foliovision

If you use any EOSHD color settings you should always use the luts that are included and/or follow the instructions.
If you're planning to use filmconvert it's best to shoot in unmodified profiles that are supported. Take a look at the different combinations for the A73 like "S Log 2 + Pro" or whatever they have and stick to those.
But for the footage you already have why not download some canon and sony profiles and just see which one works best for you?

I have it and its much faster than the old version in resolve, I have realtime playback and the old version I did not.

He wasn't comparing it to a cheap Sony lens, but a very expensive E Mount lens:
 
 

Cheers, then we leave it there and I don't have to waste my time either explaining to gethin or others why I bothered with the sidetrack of editorial integrity. Back to lenses.
I am primarily a stills photographer that sometimes work with video. I make very large prints for walls and/or publications. My knowledge and experience in photography is substantial. My knowledge and experience in video is limited. 
When considering the development of where lenses for still cameras (that can shoot video) are going the trend seems pretty clear. The large and heavy Otus lenses, the large and heavy but less expensive Sigma Art lenses, the Tokina Opera lenses as well as the lenses released for the Leica SL and for the Panasonic S1. Highly corrected optics that render incredible amounts of detail only necessary for prints or heavy cropping. In my experience, a sharp lens is as important as the sensor for large prints. 
I'm not a fan of the huge and heavy 1.4 lenses from Sony, Panasonic, Leica or the Canon RF 1.2 or the upcoming Nikkor 1.2. Not for general use. Sure I would have use for them in some situations, just as I would with a tilt shift lens or a telephoto, but for general use? No. A single focal length prime weighing around 800 grams or more is a specialised lens.  
As a much longed for contrast to the enormous and expensive 50mm 1.4 lenses we have the excellent Zeiss Batis line, the f2 series for Leica SL, and the Nikkor S 1.8 primes and compact zooms. Smaller, lighter and less expensive but without compromising optical quality. They're typically around 400 grams or lighter, while also being far less expensive and smaller. 
The Nikkor 50/1.8S is nothing short of a game changer. It's Zeiss Otus level optics for 600$!  I've made prints from the 50mm 1.8G, the 50mm 1.8D and a bunch of manual fokus Nikkors, especially the excellent 55mm 2.8 micro ais. Stop the G lens down to 5.6 and its still not even close, the corners never catch up. The 55 micro has good sharpness across the image plane but not as good as the 50S. I can comfortably work at f2 with the S lens and still outperform older Nikons. There is no comparison.
This would be remarkable enough, but then I also get top level weather-sealing, silent and fast autofocus, practical build with high grade plastics and build quality that puts Fujifilm to shame. Certainly better than the D lenses and personally I prefer them to G. The 50S is 400$ cheaper than the comparable Sony 55 f1.8 but the Nikkor is the better lens. The only other lenses I can think of in the same size class is the Batis 40mm f2 and the Leica SL 50mm f2, both quite a bit more expensive.
The cheaper Sony 50mm is not on the same playing field at all. Neither the older Nikon 50's. It's laughable when I keep reading you can buy the 50 1.8G for 200$. Yeah? It's a crap lens in comparison. Doesn't mean its useless, just means it's not comparable and in my opinion the 50S offers far better value for money too.  
More or less the same is true for the 24-70/2.8S and the 35/1.8S. The 24-70/2.8S is apparently amazing while the 14-30/4 stomps all over the old 16-35/4G while being practical and small. For this reason, the optical performance together with the small size, low cost and practical features in comparison with other modern lenses, the S lenses are the best reason to buy a Z camera. There is not one bad lens (contrast with early Sony years). Over half a year in and I'm still ecstatic with what I get from these lenses. 
Doesn't mean I don't enjoy or want lenses with "magic sauce" or character. But there's endless lenses I can adapt to get that. I don't wan't my main workhorse lenses to have quirks. They should be as sharp as possible, with as little distortion as possible, to produce an image that is as transparent as possible, and that allows me to do anything from an instagram post to 1.5 meter wide prints. 
So the statement that S lenses aren't good I don't understand. I agree that non-linear electronic focus is a huge pain, but otherwise I'm not sure. I love using my 500CM which puts the haptic experience of any contemporary camera except Leica to sorry shame. The S lenses don't have head-line making specs like the RF glass. But for me, and I think for many, the S lenses are a lot more practical, offering similar or better optics at a much lower cost, weight and size.
All of these modern lenses and sensors are extreme overkill for screen and social media use. All the manufacturers should release small and light lenses for 200-500$ that would be good enough for a lot of things.
   
 

Gethin, make an A2 inch print from that zhongyi and one from any of the Z lenses and see what happens. 
I don’t have the 14-30/4 but I hear it’s more than comparable to the 14-24/2.8G?
I will get back to Andrew later. I understand his perspective, but it’s a niche perspective which he doesn’t specify. He cares about very specific things, which is fine, but a reviewers viewpoint should be clear and not be made to sound like a general matter of fact. 
On the other hand, generalising and simplistic statements that stir emotions through dishonesty for the sake of clicks is the name of the game these days. 
 

whert? theres only 5 reasons, and none of them are that interesting. I only own the 14-30 f4. It's really handy, but it's not great, soft at 14, and farking expensive for a plastic focus by wire lens. And on that - what in gods name is good about it? They are a pain in the arse to fcus manually, let alone focus pull.  The 14-30 is soft enough that even zoomed all the way in focussing by wire is a nightmare. Nikon touted it's lens mount as enabling super-duper lens design, then brought out f1.8 primes and f4 zooms aimed at a consumer market. Totally batso strategy and SNAFU for nikon.  The only native z lenses I'm going to consider buying are wide, or light lenses, Because once you get over a certain size and weight, you may as well buy f-mount and keep your mounting options open (ie you can adapt them to everything else, whereas z-mount lenses are for z-cameres only). 

My lens research over the last few months has been on the
zhongyi 85mm f1.2, 50mm f0.95
laowa 10-18. 12mm zero d, 105 f2. 
sigma and nikon 105 f1.4, 
even if z versions are released, I still might consider buying e or F mount versions of these lenses because it leaves my future options open. 
If nikon had released z versions of a 12-24 f4, 16-40 f2.8, 50 f1.2 that is a similar size to it's existing f1.2 lens (with similar rendering),  and 20, 35, 85 f1.4 primes I would've looked hard at all of those.  And why not have a focus by wire option that keeps the travel of the lens ring locked to how much the focus changes? how hard can that be?
 
 

Yes I think I remember it mentioned as supported but again need to check.
I can't agree. While they are not bad lenses it doesn't make sense to invest $$$ in lenses which can't be adapted, especially ones as boring as the small Z range released so far.
I get much more value from my Canon EF lenses as they're usable on so much.
Whereas E-mount lenses make more sense as well.
My Sony FE 35mm F1.4 has the Zeiss pop and 3D rendering. It is superior the Nikon Z 35mm F1.8. That lens is by no means a BAD lens but my Sony cost less (used in very good condition) and is flat out superior, faster, and better built.
My Sony Batis lenses, 25mm F2 and 85mm F1.8 are also Zeiss glass, and look incredible. Nikon doesn't even have an answer for Z mount. No fast 24mm or 85mm primes yet! What were they thinking?
F4 is too slow for a zoom for me, and 70mm too short, so the 24-70 Z, while relatively affordable and compact is BORING, compared to Canon's incredible 28-70mm F2.8 from the 90's which is par focal and $300... And what's more, I can use these lenses on countless Sony bodies, and not just my Z6.
Nikon's main mistake with the.Z series lenses so far, has been the pricing. Charging $600-$900 for F1.8 primes, I don't care how good they are, it doesn't match market expectations when everything else in this region by Canon, Sigma, Sony and Nikon is F1.4 and their F1.8 lenses are in the bargain bins. See how much a Canon 50mm F1.8 costs you or a 35mm F1.8 Nikon.

“Of the Z lenses I have the 35mm F1.8, 50mm F1.8 and 24-70mm F4 – all of which cost me far too much money, only for them to be discounted almost to half price just a few months later.”
Where can I find the 35/1.8S for half price? I will buy it immediately. Thank You
Also Andrew, you keep saying how much you dislike the Z glass without making an argument for why they don’t work for you. It makes it difficult to take you seriously. I’m curious to hear why.
Had I held off I could have bought the superior Z7 for almost the same money as my Z6 but I fail to see how this is Nikon’s fault? Early adopters often pay that price whichever the type of product. I fail to see how aggressive discounts (from all the manufacturers btw) in the face of a quickly shrinking market would not make sense? 
I disagree with you regarding the Z lenses. Great value for money. Better built than G or D lenses. Better put together than any Fuji X mount I had. The XF lenses may be metal on the outside but with far lesser tolerances, wobbling barrel on the 16-55/2.8 and slightly loose bayonet fitting on all lenses except the 50mm f2.
I don’t think high quality plastics is a bad thing. It’s more practical in cold weather and often deals with impact better. Not to mention lower weight.
The control ring has perfect resistance on all the Z lenses I have and the optics are better than anything I’ve ever seen. The choice to first release superlative quality F1.8 primes is more practical to most than what Canon has done. Super speed exotic heavy specialist glass with far fewer use cases, even if they do make for more exciting news it’s true.
Theres nothing as good at the price or compactness as the 24-70/4S out there, the 14-30/4S is unique and optically on even footing with the twice heavy 14-24G. The new 2.8 zoom is supposed to be incredible. The primes so far are both spectacular.
They’re quiet, fast and has what looks to be the best weather sealing out there (just look at the design of the seal at the base of the lens, I’ve never seen that construction before and it’s a much better design than just the rubber gasket you find on everything else). 
No focus breathing or other weird focusing behaviour. 
Almost no aberrations and no coma 
Extremely sharp with good rendering and neutral colour.
Lens control ring awesome for exposure compensation or step-less aperture control. 
For sure it’s not like an old charming Sonnar, but I don’t need my standard glass to be full of “character”, I want it to be as neutral, sharp and true to the world as possible.
The only problem I see is the lack of a setting for linear focus behaviour of the focus ring. And that the lens line is still small. But what we have so far is arguably the correct order of release for most. 
As of today the single best reason to buy a Z camera I believe is the lenses. 
 

The TA-GA3 I assumed working as stacking a Techart adapter on a Techart adapter, you'd think they'd talk to each other. Seems I need to correct that part of the article as amazingly it doesn't! More worryingly still, no luck with the Leica M AF adapter either... The motor fires up but it just parks at infinity and does nothing in any AF mode.
In the full review I'll make all of this clear. Need to test more and ask Techart what the firmware update situation is.

Hmmmm, for my purposes as a wilderness and adventure shooter where everything is on my back in the mountains and in the back of bush planes, I couldn't disagree more about the native Z glass so far. Small, light, razor sharp edge to edge, no focus breathing, no chromatic abberation, weather sealed and built really tough, I've been hit by a big wave with the 24-70 on my Z7, rinsed it with 1 litter of fresh water and kept shooting. I've got the 24-70 F4, 50 1.8 and 14-30 and I love them.
Sure, the focus by wire stinks for video focus pulls and star work, but that's where the adapters come into play. I'm personally selling a lot of my 2.8 F-mount glass and all of my Sony gear except the voigtlander 10mm F5. 6. That lens is the only reason I'm looking at this adapter. 

Techart are saying yes. AF-C and video mode, even eye-af.

Well at least the firmware update will fix the audio codec.
You're never going to get the best audio quality through internal pre-amps anyway, always better to use an external device. The audio circuit inside a camera has a lot of other noise from electronics and heat to deal with.
I think Panasonic are holding a few things back from the $2k S1, for obvious Cinema Lumix related reasons! That camera might be $4k or even $6k though, so at least you are saving some money by going with the S1 and it's minimally crippled video feature set. It's far from an EOS R. No crop, anamorphic aspect ratios, great codec, internal 10bit, soon to be 4:2:2, high bitrates, 4K/60p Super 35, hardly lacking for a stills camera is it?

Deep Trench Isolation sounds like some sort of PTSD from the First World War.
I believe Ebrahim used a Pyramid Surface Diffractor to collect his money from Western Union without ID.

Andrew, how about doing some video comparison tests of that wonderful Mi9 camera? With GH5, A73 and others. Oh, and with Iphone Xs Max HDR mode. I dont see any viable tests for now on youtube. 

from wikipedia, or course:
 
Thorium dioxide was formerly added to glasses during manufacture to increase their refractive index, producing thoriated glass with up to 40% ThO2 content. These glasses were used in the construction of high-quality photographic lenses. However, the radioactivity of the thorium caused both a safety and pollution hazard and self-degradation of the glass (turning it yellow or brown over time). Lanthanum oxide has replaced thorium dioxide in almost all modern high-index glasses.
 
and this:
 
 it was found to be a carcinogen, sometimes causing cholangiocarcinoma  (that is with respect to another use for thorium dioxide in the past, as an x-ray contrast agent).
 
I'm not really concerned about 90% of my lenses, but I was just working on an old rangefinder lens, including taking apart the elements and removing fungus, so this is good to know. My main concern wouldn't be beta rays but just doing something stupid like shattering a lens trying to re-glue it or something. Not likely, but I'm going to check if thorium dioxide was used in glass before I work on it now. Thanks for the post junior.

Andrew, our body receives a natural telluric daily dose of 0,5 μSv per day. If you add to this natural one, the industrial, medical, cosmical etc it makes approximately 2,4 mSv/year (people get unequally 1,5 to 6,0 mSv/year in France - official numbers! Check it: http://www2.cndp.fr/themadoc/radioactivite/radioactiviteimp.htm ).
 
What the specialised guys told me yesterday is that even if it doesn't stay around your neck or on your chest for hours, (or under your bed), it's still dangerous because of lost dusts. One of the main risks is to let it fall and break it for example. Vacuum cleaner wouldn't help you there…
Once ingerated (accidentally of course), Radium 226 is known to stay on bones and in liver for life!
 
Maybe you think that if all this was true it would be a more widely reported issue? I agree, but you need to know that the famous firemen department where I was yesterday has just added my Mamiya in their "hot" database. Think about it. I've sent them some other links cause they asked me for. I don't know why it's not much more a reported issue… but it should be!
I had enough of contradictory forums that's why I took a train to get personnaly a real specialist. We made 3 different test and they were all very bad (results are in my top post). Takumar f1.4 is known to be worse than Mamiya, so what I say comes from pros, not from this rich but unreliable world wide web. Anyway, each one is free.
 
If it can help, my clean checked "vintage russian lenses" are:
- Helios 44m;
- Tair 11A;
- Jupiter 9 ;
- Mir 24M.
My Sankor 16D is clean too. (And modern lenses aren't concerned.)
Take care of 70's russian lenses.

Pilots and hostess have cancer increase. Radiologists are really protected and supervised). You Andy take plane maybe 5 times a year and go to the dentist (for x-rays) maybe once a couple of years, for 30 seconds. You can't compare! Aluminium won't help, just concrete or lead. Radioactive lenses is a very UNDERESTIMATED problem, espescially on photo forums. I know what told the geiger and the officers. I think we talk about health here, not bokeh.
 

Hi!
It's one of my first posts here but not the funniest I guess…
I'm not especially talking about a magic C-lens in particular here but about a very underestimated question: radioactive lenses!
One of my friends is a fireman captain and introduced me yesterday to one of his colleagues specialized in technological risks and chemical dangers (at Poissy, France : they're known to have very great equipments.) We made 3 different tests on all my Russian lenses which are all OK excepted the Mamiya Sekor 55mm f1.4 (M42).
Here are the results:
From 5 to 10 µSV per hour (by direct touch), and 1720 shocks per second.
Element involved is Thorium 232.
They told I really shouldn't keep it. Work with it more than one hour is dangerous. It must be gifted to specialized services and absolutely not be destroyed! Or thrashed! The most dangerous exposure isn't even radiations but dusts to inhalate or ingerate (when a lens gets old it disaggregates - it's something you can't always clearly see).
I'm lucky cause until today I kept it in my basement.
So, say it please to your friends and all potential Mamiya/Takumar users that you know via websites etc, it's a strong matter of health.

Except that slog is unworkable internally ,you get color noise and compression artifact all over the place, so If you want to have all the DR that the sensor have to offer you need to record externally .
I do a lot of post work and when you start to move things around, it s immediately visible .
The youtube argument is a nonsense, because even in cinema your bitrate is limited to 250 Mb/s, it s about having some room in post to get your image where you want it before you compress it again.
But my work sometime get screened at festivals so to me it matters.

The motion blur look very different as well.
The examples you sent me have little motion to them.
But yeah, if you shoot cine4 and upload straight to youtube, that make less sense. 
 
I disagree with the face tracking comment , I shoot with Batis and it work very well, way better than any focus puller would manage on large format/long lens/large aperture , I do MV and fashion mostly and I can t always know where the model/performer is going to move ( and if it s dancer, I want to let him/her do his/her things).
Beside on a shoulder rig you can see both the rear screen and the recorder so you know when it lock in, the screen don t go off if you setup the video signal/trigger properly.
You need to go to the menu and force 4k 24fps out then deactivate the internal recording , and activate to control trigger over hdmi.
If you leave the default parameter, the screen go black and you loose face tracking.

Django, full ACK. When you shoot R&G you simply don't have the time for Sony-Settings-Tiki-Taka plus mostly you never get the chance for a retake.
Personally, I'm not so enthusiastic about the A7 iii, as it seems to be the same lack of quality control as many other models:

"Stripping"-issues in backlit situations...as mentionned here...third paragraph. Simply look at girls face - unbelievable...TIHS IS A SEVERE ISSUE!
OK, for people who don't shoot club/concert or any other backlit scenes, this is not a problem. But as I do it, it's a dealbreaker for me. The Nikon DSLR dinosaurs still have right to live. 
 

The difference I think is not being mirrorless but having pdaf on the sensor, which the Sony have while the Pana don't. I remember Nikon saying that they would not use on sensor pdaf oon its Dslr because it could create artifact and that they were not prepared to do any compromise on image quality. I thought it was BS, now I am more incline to believe them. But I still think they will use it in their future mirrorless cameras.

@Snowbro I get my EOS R tomorrow. I can confirm the 1DXMK2 draws a lot of attention. Almost as much as the C200. My mirrorless camera’s are far less conspicuous. I’m also hoping the trio can play nice together. When the “Pro” version is released I will buy it if all goes well with the ‘R’.

Wow wouldn't it be neat if Canon actually came out with a ass kicking camera, no holds barred. Just leading edge stuff, as good as they can do. Not holding off on Anything. They would own the markets if they did. I mean there is no one that doesn't like Canon CS and DPAF.  And don't price it at 5000 dollars either like they are good at. Do it Canon.

Actually I just purchased a Sony A7 III ($1,998.00) and the Full Frame Sony 28-135 f4 Lens ($1,499.00 ebay) which works like a charm in either full frame and Super 35 modes. The TOTAL is $3,497.00 (4K Camera and Cinema/ENG Full frame Lens)! If you can rack-up another $400 you could make the A7 III and ENG / Cinematic / 2 channel audio monster by adding the Sony XLR-K2M XLR Adapter Kit (used $402.00 Adorama)... and a $49 ND Filter just in case...
Therefore for less than $4,000.00, Sony gives you an excellent Cinema / ENG / Low-Light Monster including the ability to take 24MB photos...
I can't wait to see the next Sony A7S III, the next FS5 and the next FS7... and I'm getting ready to upgrade down the Sony Cinema line!
Andrew wrote:
"If you don’t own many Canon lenses all you need to buy is a Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 to do most things – the cost goes past $3000 but it can easily creep past $8000 on the Sony and Nikon side. I just can’t help feeling that Canon lost a lot of lens sales with that crop, when all you need to buy is a single Sigma zoom and maybe one of their ART primes."

All over the internet. It was easily the most bashed camera ever, until the EOS-R was announced and focus shifted.