ac6000cw

If you stare at them for hours and hours then you start to notice differences and they start to look normal.
That's how all the YT "cinematic" content now looks nothing like cinema.
I just watched Kill Bill 1 again, and yeah, it might as well be a different universe...


When the people who can create any image they like with virtually unlimited budget create images like these - contrasty and punchy and not sharp in the slightest, then the people who are pixel peeing the 6K cameras aren't even playing the same game.

But how much of that is due to relatively small differences in brightness, contrast and saturation (all of which can be adjusted in post and usually in-camera by tweaking the picture profiles)?
We are all used to colours changing due to natural lighting variation, and most people are drawn to bright, colourful, vibrant scenes - which is why the 'standard' profile on cameras is often relatively high in contrast and saturation to produce 'punchy' looking stills and video.
When comparing cameras (if I'm thinking about buying one), I'm much more concerned about unnatural image distortions, like aliasing, moire (especially the false-colour variety), compression artefacts (e.g. banding and blockiness) and noise - because those can be distracting and not as easily dealt with later.

I should have qualified my comment to say that it only related to my personal preference using 10-bit HLG and OMLog400 from the OM-1 - I've never used HLG or Log from other cameras. I'd actually prefer to shoot in a modified version of one of the standard picture profiles on the OM-1, but they are not available in 10-bit mode - HLG or Log are the only choices.
It's interesting how different the log transfer curves can be on different brands and cameras (scroll down the pages to the step chart images) e.g.
OM-1 - https://www.optyczne.pl/59.3-Inne_testy-OM_System_OM-1_-_test_trybu_filmowego_Użytkowanie.html
GH6 - https://www.optyczne.pl/62.3-Inne_testy-Panasonic_Lumix_GH6_-_test_trybu_filmowego_Użytkowanie.html
A6700 - https://www.optyczne.pl/79.3-Inne_testy-Sony_A6700_-_test_trybu_filmowego_Użytkowanie.html
FX3 - https://www.optyczne.pl/46.3-Inne_testy-Sony_FX3_-_test_trybu_filmowego_Użytkowanie.html
R7 - https://www.optyczne.pl/65.3-Inne_testy-Canon_EOS_R7_-_test_trybu_filmowego_Użytkowanie.html
C70 - https://www.optyczne.pl/48.3-Inne_testy-Canon_EOS_C70_-_test_kamery_Użytkowanie.html
S5ii - https://www.optyczne.pl/70.3-Inne_testy-Panasonic_Lumix_S5_II_-_test_trybu_filmowego_Użytkowanie.html
XH2 - https://www.optyczne.pl/66.3-Inne_testy-Fujifilm_X-H2_-_test_trybu_filmowego_Użytkowanie.html

...or you could just create your own flat/pseudo log transfer characteristic in-camera by adjusting a standard picture profile (e.g. contrast, saturation, highlight/shadow curves) to give you a compromise SOOC/gradable format that fits your needs?

If you want useable SOOC video that looks reasonable when played directly, but which has high DR for grading if you want to, you could try shooting in 10-bit HLG?
It's a compromise format that is designed to provide decent looking video on non-HDR displays, and full HDR on HDR-capable displays - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_log–gamma . Note it uses Rec. 2020 colour space/gamut, so the colours will be distorted to some extent on a Rec. 709 display.
KnightsFan said: 
...and I've also tried grading HLG (from my OM-1) and found it OK.
I think Log is better for grading (than HLG), but Log is not very usable as SOOC video (unless you really like watching low-contrast/saturation video!).

...with a lot of makeup, lighting, and color correction.
Definitely true, which is why I also said that I don't believe any mainstream brand is objectively better than others. Most of the people posting here have said that in one way or another.

I agree - especially the last point.
SRV1981 - 'Content is King'.  Without decent, interesting content your audience is not going to care about image quality differences because they've stopped watching the movie. If the content is good, they won't be noticing the quality differences because they're engrossed in the story instead.
As an example, I recently posted a video on my (niche, railfan orientated) YT channel using content I recorded 20-25 years ago on 720x576, 50i DV tape-based camcorders. The picture quality is terrible by today's standards (it's noisy, low resolution, has bad colour bleed, poor DR etc.). But the historical content, getting the most out of the ambient sound and keeping the editing reasonably fast-paced seems to have been popular and it's had over 500 views in 4 weeks. Which is pretty good for my channel. I've got other videos on the channel that I thought looked pretty good and were shot in 4k but have only had 60 views in a year...
Below is a still from the editor timeline - note the burnt-out sky, the purple fringing along edge of the canopy, the over-saturated orange patch turning into red, the jaggies on the diagonals and the lack of resolution (and typical western Ireland wet weather!). No pixel-peeping needed to spot the technical defects 🙂

I've never used AF. Most shoots there are 2 people on camera, so someone pulls focus with a wireless unit. And I can pull focus for myself if not.
Any log format that is supported by Resolve's color is ideal. I haven't used everything out there so I'm not going to try to give brand generalizations. Honestly the NX1 was the camera that gave me the best results SOOC, but I can't recommend a discontinued series from 10 years ago. The S5 works really well for me now. The XT3 was great, but if I recall correctly there were issues with FLog in Resolve for a while, so I almost always used HLG and was happy with it.
I haven't shot with any modern blackmagic cameras, but I from what I see in other people's footage, they have the best color with their end-to-end color management. Again, that's not personal experience.
If you need to get good Rec709 color SOOC I'm not the best reference, as everything I've ever shot has had time for coloring.
Another factor that maybe I should state explicitly is that Resolve is the only color software that I like. Assuming you're using a decently nice camera with color management, good software will speed up the color process more than the difference between Sony FX6 and Canon C70.

A film-making version of the 'No-one ever got fired for buying IBM' (computers) situation 🙂
I do wonder if some of that is driven by fear of jobs disappearing (despite the availability of much lower cost tools - e.g. cameras and editing software - having hugely expanded the overall 'moving image' production market).

In my experience, the internet has a very skewed view of which brands offer the best colour science.
Millions of folks on the internet will tell you that Canon has the best colour, and recently Fuji is in the game with their film emulation presets, but I think this is just confirmation bias in action.
All manufacturers have very high quality colour.
Even Sony, who used to have the most "accurate" colour and looked very unappealing, have turned it around and now have pretty nice colour.
The other great myth is that great colour comes from the camera, it doesn't.
Great colour comes from production design, lighting, and colour grading.
Here is a thread where I show that it's the work in post that makes the images pop.
After reading your recent posts and threads about one aspect of cameras or other, I have some bad news for you...  you can't buy good images.
Good images come from skill, not equipment.  Great images come from skill and large amounts of hard work.

I sincerely don't think their is much money in pure cinema cameras. Most of the money would come from the likes of the Fx3, fx6, Fx9 type of cameras, that would sell tens of thousands, rather than a few thousands at best. RED revenue was like 158 millions USD. That is peanuts from a 4.5/5 billions USD revenue company like Nikon. 
They are more trying using the brand name for the whole product line as a minimum. Their might be special version of the Cinema z8-z9 with RED raw etc, or the whole line uses it. Nikon knows that video is as important as photo in a photo camera today. This moves put them higher than even the likes of Canon in terms of branding. Tomorrow Nikon will be able to put "The Flash" or "Dr Strange" or "The Squid Game" on their marketing material.
Both companies could also share technologies. Tomorrow Red could launch a Komodo/Raptor with state of the art Ibis and autofocus, to compete with Sony Fx6 to Burano, Venise. Sony which has been their main competitor. And we might see some of those global shutter sensors either shared between the cameras on some models, or some specific model for Nikon still. 

Jannard (now 74) retired from RED five years ago - https://h4vuser.net/t/everything-changes/10600 - so I very much doubt he'd want an executive role anyway.
I suspect that Nikon saying that Jannard and Land are now 'close advisors' is mostly about trying to reassure RED users that the RED philosophy isn't going to change overnight.
 

There's some statistics up to 2019 here - https://stephenfollows.com/digital-vs-film-on-hollywood-movies/

There's some statistics up to 2019 here - https://stephenfollows.com/digital-vs-film-on-hollywood-movies/

I've never acted myself, but I used to be heavily involved doing backstage work for amateur drama groups (lighting, sound, scenery building etc.) so I've seen a lot of amateur acting go both well and badly.
I think acting to an inanimate camera is probably quite difficult - the interaction and extra adrenalin provided by an audience often really helps. I've been at dress rehearsals where at the end you think 'Oh dear...it's miles off being ready', but the first night performance with an audience is 200% better.
People seeing the performance/movie for the first time don't know the script or the movements, so as long as you stay 'in character' when things go wrong you can often ad-lib your way out of mistakes. But dropping out of character immediately says 'I've messed up'. I've worked on shows where sizeable chunks of the script have been skipped by an actor but the cast have held it together and got away with it.
Remind yourself you're doing it for fun (I assume), so relax - it'll come out better if you're not worrying about every detail while you're performing.
 
 

So an update, if anyone's interested. I shot the first scene, which was made up of 5 distinct shots. They came out OK. They were... competent, but only that. The lighting was good - nice contrast, nice colours, well-motivated, but that's all.
Can you tell I'm dissatisfied?
I was so focussed on getting everything 'right' that I didn't pay enough attention to getting it good or interesting.
So I'm going to reshoot and one of the things I'm going to do is lean in to the limitations I have - first among which is that I'm doing this almost completely alone. I am both crew and talent! The biggest limitation caused by that is that camera movement while I'm on screen is not going to happen, which means that to create interest I need to make my angles and composition more interesting.
Also, the lighting as I did it the other night looked, basically, like a commercial, not a movie, so now I'm happy with my ability to get decent levels etc, I'm going to really try to push the envelope with ratios and temperatures and try to have some fun with it.
Once I've reshot I may post both versions for comment before I continue with the remaining scenes (it's going to take a while to complete the whole project given that I work full-time and my main set is our kitchen, which is in near-constant use as my 3 children attempt to bankrupt me purely through food costs!).

If you prefer the 'look' from a particular camera, then I guess you should buy that one...
But as soon as you take it outdoors under a broken cloudy sky and press the record button, the angle, intensity and colour of the ambient light will be constantly changing, giving you an ever changing palette of 'looks' that you didn't ask for... which as Kye suggested above you'll have to adjust for in post anyway to get a cohesive 'look'.
(I was once on the top of a mountain pass, looking down a wide valley, in the aftermath of a storm the day before. The fast moving thick clouds meant it would change from bright sunshine to deep shadow every few seconds. It produced very dramatic lighting - and some nice stills and video - but setting camera exposure settings was almost a lottery...)

Something that people tend to forget is that products will have a performance tolerance range (nothing is perfect) so if you tested say 100 nominally identical cameras there would be performance and 'calibration' differences between them. I suspect that at the low-price end of things, per-unit testing doesn't go much beyond functional tests with a few basic performance tests and adjustments, with more detailed performance testing only done on a random sample basis (to check/ensure ongoing production quality). As chip datasheets often say about some spec parameters - 'performance guaranteed by design' i.e. we don't production test this performance parameter, or 'not 100% tested' i.e. we only do random sample testing of this. The 'analog' performance of image sensors, in terms of things like noise levels will vary - so you might be lucky and get a camera with a better than average sensor or unlucky and get a worse one - but most will be close to average.
Consumer/Prosumer cameras are not intended to be calibrated scientific instruments (and supplied with 'traceable' calibration certificates as a consequence), so it doesn't surprise me that the same nominal exposure settings can produce different results on different cameras (especially between brands). Lenses can also have noticeable performance differences between samples of the same lens (de-centering is a common problem) - Lensrentals have highlighted this in some of the articles on their website.

Yeah - as kye said, ISO is not invariant between cameras.  In theory, it should be - as the name implies, there is actually an ISO standard (ISO 12232) for how sensitivity of a digital medium should be measured (and before it, there was one for how sensitivity of film should be measured), but either the digital spec is insufficiently exact or different manufacturers just choose to ignore some or all of it.
This is one of the reasons that side by side camera shootouts tend to devolve to pointless arguments and bickering in the comment section.  There are too many variables.  Similarly, the t-stops marked on different cinema lenses aren't fully consistent between vendors in how much light they transmit.  I haven't found them to be radically different (not nearly as much as with f-stops!), but there can be noticeable differences.

Tony Northrup did a video, probably over a decade ago now, comparing ISO between cameras and found that in the same exact situation different cameras give different exposures at the same ISO, up to almost a stop.  IIRC his test was meticulous using the same lens etc and he was shooting RAW, so there was no in-camera processing etc.
His conclusion?
It doesn't matter...  because of all the reasons people have posted above.

I agree with the comments from Kye and bjohn.
I think you're getting a bit obsessive about small differences in DR, which in real world usage are unlikely to be significant (or that you'd notice after editing the footage).
The two cameras are a bit chalk vs cheese anyway - one is hybrid-targeted, with a higher res sensor, mechanical shutter, a viewfinder, and more control wheels. The other is much more a dedicated video camera with (in theory) better on-board audio, fewer control dials, no viewfinder etc.
When you are using a camera, I think things like how comfortable is to hold, how easy it is to operate the controls, how good the stabilisation is, can you customise the operation of the buttons and dials to suit your way of doing things etc., are far more important than small differences in performance. As an example, I held an A6700 in my hands a few days ago, and found it quite awkward to reach the 'record' button without moving my right hand from (for me) it's natural position on the grip. On my G9 and OM-1 I have the record function programmed to one of the front custom buttons (between the grip and the lens mount), which are under my fingertips when I've got my right hand around the grip.
If you're at the stage where you are seriously considering buying the A6700, FX30 or ZV-E1, either try and get to a store where you can hold them in your hands, or make sure you buy from a place where you can return it without a problem - you might really like it when it arrives, or the opposite....

As an electronics design engineer who has spent a large a proportion of my career designing video processing and transmission equipment, I find it almost unbelievable how bad the video image processing can be in some hybrid cameras sometimes. For example, look at the amount of false colour and aliasing there is in the FHD from the Sony A6600 versus the (four year older) Pana GX8 in the image below (grabbed from this DPReview video test chart )

Sony has much improved the false colour situation in the recent A6700, but aliasing is still an issue (full test chart ) :

I well understand the issues of heat and power consumption in small battery powered devices, but e.g. Fuji and Panasonic can do it much better than Sony in comparable size cameras...

But objects in the footage from both cameras are the same size. If one camera is APS-C and the other is full-frame, and they were using the same lenses, those objects would not be the same size. So maybe the differences you're seeing are due to different lenses being used (or the same zoom lens on both cameras but at different focal lengths), or something was done in post. The person who did this comparison is introducing too many variables for it to be an informative test.

Most camera comparisons are pretty worthless because you're almost never compare two cameras in the real-world, and even if you are:
They'll be from different angles, so will have different content They'll be colour graded, and matching cameras that shoot LOG is pretty easy Things like DR don't matter unless the scene has huge amounts of it, but this is rare these days Videos get compressed to within an inch of their lives by the streaming services, so anything subtle will get crunched You don't need to get that close in colour in order for people to not notice different camera angles not matching perfectly Even if camera angles don't match, it only bothers people if your film is completely crap A much more significant impact on your final film will be the features of the camera, as they make a different on set in terms of efficiency of shooting and your ability to spend any time savings on lighting, directing, etc etc Trying to improve your film by concentrating on the minute differences in cameras is like trying to improve your paintings by concentrating on minute differences in your paint brushes.

If you are really worried about that, buy it and stress-test it quickly so that you can return ASAP it if you're not happy.
But if long recording times in hot environments are important to you, then you should be looking at a camera with a fan anyway (so you don't get distracted from the enjoyable creative stuff by worrying about overheating). Otherwise avoid leaving the camera out in hot direct sun/put a sunshade over it/put a white or reflective cloth over it. And turn it off when not using it, so it's not already hot before you press the record button.