DBounce

Over the past few weeks I have spent a lot of time with the Canon EOS R. I have also spent a lot of time with Nikons new Z6. On paper the Nikon Z6 would appear to have the EOS R beat dead to rights. And in all fairness to the Nikon, the 4k output from the Z6 is more detailed, sharper and cleaner at higher ISO than what the Canon can manage. So case closed then... an easy win for the Nikon, Canon fanboys go home! Well, not so fast... the problem is that for all of these specs, when viewed side by side... the exact same scene shot on the Canon EOS R just seems more organic. More filmic... in all honesty, it feels more cinematic. 
Most here know that I have long praised the Nikon for its strengths... and rightly so. It's one hell of a camera. But when looking at the same scene, shot on both the Nikon and Canon, I can tell you, there is something magical about the Canon footage. I caught myself constantly trying to make the Nikon footage more like the EOS R. I thought softening a sharp image would be a simple matter of adding in a diffusion filter. But in practice nothing I did could duplicate the effortless organic vibe of the Canon. It's not the sharpest, but it is clear and in focus; softer by default, and frankly in a world filled with over-sharpened footage I find it refreshing. The color out of the EOS R look great. You need do very little if anything to the files. But if you shoot in C-Log, there is ample data to play with. Better yet if you output to the Ninja V in 10 bit. 
While it might not make sense... and you would be right to argue that the Nikon is superior... none of that changes the fact that the Canon produces a nicer image. Even when it gets noisy the noise looks more like film grain than noise. 
Between the two, both are fairly easy to use, granted, there is a learning curve if switching from one brand to the other. But nothing that bad. I find the Canon's menus to be better, but that might be just because I am use to Canon. I will say that the Canon's controls are arranged to be easier to use from in front of the camera. The flippy screen is also a big plus. The crop did bother me at first, but I don't favor wide shots so it was not a deal breaker, and for those times that call for more FOV, I can easily adapt one of my wide angle lenses.
In the end you have a choice to make... Go with the spec sheet, and get a superior camera; or pick the one that delivers more cinematic footage. For me the choice was difficult until I stepped back and looked at the output from both cameras. Once I did that the choice was clear. Canon wins again. I'm not sure how they managed it. But perhaps that's part of the magic.
 

Over the past few weeks I have spent a lot of time with the Canon EOS R. I have also spent a lot of time with Nikons new Z6. On paper the Nikon Z6 would appear to have the EOS R beat dead to rights. And in all fairness to the Nikon, the 4k output from the Z6 is more detailed, sharper and cleaner at higher ISO than what the Canon can manage. So case closed then... an easy win for the Nikon, Canon fanboys go home! Well, not so fast... the problem is that for all of these specs, when viewed side by side... the exact same scene shot on the Canon EOS R just seems more organic. More filmic... in all honesty, it feels more cinematic. 
Most here know that I have long praised the Nikon for its strengths... and rightly so. It's one hell of a camera. But when looking at the same scene, shot on both the Nikon and Canon, I can tell you, there is something magical about the Canon footage. I caught myself constantly trying to make the Nikon footage more like the EOS R. I thought softening a sharp image would be a simple matter of adding in a diffusion filter. But in practice nothing I did could duplicate the effortless organic vibe of the Canon. It's not the sharpest, but it is clear and in focus; softer by default, and frankly in a world filled with over-sharpened footage I find it refreshing. The color out of the EOS R look great. You need do very little if anything to the files. But if you shoot in C-Log, there is ample data to play with. Better yet if you output to the Ninja V in 10 bit. 
While it might not make sense... and you would be right to argue that the Nikon is superior... none of that changes the fact that the Canon produces a nicer image. Even when it gets noisy the noise looks more like film grain than noise. 
Between the two, both are fairly easy to use, granted, there is a learning curve if switching from one brand to the other. But nothing that bad. I find the Canon's menus to be better, but that might be just because I am use to Canon. I will say that the Canon's controls are arranged to be easier to use from in front of the camera. The flippy screen is also a big plus. The crop did bother me at first, but I don't favor wide shots so it was not a deal breaker, and for those times that call for more FOV, I can easily adapt one of my wide angle lenses.
In the end you have a choice to make... Go with the spec sheet, and get a superior camera; or pick the one that delivers more cinematic footage. For me the choice was difficult until I stepped back and looked at the output from both cameras. Once I did that the choice was clear. Canon wins again. I'm not sure how they managed it. But perhaps that's part of the magic.
 

For me a7iii works fine as b cam to c200, too much compromise on EOS-R for me. 
 
But if you are happy with EOS-R then it’s good for you as we all have different preferences and stuff, there is no one camera to rule them all.
 

People can LOL all they want but I think it really takes shooting & working with the EOS R footage to appreciate it.. or not. But until then, a spec sheet isn't going to give you the full picture. And again as part of an ecosystem it makes total sense.
We shoot Sony at work and personally, I'm not at all a fan of matching my Canon gear with the A7III etc.. I'd rather rent an FS5/7. And even then its a bit annoying because Sony keep changing their colour science. Canon has done so too but at least gives you the option on EOS R to choose in between original C100/C300 log & the newer C200/C300II log colour matrix. Its little details like that which make life easier. I hate losing time in post with that type of stuff..

Pretty cool, I've been contemplating getting something similar for timelapses. 

Cropping in and panning / tilting / Ken Burns-ing is a digital simulation of a fixed position camera movement, like a fluid-head on a tripod.  The difference is that you don't get the depth effects of the foreground moving differently to the background.  If there's a movement towards or away from the subject then you also get a change in how out-of-focus the background is.
Nice work!  Those movements are complex and really interesting.
I don't know your style or what you're trying to achieve creatively but this could really add to the right project.  The key is to practice and get to terms with the feel it creates and then use it on the right projects.  It reminds me of this video that was posted recently about hand-holding and camera movements, especially the combining of multiple shots into a single moving shot.
Also, films with "one take" like Russian Ark where the film includes all the normal shots of a film like close-ups, mid-shots, wides, etc but does so in a single fluid movement.
Obviously this isn't as extreme with your setup, but that is a whole aesthetic and would really contribute to the right projects.

I have the cheap Edelkrones, and boy, they work. They do just a slight movement, but they fit in my camera bag (at least the slider does) and up my production values significantly.
Bigger companies I work for have the bigger Edelkrone's.
One problem is that they change machines all the time, in a way you have to buy new every couple of years to stay current with their models (hardware and software).
Visit their page @mercer, you will be surprised this is the cheapest one. 
https://edelkrone.eu/products/sliderone-pro 

The pros maybe quicker, simpler and much cheaper production... but it will also look like a cheaper production. So other than cost, there is no upside. Back in the day I loved AE. I could create some pretty crazy effects with that software. After awhile I focused on using it in subtle ways.  Effect that were "there",  but never noticed as effects. So naturally I've tried stimulating movement with cropping. It tends to look "off". Even a simple zoom or pan is easily spotted as fake. It doesn't matter if you ease in/out... or add motion blur.  The problem is you cannot fake parallax and you cannot fake lens compression. This might have more success with a lightfield camera... but you could buy the motion controller and hire a crew for the price of one of those. 

@DBounce this looks really cool. Excuse my ignorance with these new fangled gadgets, but I assume you set the marks before hand and the slider hits them?
Something like this is really appealing to me. I started as an actor, then screenwriter, but as a poor filmmaker it is often difficult to get actors, at the rates I can afford. With something like this, I could be in my own movie... talk about the ultimate one man band filmmaking. Makes me want to grab a 5D4. Lol.
I assume that set up is pretty pricey, though?
On another note, I think you have a pretty good screen presence but I’m unsure of your goal. I know you’re a hobbyist, but do you want to make narratives? Family videos? Build a YouTube channel? I mean, what’s your end game?
I’ll also add... I still think I prefer your Canon work... particularly the 1DXii and C200. The Fuji videos looked pretty good as well. Nikon... I don’t know. Maybe too early to tell.
Anyway, thanks for posting. 

So our Edelkrone Motion kit with the new HeadPlus unit arrived. I figured it would be a great chance to have a quick play with it to see how the Nikon Z6 handles on it. I like this smaller form factor for this setup. It keeps it pretty light. I used the 24-70mm F4 on this shoot. The whole systems was very easy to setup and use. I plan to use this setup regualarly. So I will be in a good position to gauge reliability. Anywhoddles... here is the video. Feel free to comment:
 

So our Edelkrone Motion kit with the new HeadPlus unit arrived. I figured it would be a great chance to have a quick play with it to see how the Nikon Z6 handles on it. I like this smaller form factor for this setup. It keeps it pretty light. I used the 24-70mm F4 on this shoot. The whole systems was very easy to setup and use. I plan to use this setup regualarly. So I will be in a good position to gauge reliability. Anywhoddles... here is the video. Feel free to comment:
 

First, the NIKON Z6 AND SONY A73 DO NOT SHARE THE SAME SENSOR. Nikon has their own engineering department and designed the sensors in the Z series to their own specs. They outsourced the manufacturing to Sony. 
As for Nikon only handing over the keys to their HDMI protocol... well that's selling Nikon short imo. Let's not forget that the entire new Z-mount lens series is specifically designed to work well for video.  The lenses all operate near silent... and all have minimal focus breathing. Even the just announced 14-30mm F4 is designed with a flat front, so that it can be fitted with ND filters for video use. 
Nikon is building a video friendly system... not just a single video friendly body. I believe this is hugely important for many of us here in this community. 
As for the 1DXMK3, I know it will be amazing for stills,  and the video will look great out of it. But it's hard for me to imagine Canon not pulling a Canon again... I hope I'm wrong.

Jeremy from Atomos stated that the resolution in the video was 4k or higher.  I'm thinking it can shoot 6k and perhaps some anamorphic options will be available. Nikon is taking off the gloves.

You really can get them to look near enough to identical in post. That said, after spending more time with the pair I can confidently report that the Nikon trumps the Canon in image quality. AF is near enough as makes no difference... if you do not shoot N-Log. The build is better on the Nikon. Reliability is better... zero issues to date, while the Canon did experience three errors... granted easily recovered from. 
Where the Canon excels is in usability. It's very easy to shoot with. The flip screen is wonderful. The controls are also easy to manipulate from both in front and from behind the camera. Shooting to SD cards is great if you have tons of them laying around like I do. 
My overall impression is that when Nikon released the Z6 they aimed to knock one out of the park. It's a camera they intend to be in the lineup for some time. They are committed to improving it and adding features over time. Whereas, I get the sense that Canon released the EOS R kicking and screaming. It feels like a camera that is intended to have a very short lifespan; destined to be replaced by another model soon.

Don't mistake a hybrid for a dedicated cinema camera. The C200 is my main workhorse. I loooovvvveee the full sized XLRs, unlimited record time, handling, powerful rawlite codec. It's a wonderful thing to use. The 1DXMK2 is a tremendous stills camera. Trust me when I tell you the EOS R is no 1DXMK2... not even close. It's a weird kit... yes, but I suspect Nikon is going to deliver the hybrid we have all been waiting for, while Canon is going to continue to be "Canon". The Z6 represent a cheap way for me to test the Nikon waters. Honestly, so far I like what I see. Although my girl agrees with you.
Oh, about that "beefy" codec... after bending the footage from both around in post, from what I can see, it is no more bendable than the Nikon codec... but it's about 3x the size... so there's that. I'm not saying it's bad, but it really takes awhile to transfer the footage compared to the Nikon, partly because the files are larger, and partly because the XQD is faster. 

Jeremy Young is the CEO and founder of Atomos... And that is where the buck stops my friend. He didn’t say it “could” do 12 bit... he said it “does”. 
Oh snap... you didn’t buy a P4k did you?

You really can get them to look near enough to identical in post. That said, after spending more time with the pair I can confidently report that the Nikon trumps the Canon in image quality. AF is near enough as makes no difference... if you do not shoot N-Log. The build is better on the Nikon. Reliability is better... zero issues to date, while the Canon did experience three errors... granted easily recovered from. 
Where the Canon excels is in usability. It's very easy to shoot with. The flip screen is wonderful. The controls are also easy to manipulate from both in front and from behind the camera. Shooting to SD cards is great if you have tons of them laying around like I do. 
My overall impression is that when Nikon released the Z6 they aimed to knock one out of the park. It's a camera they intend to be in the lineup for some time. They are committed to improving it and adding features over time. Whereas, I get the sense that Canon released the EOS R kicking and screaming. It feels like a camera that is intended to have a very short lifespan; destined to be replaced by another model soon.

Notice that the Nikon rep also states @ 1:27, that firmware support for CF Express is going to boost the video quality for video shooter. This would seem to lend credibility to what Jeremy of Atomos said during his interview with Newsshooter, when he said the Z6 and Z7 can record raw internally.
 

Don't mistake a hybrid for a dedicated cinema camera. The C200 is my main workhorse. I loooovvvveee the full sized XLRs, unlimited record time, handling, powerful rawlite codec. It's a wonderful thing to use. The 1DXMK2 is a tremendous stills camera. Trust me when I tell you the EOS R is no 1DXMK2... not even close. It's a weird kit... yes, but I suspect Nikon is going to deliver the hybrid we have all been waiting for, while Canon is going to continue to be "Canon". The Z6 represent a cheap way for me to test the Nikon waters. Honestly, so far I like what I see. Although my girl agrees with you.
Oh, about that "beefy" codec... after bending the footage from both around in post, from what I can see, it is no more bendable than the Nikon codec... but it's about 3x the size... so there's that. I'm not saying it's bad, but it really takes awhile to transfer the footage compared to the Nikon, partly because the files are larger, and partly because the XQD is faster. 

I've given some thought to the cine glass situation. It's perhaps less of a problem with these mirrorless bodies, as adapter are readily available for both R and Z mounts. They are both great cameras, but if you are in it for the longer haul I feel Nikon will be a better choice. I really do love how quick it is to setup and get a shot with the Canon. I think the Nikon is a steeper learning curve. If the Canon shot full frame it would be a real winner. The low-light AF on the Canon is the best I have ever used. It nails focus in near complete darkness. Which is a good thing, because given the 4k crop, F4 becomes like F7 on the 24-105mm, it's pretty extreme. Both amazing cameras at any rate.

Jeremy Young is the CEO and founder of Atomos... And that is where the buck stops my friend. He didn’t say it “could” do 12 bit... he said it “does”. 
Oh snap... you didn’t buy a P4k did you?

@Geoff_L I had the view assist on when I made that video. Maybe the issue goes away in ProRes Raw... that would be nice.

The Atomos guy states the Nikon Z6/7 internal raw is absolutely possible. He even makes it sound like something that they might well plan to implement at some point, 
 
The Atomos guy said they recorded in linear gamma.

The Atomos guy states the Nikon Z6/7 internal raw is absolutely possible. He even makes it sound like something that they might well plan to implement at some point, 
 
The Atomos guy said they recorded in linear gamma.

The Atomos guy states the Nikon Z6/7 internal raw is absolutely possible. He even makes it sound like something that they might well plan to implement at some point, 
 
The Atomos guy said they recorded in linear gamma.