from older FF pro videocamera models from less than 5-10 years ago where Arri and Red were practically the only players in town. 
I'm not a Sony fanboy, quite the contrary, but this thing opens a new market for prosumers and videographers who are not cine buffs and don't want/need to spend 10K on extra accesories to start shooting.

I'm actually excited about the cam.
I think it's the least expensive FF interchangeable pro videocamera ever, not counting the Z cam FF model?
The latter does not include a monitor or XLR handle, so the price difference is actually not that much between the two once you add those expenses.
As of of right now you can purchase the FX6 for USD$7K with a 24-105 Sony lens. 
That's a huge price difference from older FF pro videocamera models from less than 5-10 years ago where Arri and Red were practically the only players in town. 
I'm not a Sony fanboy, quite the contrary, but this thing opens a new market for prosumers and videographers who are not cine buffs and don't want/need to spend 10K on extra accesories to start shooting.

Celluloid was much more forgiving with camera shake.
Digital technologies look awful with jitters and make people sick more rapidly. The brain knows it's unnatural.
Content is king, but 99.9% of the time I'd watch a shaky old family film than a shaky iPhone family video in 2021.

Absolutely. We glossed on this same subject a couple of months ago on another thread.
These "technical" reviewers on YT are very capable individuals with a keen sense of money. They are wicked good with the telepromter and have loads of charisma. Any mistakes are swiflty dealt with 100 cuts during editing.
Yet, it all feeds the same huge business model: newer is better. Time to spend yet again. "GH5? Bleh. Yesterday's news. Buy your S5 NOW and receive 10% off with my promo code!. Who cares if you need to spend $2,000-$3,000 on a new body and new lenses. You NEED that full frame look to be taken seriously".
This is the Gilded Age of YouTube. But that fine golden leaf is starting to show some cracks...

Absolutely. We glossed on this same subject a couple of months ago on another thread.
These "technical" reviewers on YT are very capable individuals with a keen sense of money. They are wicked good with the telepromter and have loads of charisma. Any mistakes are swiflty dealt with 100 cuts during editing.
Yet, it all feeds the same huge business model: newer is better. Time to spend yet again. "GH5? Bleh. Yesterday's news. Buy your S5 NOW and receive 10% off with my promo code!. Who cares if you need to spend $2,000-$3,000 on a new body and new lenses. You NEED that full frame look to be taken seriously".
This is the Gilded Age of YouTube. But that fine golden leaf is starting to show some cracks...

Absolutely. We glossed on this same subject a couple of months ago on another thread.
These "technical" reviewers on YT are very capable individuals with a keen sense of money. They are wicked good with the telepromter and have loads of charisma. Any mistakes are swiflty dealt with 100 cuts during editing.
Yet, it all feeds the same huge business model: newer is better. Time to spend yet again. "GH5? Bleh. Yesterday's news. Buy your S5 NOW and receive 10% off with my promo code!. Who cares if you need to spend $2,000-$3,000 on a new body and new lenses. You NEED that full frame look to be taken seriously".
This is the Gilded Age of YouTube. But that fine golden leaf is starting to show some cracks...

Absolutely. We glossed on this same subject a couple of months ago on another thread.
These "technical" reviewers on YT are very capable individuals with a keen sense of money. They are wicked good with the telepromter and have loads of charisma. Any mistakes are swiflty dealt with 100 cuts during editing.
Yet, it all feeds the same huge business model: newer is better. Time to spend yet again. "GH5? Bleh. Yesterday's news. Buy your S5 NOW and receive 10% off with my promo code!. Who cares if you need to spend $2,000-$3,000 on a new body and new lenses. You NEED that full frame look to be taken seriously".
This is the Gilded Age of YouTube. But that fine golden leaf is starting to show some cracks...

I'm not against him as a person. That's beside the point.
He just feeds the same hype machine by receiving new gear to review when a company launches a new product, except he does it at the technical level. That's were the credibilty as a YT channel starts to crumble.
YT is where a good part of the marketing budget is spent in the tech sector. That budget includes freebies for these guys, trips, special passes, etc. They are not journalists where you can expect at least a modicum of profesionalism and respect for the reader/viewer. They are here to sell hard and fast with links in the description below.
But hey, at least some actual photogs/video pros still write some serious reviews on less well-known sites.
Except they are not on YT and since it's 2021 they apparently don't matter anymore.

I don't care about the technical specs of X gear or absolute technical quality of the image. Dude is clearly a gearhead. He shares no narratives (a review is analytical, not narrative work). So no, his review says nothing to me.
But this type of "content" is what goes today by high-quality: talk about specs with the intention is to sell sell sell. Show some graphs. Record a quick v-log. Make you push that buy button. It's not a hobby, it's their job as influencers.
That's why this blog is still relevant, even if the author takes six or twelve months to review X new camera 😅. At least I know he's not writing for the ad revenue and hot Amazon-BH-Adorama link. 

Every single movie I can think of that can be called art pushed normative boundries in some way or another.
Most of them were missunderstood in their time. Contrary to what comes out today these creations had "weight": being subversive + having good exposition + good craftsmanship.
There's some Hollywood stuff, of course, as well as cinema from other countries.
Following that logic, 99.9% of the digitally enhanced stuff we're consuming today will most definetly not be remembered in 20-30 years. They are neither subversive nor have good exposition, but are techinicaly fantastic and produce a ton of money, but that's it. 

Art has never been about not offending people. Some would say quite the opposite: you want to make people ponder.
I think the current discussion is more about bland, well-poduced "content" on streaming platforms that is merely watchable, but very rarely comes close to being cinematic art. 
The truth is most of these new merely watchable shows have a heavy-handed ideological slant that make them transparent in their intentions, yet very profitable.
Quite the opposite of art that is complex, layered and often contradictory.

Was thinking about the exact same thing today after watching some of Herzog's very first films from the 70s.
Dude was really "out there".
Sadly, we're not even on the experimenting level of cinema of the 80s-90s right now, let alone the 60s and 70s.
I swear the ratio of crappy-to-respectable movies and series on Amazon and Netflix is about 9 to 1.
But hey...that's what the masses want 😶
 
 

Was thinking about the exact same thing today after watching some of Herzog's very first films from the 70s.
Dude was really "out there".
Sadly, we're not even on the experimenting level of cinema of the 80s-90s right now, let alone the 60s and 70s.
I swear the ratio of crappy-to-respectable movies and series on Amazon and Netflix is about 9 to 1.
But hey...that's what the masses want 😶
 
 

One of the things that 24p gives me is a certain surrealist aesthetic.  What I mean is that 24p isn't quite real, it's more like an impression of reality rather than an accurate representation of reality itself.  Things that make video more realistic like 60fps, rec709 accurate colours, HDR, super high resolution, 3D, etc seem to make it less 'cinematic'.
Of course, this is an aesthetic choice - if you want to make videos that seem very real then those things are great.  Games or POV videos should be more realistic, so those things are benefits in that case.
I shoot travel and events of my family and friends, so my videos are like a vignette of memory, and in alignment with that the aesthetic I want is fuzzy and impressionistic like memory.  I also like the idea of giving the same larger-than-life aesthetic that feature films have when viewed in the cinema.  I find that 24p is one of the things that helps generate that aesthetic.

Because some dead French men of the XIX century and his pals made a bunch of experiments proyecting 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23 FPS.
Then they arrived at 24 FPS and went "yeah, that looks about right and there's no perceivable difference between 24,25,26,27,28,29 FPS and 24 is cheaper to roll".
That's the legacy.
Like the wheel, why try to change what is already damn near perfect?