hansel

Well, after finally putting a card in it and doing some shooting, my advice would be that if you venture outdoors with it, take an EVF or run the risk of having to buy a neck brace on the way home.
On the upside if you get caught it in a downpour, put the camera in record for 5 minutes and you will have a very functional hand warmer and hairdryer combo.

Hilarious, I wish the p4k would have been in some kind of flat profile “factory setting” and he would have complained about the contrast of the image and no apparent sharpness.
This test was an eyesore and a waste of my time! This is going full loop back to that camera blogger reviewers thread, I mean what is he doing on yt even talking about cameras, I dearly wish for him his intention is to sell Sony or what not otherwise he has to be simply trolling.

Man, I knew I appreciate your insights. But you took exactly my thoughts this time when I watched it, even before this thread to have popped up. So I guess we cannot go wrong, both of us, in any way whatsoever... ; -)

I am sorry i did not mean to critique your brofriend
The problem I have is that it's incomplete. There's no telling what sharpness was dialled into each picture profile. That makes a ton of difference.
There's no telling what the hell he did to the zoomed shots.
The EOS R just does not look like that at 100% crop. He's turned into absolute mush when you view this full screen (click it to enlarge)...

What codec settings? He doesn't say.
Was it IPB or ALL-I?
What bit-rate?
Did he shoot RAW or ProRes on the Pocket?
Did he compare the sharpness in the LOG profiles as well? Nope. That's how most filmmakers will use these cameras... In LOG! (Or at least Flat on the Nikon)
Nothing personal but I just didn't rate it.
And on top of all that, it's just pixel peeping. Overall results and cinematic quality matter more than resolution.

Well if the other tests are like the frist one... Will he compare the dynamic range from 10bit log on the fuji with 8bit internal Vivid picturestyle on the nikon? Who knows...

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.

This sharpness test video is fucked.

Wistia seems like a much better alternative:
https://premium.wpmudev.org/blog/why-we-moved-from-vimeo-pro-to-wistia-and-why-you-should-too/
I agree - but... vimeo is just using amazon for their storage.  but yea, the cost of it all is probably insane
this is funny
https://melmagazine.com/en-us/story/the-best-pornhub-videos-that-dont-have-any-porn-in-them
 

the thing is: if these companies, youtube for example, applied these rules to EVERYONE, fairly, the same way, at least i could say, "Well thats just how they are"
but thats not the case at all!!!
if i upload a video – im making one right now – with a copyrighted song that i fairly have no right to upload, it *might* be chosen for monetization by the record label, it *might* be just barred from being uploaded, deleted, who knows?
this is all fun and games until they delete your ENTIRE ACCOUNT. i feel SO bad for people who have wrongly had their channels removed... all that work, all that THEY DID FOR YOUTUBE, all the views, comments, the community interaction, all that shit youtube loves – all gone. no appeal, no process to do anything. its just gone
i recently went through a dmca takedown request due to an a-hole i know who stole my video, and from what ive gathered, if you have a corporate email address (yes) they take you way more seriously, if you "represent a business" they take you way more seriously, and as a lone creator, they dont give  a single fuck about you (shocking)
i got what i wanted because i pursued the issue, but thats emailing a robot
amazingly, you get virtually the same "customer service" from vimeo, despite the fact that you have to PAY them for your account~!
AMAZIN!!!!

Maybe "gear porn" would count???

Vanilla. 

update: OMG pornhub has a sfw category

Would be brilliant to share seriously cinematic footage on pornhub. Wonder if they have a "only porn" sharing policy?

Oh I dunno... I took my Sony PMW-F3 across toWaiheke Island for New Years Eve. The F3 can be a "vaction camera" too ?
 

 
 

Good point. Just speculating here but it might also be part of a terms of settlement or something whereby they are forced to impose these rules. Seems fairly draconian otherwise. Vimeo is a no go anyway because u can't even stream in 1080p without constant interruptions. 

Hard to beat though with this disruptive actual price range now for 4K RAW.
BMD is rocking for such department matter : )
They are now who RED promised to be a decade ago : -)

Yeah I saw that on the BBC iPlayer the other day. Was surprisingly tough questioning - he clearly knows his cameras!! I honestly hadn't expected it from a BBC tech journalist, but he was giving the Canon guy exactly the kind of hard-time I would have done!!

A minor segway for people who wonder why the hell anyone would shoot on nikon still: I was editing stuff from my last shoot yesterday. Interior shot exposed for the exterior sky (so there was just a tiny bit of data in the blue channel).  Flat profile on nikon d5500, as flat as possible on the gx85.  Blue skies recoverable from both shots, interior on the gx85 absolutely unrecoverable, no problems on the d5500 (and if only they had a decent codec it could be pushed much further).  I dont know how the gh5 and log will compare, but the *usable* dynamic range on the nikons is still better than I've seen in this segment.  
I love my nikon gear, I also want them to be around in 10 years time :/

I did say 'studiously' to be fair.
I was acknowledging that the kids with the dslrs are being a lot more thoughtful but I'm doubting over the longer term (which is a very short term in modern terms) whether the way in which the images are consumed and how those images are now so closely aligned with people's 'brand' and often sense of worth will see ordinary cameras largely disappear if it can't hit that functionality.
Consumer's photographic workflows with smartphones mimic a live editorial press photographer's workflow (and actually surpass it in both speed of delivery and distribution) and I think that speaks volumes about where photography is in people's lives. Its a bit of a chicken and egg as to which one drove the other but whichever way round it was, its the new reality and its tough to fit 'normal' cameras into that.
And thats not necessarily a bad thing of course but it does mean that photography is heading back to the tinkering in the shed and borderline trainspotting hobby it had become before the digital boom
Within their market - and they do know their market - it will do well because it will be a fine camera. 
How long that market is there and how big it is compared to what it was and what the potential is to bring new people in to it is another matter I think.
How many dollars of market research Nikon need to spend on incremental upgrades that are largely preaching to the choir is an interesting issue I suppose. It might well be that that market research has told them to stick with what they know, reduce costs and increase margins on a shrinking sector. 
I dunno, I use their stuff and have for nearly 40 years. We've grown old together. And thats probably a problem for both of us.
 

Excellent start, and +1 for more videos!!
Everybody on YT has had a go at making a how-to for travel film-making and somehow basically none of them get past having an ND filter and buying their LUT.  ???
I'd love to hear about getting close to people, as well as all the artistic elements that also never get spoken about.  Why you chose one shot instead of another shot in the final edit, how you colour graded to match the location instead of the latest trend, how you choose which places to go, when to use drone footage moving forwards vs backwards, how all that contributes to the story-telling, etc etc.

I just created the first video of hopefully more about how to create a Good Travel Video. All based on my experiences and past, but wanted to see if you guys/gals had any thoughts around things that you would want to see and if you are even interested at all??
 

People often say that post-production is finished when the deadline is reached or the funding runs out and you send what you have (!), but in a sense this is also not true because the goal is different
As you say, for a TV ad you would do more in post than a doc, but in a sense that's appropriate for the story too - an ad normally has to setup a context, a need/want, and a solution, and do so in such a way that you identify with both the problem and also the benefits of their suggested solution, quite a trick in only seconds.  This requires more manipulation and therefore much more careful construction, both in post with editing, sound design, colours, as well as in pre and prod when the right set design, camera angles, script, must be chosen and then executed.
If you're working on a doc then there's a heap more footage and therefore less money-per-second to spend in post, but this also works for the genre as the goal is probably only to create footage that matches reality enough to be believable or to nudge us subtly into how we perceive people and their motives etc.  
Of course, a long video with heaps of post-processing is called a "feature film" ???
I would suggest that actually the P4K is probably a fine choice for any of these if you've got a small production, just like most modern cameras.  If you were shooting an ad you might shoot RAW for the flexibility in post (if you were going to heavily process it or do VFX or green screen), shooting a doc might be good because 1080 prores would be lovely to edit with and scrubbing through footage to find good bytes would be painless, and an amateur / indy might shoot a feature in RAW or prores knowing that they are going to do lots of VFX or post work, and have the time to do so because it's a passion project not paid work.
It's not the best camera in the world for everything, certainly, but it is relatively flexible and suits many circumstances, especially if you have a lower budget but still want a big image.
IIRC the P4K can record internally while sending video to an external recorder at the same time?  If so, that's the perfect way to record the master and proxy footage at the same time too, eliminating a time-hungry step from post.

@kye thanks! I know where you are coming from now.
I guess it's the question when a picture/clip is truly finished and different reasoning can be applied for this. E.g. For an 10sec tv ad you would go do a complex grade and effects etc. while on a runngun doc with interviews it is just not sensible to do so for different reasons, and p4k is probably not the right tool anyways.
I guess it's exactly the same for photos in that sense. 
 

None really.

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