DBounce

Looks like Atomos is saying the Nikon can output higher resolution than 4K. Their video at CES was shot in 4K or more and at 12 bit.
 

Looks like Atomos is saying the Nikon can output higher resolution than 4K. Their video at CES was shot in 4K or more and at 12 bit.
 

If the differences comparing SLog 2 to ProRes Raw are minor, I have to imagine even less difference when comparing 10 bit NLog to 10 bit ProRes Raw. I’ll need to see footage before I’m convinced. Imo, they should have focused more on fixing requested bugs and adding requested features. Now if this was 14 bit raw video things would be different. But as things stand... Idk. You will not see more dynamic range. That will still be set to whatever it is limited to. They need to put out some footage.

Yeah, this looks impressive... until you realize he was not actually recovering lost information from an overexposed shot, but rather just undoing the processing that FCPX did to the footage when he imported it. Let me ask you this... if you shot stills in raw @14bit, and they were that overexposed... do you believe you would be able to recover that much detail? Of course not. This video is a excellent example of a YouTuber misleading by not fully understanding color space and the processing that it being applied.

Here’s the first look as promised:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgGpdbnVbYs
 

Couldn’t imagine pulling focus with any degree of accuracy while l supporting the weight of the gimbal rigged with camera. I think you’re better off with AF or a dedicated focus puller.

Definitely have a look at FHD Crop mode. It is indeed supersampled from 4K and has super good sharpness/detail that rivals C line FHD.
The way i have my EOS R setup is FF FHD on Movie Custom 1, FHD Crop mode on Custom 2 & 4K on Custom 3.
By pressing mode and selecting C1/C2/C3 i can very quickly switch modes depending on the scene and double the focal length of my primes.
Personally, I love the ergonomics. I use the grip though. Its quite different from any other camera so it might take a moment to get used to it. 
The customisation of the camera is pretty deep, i really enjoy that too.

I'm not so sure... 
 

Why? Don't humans still use eyeballs? If it produced great images at launch why shouldn't those images look great today? I can tell you now, when the MK3 comes out I'm getting one.

It will retain the setting.

16:9 is available with no device connected, from the touch screen. Manual options... not yet.

XQD and CFast cards are both pretty robust. SD is more of a concern. But are you shooting to both cards simultaneously when shooting video? I don't think so.  That is unless you are shooting on a C200 with 8 bit proxy files. Though I think the GH5/s have this feature also. 

I use a Ronin S. But it's nothing I carry casually. I almost never post stabilize. If I want stable footage I will use a jib, slider, gimbal, or if I need repeatable movements, or working alone, I will use a full blown motion control system.

Ok, I have solved the mystery of why the Nikon Z6 AF performed so dismally during my testing. I can confirm that IT IS A BUG and is easily reproducible. See the below video for a complete demonstration of the issue and how to reproduce.
 

Funny the thumbs down with no comments. Truth must hurt? Some idiot actually tried to get that video removed from YouTube with a phony copyright violation claim. Unfortunately for them, it was cleared by YouTube.... but hey, nice try. 
Honestly, I wanted to love the Nikon for video, but in practice it’s AF is weak, in both stills and video. The competition has improved... the X-T3 beats the Z6. The Sony performs better than the Z6 under most conditions... but nothing comes close to the 1DXMK2; it can actually hold focus better than is humanly possible.

Tested with both the 50mm F1.8 and the 24-70mm F4. Used base ISO and adjusted light to provide good exposure. Used both default and recommended settings for optimal face detect performance. I'm honestly not sure what I could have done differently. I was stoked about the Nikon and really wanted it to do well... but it did not. I'm not exactly new to cameras so I'm pretty confident that it configured correctly.  
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. 

This post is a preview of my testing of these two cameras. The Canon is shot internal in 4k, while the Nikon is external to the Ninja V. This might seem strange, but this test started out as a color matching test, and later evolved into an AF test. I have long known that the AF on the 1DXMK2 is the best I have used. But it's not until you put it up head to head against it's competitors that you understand just how amazing it is. I can tell you, the AF on the 1DXMK2 is much better than even the C200. It is better than the other EOS cameras. Of course much has been said about the Nikon Z6's video AF. Most have said it is pretty good. Well let me tell you this... watch the test that I am posting. I can promise you nothing was done that anyone could not have managed setup wise. It is a simple test pitting both cameras against each other side by side. Both set to base ISO, F1.8 and shot at 24p with 1/50th shutter speed. The difference in performance is astounding. From what I have seen the EOS R is inferior to the 1DXMK2 in AF. But that said, what isn't?
So my takeaway from all of this is the following: Dear Canon, I truly hate you... Why must you gimp your cameras? Leaving out features that we want and need, just so we are forced to buy yet another body to do a single task.
Ok, maybe that's a bit much, but I know many most here feel the same way. I'll post more shortly.

I'm going to share some insight with you. After using the Z6 some more... under very controlled conditions, I can reveal the following: when it nails the shot, if you are close to the subject... within two or three feet,  and if you are shooting at f1.8... to let the light in,  it can be distracting. Why? Because in all honesty,  the DOF is just too shallow. So much so that the entire face of a subject cannot be in focus.  The solution to this is to stop down. But this means sacrificing the blurred backgrounds and giving up any lowlight advantage that may have been gained by shooting full frame. 
While shallow DOF works for still images, when used in situations where the subject is moving it quickly becomes a distraction. It makes it hard to draw the viewers attention to the subject matter, as the focus is just too narrow. You end up directing their view to eyelash vs eye, as opposed to face vs hand. I find myself stopping down to F4 to kill the effect. But then you can say bye bye to any lowlight advantages.
I think there is a reason that the vast majority of productions are shot with S35. Let's not kid ourselves into thinking it's because these production houses are somehow "unaware" of full frame... or that they could not afford to shoot full frame. The reason they don't shoot full frame is because they don't want to... plain and simple. They understand that the DOF is too distracting... so it hurts the story... and everything is supposed to support the story. That is after-all the whole point. The production only exist to tell the story. They also know that any field of view advantage of shooting full frame is irrelevant if they are shooting with anamorphic lenses... which is always an option when you have a real budget. 
I'm going to post a quick video that is an attempt at some cinematic shots... again comparing the Z6 to the 1DXMk2. It was not my intention to demonstrate the difference that the shallower DOF produces, and truthfully, at first I didn't notice it. I only saw the bokeh. But once you see it... you just can't unsee it. 
Like many here I'm trying to learn and understand the art of story telling. So this has been very enlightening for me. While I believe FF may have its place for use in cinema, I suspect it's not a look that most are going to embrace as their mainstay. 

I'm going to share some insight with you. After using the Z6 some more... under very controlled conditions, I can reveal the following: when it nails the shot, if you are close to the subject... within two or three feet,  and if you are shooting at f1.8... to let the light in,  it can be distracting. Why? Because in all honesty,  the DOF is just too shallow. So much so that the entire face of a subject cannot be in focus.  The solution to this is to stop down. But this means sacrificing the blurred backgrounds and giving up any lowlight advantage that may have been gained by shooting full frame. 
While shallow DOF works for still images, when used in situations where the subject is moving it quickly becomes a distraction. It makes it hard to draw the viewers attention to the subject matter, as the focus is just too narrow. You end up directing their view to eyelash vs eye, as opposed to face vs hand. I find myself stopping down to F4 to kill the effect. But then you can say bye bye to any lowlight advantages.
I think there is a reason that the vast majority of productions are shot with S35. Let's not kid ourselves into thinking it's because these production houses are somehow "unaware" of full frame... or that they could not afford to shoot full frame. The reason they don't shoot full frame is because they don't want to... plain and simple. They understand that the DOF is too distracting... so it hurts the story... and everything is supposed to support the story. That is after-all the whole point. The production only exist to tell the story. They also know that any field of view advantage of shooting full frame is irrelevant if they are shooting with anamorphic lenses... which is always an option when you have a real budget. 
I'm going to post a quick video that is an attempt at some cinematic shots... again comparing the Z6 to the 1DXMk2. It was not my intention to demonstrate the difference that the shallower DOF produces, and truthfully, at first I didn't notice it. I only saw the bokeh. But once you see it... you just can't unsee it. 
Like many here I'm trying to learn and understand the art of story telling. So this has been very enlightening for me. While I believe FF may have its place for use in cinema, I suspect it's not a look that most are going to embrace as their mainstay. 

I'm going to share some insight with you. After using the Z6 some more... under very controlled conditions, I can reveal the following: when it nails the shot, if you are close to the subject... within two or three feet,  and if you are shooting at f1.8... to let the light in,  it can be distracting. Why? Because in all honesty,  the DOF is just too shallow. So much so that the entire face of a subject cannot be in focus.  The solution to this is to stop down. But this means sacrificing the blurred backgrounds and giving up any lowlight advantage that may have been gained by shooting full frame. 
While shallow DOF works for still images, when used in situations where the subject is moving it quickly becomes a distraction. It makes it hard to draw the viewers attention to the subject matter, as the focus is just too narrow. You end up directing their view to eyelash vs eye, as opposed to face vs hand. I find myself stopping down to F4 to kill the effect. But then you can say bye bye to any lowlight advantages.
I think there is a reason that the vast majority of productions are shot with S35. Let's not kid ourselves into thinking it's because these production houses are somehow "unaware" of full frame... or that they could not afford to shoot full frame. The reason they don't shoot full frame is because they don't want to... plain and simple. They understand that the DOF is too distracting... so it hurts the story... and everything is supposed to support the story. That is after-all the whole point. The production only exist to tell the story. They also know that any field of view advantage of shooting full frame is irrelevant if they are shooting with anamorphic lenses... which is always an option when you have a real budget. 
I'm going to post a quick video that is an attempt at some cinematic shots... again comparing the Z6 to the 1DXMk2. It was not my intention to demonstrate the difference that the shallower DOF produces, and truthfully, at first I didn't notice it. I only saw the bokeh. But once you see it... you just can't unsee it. 
Like many here I'm trying to learn and understand the art of story telling. So this has been very enlightening for me. While I believe FF may have its place for use in cinema, I suspect it's not a look that most are going to embrace as their mainstay. 

Funny the thumbs down with no comments. Truth must hurt? Some idiot actually tried to get that video removed from YouTube with a phony copyright violation claim. Unfortunately for them, it was cleared by YouTube.... but hey, nice try. 
Honestly, I wanted to love the Nikon for video, but in practice it’s AF is weak, in both stills and video. The competition has improved... the X-T3 beats the Z6. The Sony performs better than the Z6 under most conditions... but nothing comes close to the 1DXMK2; it can actually hold focus better than is humanly possible.

If i were you, a 1DX2 & C200 owner.. i'd definitely pick EOS R over Z6 as your mirrorless C-cam. No brainer even.
I think you will find this video test very relevant & informative:
Regarding AF i must agree with him that the transitions aren't as smooth as on C line (or 1DX2) but accuracy and low light AF performance is on par if not better.
IQ wise EOS R provides a very high bitrate ALL-I codec which results in a nice thick image consistent with 1DC/5D4/1DX2. Rolling Shutter is imo its biggest caveat.

Funny the thumbs down with no comments. Truth must hurt? Some idiot actually tried to get that video removed from YouTube with a phony copyright violation claim. Unfortunately for them, it was cleared by YouTube.... but hey, nice try. 
Honestly, I wanted to love the Nikon for video, but in practice it’s AF is weak, in both stills and video. The competition has improved... the X-T3 beats the Z6. The Sony performs better than the Z6 under most conditions... but nothing comes close to the 1DXMK2; it can actually hold focus better than is humanly possible.

The “Cine look” has nothing to do with resolution. I also believe sharpness has less impact on cinematic aesthetics than one may believe. It’s more about lighting, mood and camera motion. And I might add, how to move the camera is an exact science, if you want a cinematic result. Just as there are basic guidelines for framing a shot, shutter angle, fps; there are also guidelines for panning speed and how to move the camera to avoid unpleasant stutters that result from using the slower 24 fps... which is not really 24 FPS... because TVs don’t play back at 24 FPS.
The Cine look is not dead. The Cine look is expensive if one lacks the knowledge of how to produce it. Barring financial resources the only recourse is investing time and energy into learning the art. But very few are willing to actually devote the required time and work to do this. 
Most give up, and then try to justify their decision with absurd statements like, “the Cine look is dead”. When what really died was their willingness to forge ahead and master the art.
There’s no shame in giving up on art of creating cinema. There is a whole world outside of the lens. I just shoot for fun. If anyone likes what I shoot great! But if no one does I really don’t care that much. It’s just about capturing precious moments and having fun?

You guys seem surprised a $6K flagship camera beast like 1DXII trumps base level mirrorless cams..?!
That said, EOS R does hold an advantage over it with the inclusion of peaking, focus guides, canon log, 10-bit out, EVF, MP4 codec, flip out screen & light weight.
Not bad for a third of the price if you ask me. Of course 1DX2 excels in other areas, but at this point I'd wait for the rumored Mark 3 for ultimate Canon DSLR.
If anything though this makes a strong case for Dual Pixel AF still holding the crown over the competition which some like to claim have "caught up".