hansel

90% of my shots are 28mm on APS-C (42mm on FF). I think I'd use a 24mm more often if I had a good one--my zooms in that range have no character.
28mm is great for wide shots if you've got enough space, but really shines for medium shots and close ups. It's not exactly "flattering," but really makes a face jump out from the background in a way that a longer lens can't. I love the DOF at f4: your eye immediately knows what's in focus, but you can still tell what's behind the blur. It guides your eye, but maintains the scene's context.
Some years ago I read this article, and I still agree with it 100%.

Yes absolutely viable but Nikon's marketing department probably doesn't even know what an anamorphic is!!

I really want Nikon Z6 to be a very successful camera, I just wished a 4K 60p internally. C'mon Nikon, surprise everyone at Z6 launch, you can do it ?
I have one question, when changing between photo and video mode, does it keep the values from each mode? I hate to keep changing  the shutter, iso, aperture when going from photo to video. And this new Nikon' Z6 is possibly my new future camera, a really hybrid camera. And then I can sell my D600 and Samsung NX1.

It looks like they're actually $4,999.00 apiece, but $7,995.00 for a set? Not 100% sure though.

Please tell me more about this anamorphic. What's the price?

Oh, i heard, that's why the earlier statements about moving the bride/groom and what not seemed even strange. If you've done wedding shots, you know the pressure. You are fully entitled to your opinion on her work, but I personally think, if you have worked in that industry, you should cut her some slack.

Knock yourself out...
http://www.riversidecreative.net
There is an imaginary featured video here... pixel peep your night away.
We said it to you because you didn't seem to understand the pressure of wedding work while slating someone's work... 

Excellent, so you can show us some work then? Which I'm sure we won't harshly and unfairly rip into with no thought to context or the conditions you worked under.

+1 I couldn't have put it better myself. Her images were a bit over-contrasty for my taste but otherwise it was great. It was in focus, smooth & she got the right shots. I haven't shot a wedding in five years but I would have been perfectly happy to deliver video like that to my clients.
@jonpais has clearly never shot a wedding nether does he any appreciation of how a wedding is shot. An assistant with a diffuser or reflector? Are you kidding? ND filters? Just crank up the shutter speed. You are shooting a live event there are no re-takes & if you miss a shot like the first kiss or the ring shot you are stuffed.
Good for her! She is making money & giving her clients what they want. She doesn't need to care about some amateur nitpicking about the quality of her work.

I mean interesting to the bride and groom though, not to filmmakers... Look at the 15 or so shots in that minireel that were form the bride and groom alone time, let's assume she had the standard 15-20 mins you get with the bride and groom... She has a nice variety of angles and compositions... good variation in locations... good, steady movement... alot of focus on the bride... some good wide shots... all the bread and butter shots like hands with rings.
Whether a filmmaking forum will swoon or not doesn't come into it... Those shots are gonna be loved by the clients and it's another $1500 in the back pocket.
I don't know if you've ever done a wedding shot, but you come out of that 15-20 minute session frazzled. To come out of it with all the classic shots is amazing in itself.... If you get 2-3 "oh wow" shots, then it's been a great day. 

...did we watch the same video? I skipped to the last few minutes just to watch her work and to see her footage, which I thought looked great -- I mean it's a wedding, you don't have the luxury of a gaffer truck and crew. She was confident in her instruction, she knew her gear and moved fast to get the maximum number of shots in a short space of time. There was a couple of shots where the background was a bit hot, but mate who cares about the background?!? Her exposure was on her couple! As it should be!

Your criticism makes me wonder if you've ever shot a wedding before, because it's a high pressure environment where you work with people you don't cast and barely know and you're at the mercy of someone else's schedule and the weather. You're on your feet all day and constantly worried about making sure you've covered everything that's happening and with enough variety for the edit, and keeping tabs on battery life and card space and where you've left your camera bag. If I had a second they'd be busy getting a second angle, not holding a reflector. Not entirely sure how you expect to see any diffusion -- to diffuse full sun for two people walking they'd be under a 20' x 12' at least, and then you'd have to worry about shadows on the ground and the wind blowing the damn thing over.

As a wedding photographer (who have also shot a few wedding highlight films) I'd be more than happy to work with her on a wedding. Definitely better than some that I've had to work with. My only criticism would be that she's simply not charging enough if she has to work 80 weddings a year, that is an express train to burnout town. 

Yep... If I had, say, 15 minutes... I'd prefer to get 15 or so interesting shots than 5 perfectly lit shots.
You do what you can do... When the budget allows for an assistant, ideal... When it doesn't, you make your decisions based on what you have gleaned in the (usually minimal) amount of time you have had with the clients. 
Anyway, the girl is making cash and probably not sat around on forums pixel peeping other people's work... Good on her.

Possibilities:
1) this was specially staged (so not normal) just for the YouTube video, and no photographer was present
2) they just framed out the photographer and didn't include in the edit
3) it doesn't matter.... even if you get a video shoot time slot which is all to yourself during a wedding (that you don't have to share with the photographer, and that is kinda unusual, especially on the low budget shoots she is doing it seems), then you're talking about mere minutes you have per pose/setting/clip you need to smash out quickly on the spot before they need to get back to the wedding. And it is highly likely she could be working alone (even if she isn't working alone, then possibly her second shooter has to stay back at the wedding venue to "hold the fort" in case any spontaneous moments pop up which they'd want filmed)
In my past as a videographer, I have shot a LOT of weddings. Usually as a B cam shooter for someone else, and it is very very rare to see lights used at a wedding on the shoots I was on. 
The exceptions:
1) a "high end" Indian wedding I worked on that a couple of dedolights were carefully used for part of
2) an old timey wedding videographer who sometimes rarely used a LED worklight (yes... from the hardware store) because her ancient Sony EX1 kinda needed it occasionally. 

Alot of these events are directed by the photographer and the lighting you need and they need are often different. They might want to be use flash, not bounce, for instance. If time is minimal, you often just have to go with what the photographer wants. Another point, there were times last year that I shot with XT2 and XT1... Some of the XT1 shots were blown out when I exposed for skin/faces... but the bride and groom actually loved those blown out shots. This happened on a few different showings. Maybe this videographer has also come across this and is doing it purposefully? (I don't see anything particularly terrible in any of that footage, decisions have to be made on something like the 1DXii, with 10 or so stops)

Certain a show highlight. There will be a whole article coming with that in. Berlin airport security - "What is this hand-made device with wires?" You... "It's a wireless trigger!"
*Airport security stares even more suspiciously*

One of the biggest advantage of Full Frame for me is that you can use those super versatile F4 zoom on your camera for 99% of the shots. I intend to get the 24-70 F4 which will cover 80-90% of normal use when you counter in APSC mode. Something like the 24-120 Nikon would be a 24-180 with the Apsc mode and would cover 99% of my need for reportage shooting. The big advantage is that F4 on a full frame is like f 2.8 35mm cinema dof, so you still have plenty of shallow DOF. The second advantage is shooting in LOG format which is generally 800 ISO. To get proper ND to shoot at these high ISO during daytime is very very costly. You would need to close down your aperture again to at least F4 and F5.6 and the Full frame would again get you better DOF control.
Nice, thats the guy who did Nikon music video, shoulder rest rig, no stab. What I like is the rack focus in some of those shots, very organic.
 
Nice

I'm not sure if the lack of adjustable screen is due to it being a 'cinema' camera where the world is expected to bend around the camera instead of the other way around, or if it was a size or cost measure, but the idea of it being a 'cinema' thing fits with the great attention and effort towards image specs and (relative) lack of effort towards ergonomics for hand-holding.
I must say that as someone who shoots in whatever conditions I am given, a tilt screen is worth a huge amount to me, enabling up to a third or half of my shots, either with a low angle or a high angle to get over the heads of the other tourists in front of me!
We're really seeing a merging of devices with cinema camera specs in an almost DSLR form-factor meeting DSLR and mirrorless cameras with video specs almost at cinema camera standards, but the two haven't merged yet.
It'll only be when we get a camera that shoots RAW but also has IBIS and a half-decent grip that we'll have achieved unification.
I'm waiting for that day eagerly!

Without mention, daylight. C'mon, we are not all vampires LOL : -)

Yeah other than DoF control Needing a fast lens for low light is a thing of the past anymore with most newer cameras. And even f 4.0 is not too shabby on a FF camera DoF wise. Why haul around a heavy big lens unless you are doing some damn specific shots. And then you need to be on a tripod locked off to ensure it is in focus to hit the mark. You aren't hand holding a f 0.95 lens and hoping it gets the shot! Also you would have to be in a coal mine or have ND's to stay with the 180 rule. But nobody ever said video was cheap or easy to do. ?

F4 on full frame is pretty good tbh, for most situations. Especially when you can use 6400 and 12800 iso.

As much as f/2 on MFT or f/2.4 on APS-C
(Fuji users tend to appreciate their 16-55mm f/2.8... but I second that one, man ; )
In any case, my 24-105 f/4 is one of my favs ever : -)

Some AF video stabilization test. I those videos, the AF looks very very good (I mean as if using tripod), stabilization looks very good  from a standpoint but I dont know what to say about the only walking I saw. It doesn't look good, but I don't know if someday I would walk like this shooting a video. People who have been using more IBIS might have a better idea if it is good or bad.
In this one you have those walking stabilized shots, AF sometime is sick in this thing
 
another more general video test of z7
 

With all cameras, from every manufacturer, escalating in quality, I’m surprised Red and Arri hasn’t released a sub $3000 cinema camera. I remember Arri talked about a S16 B&W camera they were going to make for young filmmakers but that never materialized. If Arri came out with a digital BL, even in B&W only, I would be all over it.

Tried a Z7 today. It feels extremely good. Also the 24-70 lens feels great, better than my Fujinon 16-55 2.8. All the buttons and controls feel incredibly good. The joystick and AF ON button are in perfect place and well sized. Usable with winter gloves. The shutter release feels fantastic. The sound of the shutter is also really great. If the Z6 feels as good, which it should considering the body is exactly the same, it’s a home run. 
Pre-ordered.