bamigoreng

.

So, let me get this straight...
A forum member (who contributes a lot to this place by the way) makes a cautionary post about having two separate failures of a camera model that many people on here may be looking to buy and the response is to criticise his work ?
Are you trying to suggest he broke these cameras by virtue of taking photographs that you don't particularly like ?
Have I got that right?
That both of these cameras self destructed on the grounds of taste?
Because if you are not suggesting that then you need to accept that your contribution to this particular thread is as irrelevant as it is mean spirited.
 

Jesus, what happened to keeping criticism constructive and supportive? I came to this forum hoping to find a community of likeminded film makers interested in the new possibilities of smaller, cheaper cameras, and I stayed because of the variety and frequency of discussions. This forum always seems to be more on top of new news than others.
But lately it's all been about attacking other blogs and youtubers, denigrating your peers, and now giving really harsh and insensitive criticism to each other.
I would never post my own work in this forum now. I wouldn't expect to receive any useful criticism from a place where there are so many thin-skinned, insecure and defensive people.
Of course there are many intelligent, experienced and positive people here too, but they increasingly seem to keep their heads down these days.

Oh Gawd....don't go giving them ideas for new episodes...

Pixel peeping is alive and well I see!
Nikon Z7 is fine. It is a miracle in full frame from 8.2K down to 4K. Very nice detail level. Very good dynamic range and colour, which Max's test doesn't even touch on.
Z7 in APS-C is similar but less aliasing / stair stepping - but we are talking 4K here, so at normal viewing distances you don't even see the aliasing in full frame mode, let alone in the oversampled Super 35 mode.
The EOS R is soft. So what. It's 4K. You have more detail than you'll ever need unless cropping 4x into the image.
You wanna know why I don't do tests like this very much anymore?
1. Nobody views your film or music video at 400% crop. The absolute sharpness level in 4K means JACK SHIT. What you want is a soft stable cinematic image - not hard digital sharpness. In fact it's an *advantage* to have a softer image for YouTube, when the player is scaling it down to fit any number of screen resolutions - especially a 1080p screen. It looks more natural when people view it downscaled or even on a 4K TV from normal viewing distances. In the first case the downscaling works badly with a digitally sharper, harder image vs a softer, more cinematic one. In the second case the natural downscaling from the human eye at a longer viewing distance makes a less hard 4K image at 1:1 look more natural and less fatiguing than a "harder" image which shows more emphasised detail. We have plenty enough detail in 4K as it is, even on the EOS R and to overemphasise it, like in Max's video, is a BAD THING.
2. The test by Max claims to be about image quality when he's only testing one small aspect of it and not even very well. He's actually looking 90% at the sharpening levels in the menus, rather than outright performance of the image. All the cameras apply a different level of sharpening to bring out extra detail. You can dial it down or up. So what? How natural and cinematic does that fine detail look to the real viewer? That is the real question.
3. Max's video tests just one aspect of the camera and seems to imply it's 90% of what makes a good image. A wide shot of a building with constantly shifting light at dusk so that not even the lighting conditions are matched on each comparison shot. It says nothing of colour, dynamic range, skin-tones, lenses, sensor size, rolling shutter, motion cadence, codec performance, macro blocking, mud, compression, grading, bit-depth, LOG profile performance and  how easy or not it is to grade. These are the things that determine the final result. These are the important things and not ONE in isolation but ALL together.
Go back and do a proper test Max that takes you longer than half an hour... But no, he's got subscriber numbers and viewers to chase so it must be done quick!
Why the Z7 is singled out for criticism because of Max's test is beyond my understanding.
It justifies the pricing over the A7R III because it is a flat out better camera in every aspect of image quality and handling.
It justifies the pricing over the D850 because it adds video AF which actually works, gets rid of the mirror, fixes the ergonomics in live-view, shaves the pounds off and at the same time maintains the incredible video quality.

All of the IBIS systems I have seen to date seem to occasionally introduce a weird warping effect into the footage. It is unpredictable and can often times ruin otherwise great shots. I just prefer to have more control. If something it going to go wrong when I'm filming, I want it to be my fault... that way I have the power to fix it.

No zebra's and a histogram that disappears after you press record?? Did not see anyone else mentioning this up untill now. Canon crippled the camera just enough to make it clear their c-line is for video. Kai also again mentions RS and shows it, better watch quickly before he ninja-edits it out again.

That's what the network ask for  practicality and image quality. Many people don't gasp the amount of data which goes into a production. I am doing a reportage now which will be between 21-25 minutes. Just the interviews is between 2-2.5 hours, in total it might reach 5-6 hours of footage. No one wants to deal with 4x the data for just marginal gains.                                     I

I feel like that is a reasonable analysis. Canon might have gradually slipped behind everyone else, not just externally with the products they're shipping but slipped behind internally in terms of what their R&D teams are capable of. 

Thus Canon might not even be capable of matching the competition spec for spec in every area. Thus why they "gave" C log and external 10bit 422 as it was the last cards left holding to offer. 
 

It's probably a mix of both, honestly. They haven't innovated in the DSLR/Mirrorless market in a long, long time. DPAF is the exception, but they've been falling behind tech wise for so long. They have hardly even improved their 1080p over the last 8 or so years; its still a soft, muddy image even as cameras a fraction of their price produced very good 4k video. 
Between not wanting to hurt their C-line and being comfortable coasting along/not devoting resources to the DSLR/Mirrorless market, they've now found themselves behind technologically I think. I dare say that might even be the reason they ended up giving the EOS R C-Log and external 10 bit 4:2:2, because the rest of their offering was essentially dated tech based on a dated sensor that apparently isn't capable of performing at the same standards as their competitors. 

I believe in yet another theory.. that Canon was indeed in a rush to put out an MILC system around Photokina this year but simply wasn't ready as far as tech is concerned to put out a new sensor, or develop a stable IBIS system. So they did their best with existing tech and this is what came out..
I actually think Canon have learned from Sony though, and haven't held back so much in features like they used to .. Nobody was expecting EOS R to have C-Log, 10-bit 4:2:2 out, 480mbps ALL-I codec, Face detect, peaking etc.. for $2300. They even added MF Focus guides from C200 and Cinema EOS original color matrix option to match footage with C100/C300. I believe Canon's objective is to make EOS R an add-on system to your existing C line cam & DSLR. That is how they've been presenting it during launch and that's quite a logical & smart business strategy imo. 
Of course they are not pushing the barrier very far like the competition is, and in many ways EOS R is super dated feature wise.  I do applaud them for the inital pro lens line-up and the Vari-ND adapter, that's kind of a game changer.
 

Nikon Z looks the best out of the new offerings to me. I think the lenses are perfect too. 
The faster primes will be 2000$ or more I bet. How is it good to launch with lenses costing more than two grand?
F1.8 is fast enough. More importantly it keeps the lens somewhat small. 
As usual it seems many lust for bragging rights rather than practicality. 

Tell me how is Sony fanboys right at least for Nikon, oh yes that mystical Sony camera that will have better body, build/sealing, viewfinder, LCD, 10 bit, etc, etc. Everyone is making as if Nikon z7 is the only camera that Nikon has announced. While the z6 has what every reviewer are saying is better ergonomic, build, viewfinder, LCD and 10 bit out, which really makes LOG not just a marketing gimmick for the same price as a A7iii. That same camera which was herald as a game changer in terms of value to money in the FF photo video hybrid camera only six month ago. The only point of contention for now is about autofocus, DPreview goes as far as saying that the Z7 has the best video autofocus in all Dslr/MILC. OH, yes it does not has eye auto focus, I heard even if face detect works extremely well.
People on here remind me like those that are still parroting that coal, nuclear or even gas is cheaper than renewable energy because they watch news or analysis 10 years ago and they did not take 5 min to google and see that the cost was divided by ten during this time. Today, perhaps not for long until Canon (very unlikely) and Panasonic release their rumored FF MILC, have the best (might not be in everything) package for a full frame Mirror less camera video/hybrid camera in the z6.
 

One thing we do know is it won’t meed a Leeming LUT to get good color out of it.

lol 

I'm gonna call both/and here. There are no two types; we are snowflakes. We are all limited in different ways: some in our ability to master technical details, others in composition, in content, others still in understanding what makes a good image on an emotional level. There are simply an incredible number of levers to pull to create a stunning image: lens and camera choice, f/stop, filtration, lighting, subject, location, subject distance and on and on. The process is inherently imperfect and complicated by the huge number of decisions there are to make. What I like about Geoff's talk is that he doesn't choose one or the other. Yes, the talk is called "fuck the numbers," but then he goes on about an 8K scan of a classic film negative and the resolution in the chainmail of a costume in a terrible movie. Understanding the process of image-making is messy. It is a journey. Over time our attempts to master as many of these levers as possible will show on the screen but we will all have strengths and weaknesses.

Honestly really makes me want to rebuy a D750 and shoot in 1080p. 

I agree with Geoff Boyle, and this discussion is so timely for me as I am looking to buy a new camera, primarily for stills.
I've been looking at many of the portfolios from the Magnum Photographers and what strikes me is the poor technical quality of many of their images. Many are slightly out of focus, have blown highlights, low resolution or been shot on low quality cameras.
I haven't found a single mention of a camera on the Magnum Photographers web site. To them, the camera is just a tool. What counts is getting the image, capturing the moment. Creating awesome content.
I've spent hours comparing tech specs, reading reviews and comments, watching YouTube videos, trying to find the best camera and the best deal. Sure, that is important, but my time would be better spent studying great photographers and their images, and learning from them. Then grabbing almost any camera and shoot as many photos as possible to improve my technique and learn to see better.

I pretty much shoot 4K for good 1080p content. 

The short I shot on the Ursa 4.6K I was shot at 4.6K scope 4:2:2

I wish I had shot in 2K 4:4:4 instead. Especially with a 2K DCP delivery. Color and motion over Resolution every time.

My dear erstwhile member can you please stop attacking John Brawley now.
I have long since given up on camera forum arguments so might not be completely up on who is right and who is wrong-evil / killed-a-kitten, but can we tone it down a bit. It's JB! We could be learning so much and having such interesting cameras talks with a film industry guy and I am sure one of the only people with a Blackmagic Pocket 2 prototype yet instead a handful of you are just bitching. It's pointless. Even if you disagree with him on certain matters, hold your tongue a bit for the benefit of the rest of us who are interested in what he has to tell.

Keep at it Danilo, maybe write a one minute short film to propel your tests. When I got my 5D3 and started shooting ML Raw on it, I jumped into a short and I was forced to not only learn the ins and outs of the camera but also to think more about composition and light. In the end, I think it really helped. Good luck and please keep posting your progress... there aren’t many C200 owners on this site.

Maybe Nikon should build a robot with enough AI to work out how to take mirrors out of their cameras

Since almost all of use are going to have this soon, I believe it's time to rename the site  
It even has phantom power. 

AF?

Weird, after watching the video I decided that the skin tones were way too unnatural and unflattering to me.