Mark Tincho

Lovely example of the out of camera colour. Personally I much prefer the natural look to the LUTs which have been thrown onto the footage. I'm sick of seeing M31 and Deluts personally. It makes all cameras look the same, which is perhaps the point.
The ease with which you can obtain a pleasing, cinematic yet naturalistic look is what separates the men from the boys, in my personal opinion. It's why we all love Canon colours, Alexa, Blackmagic, and now Fuji.

My review is finally online ! I hope it will help people and answer a few questions ! Let me know what you think of it ! It took me so much time and yet I just have shaky footage to show...  I'll shoot something decent soon, a real project !
 

I'm hesitant to post because I know I screwed up quite a few shots here either white balance-wise or grading wise, but nonetheless here are my first two days with the camera and the kit lens.

Exactly. What is Pani came out with a FF camera? Would the colors be any better. Would the AF still be pure crap?!?!?
You bet your bipy the AF would suck.
I got my X-T3 yesterday--and the AF and eye AF are fantastic---no smoke and mirrors here. This camera and the technology are the Real Deal Lucile. 
The problem with the FF version (if it actually happens)is the problem with the MFT version: weird color--inferior to the Fuji---and AF that sucks to high heaven.
I just got my X-T3 yesterday and will be publishing a video in a few minutes that uses the X-T3 in a studio setting, and the eye AF and general AF is fantastic. And those Fuji colors. I really think they're better than Canon---better by a LOT!
This video is shot with the X-H1, but there is about three minutes of intro shot on the X-T3, which I just received yesterday. (I've got friends in high places).
The audio recording in the talking part was also recorded internally in the X-T3, using XLR microphones with an adapter---pretty damned clean audio if you ask me.
The zoo shots were done with the X-H1 using standard and speed booster adapters with Canon FD lenses. All zoo video is hand held.

What a shame.
Who are these "deep state" BMD insiders that are here pushing an agenda ? Myself and Hook.  Who else ?  What do you guys think, there's a plot and conspiracy ?  You guys don't wat these contributions I guess ?
I'm here because I've been a member here for years and I'm on many camera forums and this is just another one I like to read and contribute to where I can.
I want to know where all the clowns that were saying on this thread that the world was going to end because BMD didn't have any footage out yet and that definitely meant something was very wrong and the shipping date would be missed.
All I've seen so far is that a planned marketing campaign by BMD that has gone off the way they intended.
They commissioned some actual filmmakers (not bloggers or camera reviewers) that make certain types of film (natural history, action sports, nature) to make some films and then they released them and the camera originals.
Then they gave some cameras, complete with some boxes as if they were new to some secondary users, and whilst having them also under NDA, got them to shoot some test footage and allowed some of them to release that footage.  Again.  Not reviewers.  Not bloggers.
About a thousand reviewers and camera jockeys have done a bunch of made up comparisons and VLOGS based on existing footage. (hey I love seeing my footage being butchered by grading nerds)
Think about it.
No blogger or reviewer ANYWHERE has gotten a functioning camera to shoot with as far as I can tell.  Because that's not what BMD want to do with their marketing of this camera.  This isjust marketing 101. 
They need people using the cameras in the many difference specific sectors of the market will use the camera.  Camera reviews aren't part of that plan. (though it hasn't stopped people doing it based on existing footage)
Until it's shipping, it's their choice to give it to whomever they want.
I'm tired of this entitled bullshit.  
I recently left a few facebook groups I was on for this camera, and I'm doing the same here.  Frankly it's juvenile and I don't need the agro I sure hate explaining what should be obvious.
There's no slight.  
BMD have a marketing department and they have a plan and it doesn't involve forums, bloggers or camera reviewers.  That's not a snub, that's just them marketing the product in the way that they see fit.
JB 
 

Hey GUYz i made a sick video test ogf this camera it's actually really good!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLBB0rcptc0&t=3s

I don’t care that much about ibis since the Fuji lenses have such good OIS, but it’s a shame they still split up the files in 4gb chunks. Especially considering the 400mb/s bitrate.
But what a fantastic camera. The output is beautiful.
 
 

Hello there! This is my new test with C200. It's handled without any tripod so it's a bit shaky, I've made Color Correction in Adobe Premiere CC 2018 with Magic Bullet and some tweaks in lumetri, with HDR on - shot in Rawlight. Please let me know what do you think about it, in particular in color correction that I've made. Just remember it's just my fourth test in Rawlight and I'm still trying to figure out what to do to make better images. If you have suggestions, tricks etc, let me know them in comments below. Thanks! :-)
 

As some of us are want to do, we wax poetic about older technology, (I guess we're entering the phase wherein old gear gets us misty eyed) I submit a quick video I shot 9 years ago on a XH-A1.  Anyone else have stuff from a decade past that you still like to watch and like to share?
 

Yet more shite footage.
Wait for mine instead 

No, sorry, but your problem was that you were ranting in ignorance of what the benefits of HDR are. If you provided actual correct information (or were more careful in what you said, if you did actually know something) then there would be no reason to apologize. What you said about HDR wasn't appropriate because it was incorrect, not because people are trying out HDR and their feelings might be hurt. Those people who knew more than you on HDR just called you on what you said, appropriately. 

https://vimeo.com/208637237
https://vimeo.com/150067275
Mostly handheld, without ibis. Lenses from 12mm to 35mm on the pocket camera.
 

This is exactly what I was talking about. Great color science and features in such a small package. This camera really is a dream for YouTubers I think. 
 

Today I grabbed my DSLR and went for a short walk around the neighbourhood to take some pics. I wanted to get some shots to test a film look DCP profile I've been working on. As part of my research for this I discovered that most contemporary DSLRs deliberately underexpose when using in-camera metering. This is because for most sensors there aren't actually that many stops between middle grey and totally blown out. For example, my 5D3 will clip at around 3.3 stops above middle grey. I know this because if I shoot a white sheet of paper at 1/3 stop increments and examine the linear RAW values, the exposure that gives me 18% of the maximum RAW value is around 3.3 stops below the one that clips... and that, by definition, is middle grey.
However, this leaves very little room in the highlights. The DR of the 5D3 is around 11.5 stops. So there's three and a bit above middle grey, and around eight below. If you were to meter correctly, you would be very much in danger of blowing out highlights. To help combat this, it appears that most camera manufacturers use 12% grey as the basis for metering. The effect of this is to provide an extra stop or so of highlight headroom. And in fact, this is borne out by checking values in ACR, where actual 18% grey sits at around 185 and 12% grey sits at around 119 (the given RGB number for middle grey in a 2.2 gamma).
Anyway, that's all very interesting or very dull, depending on your point of view. But for some reason it inspired me to shoot on auto exposure on my walk. Even though I normally think of manual exposure control as being the absolute best, I was now considering that Canon have probably tested this a lot and perhaps auto isn't so bad. So I put the camera on aperture priority with auto ISO and started snapping. At first I was kind of worried as I could immediately see two things happening that I would have rectified straight away if I had been shooting manual:
Low contrast shots were looking a bit underexposed (I would normally ETTR in these situations to minimise noise) In high contrast scenes some sky was getting blown out (I would normally protect highlights as much as I can) However, I just went with it. When I got back to my computer I also did something that I never usually do and that was to click the "Auto" button on the ACR exposure tab. I was really surprised with how well everything turned out. ACR's best guess did a great job at expanding or contracting shadows and highlights automatically. All I had to do was tweak overall exposure, and sometimes highlights or blacks as well. Here are some of the results:

Are there clipped highlights and crushed blacks? Absolutely. But the pics still look good.
Now, I don't know if I would shoot this way for a client. However, I've got to say that it was such a blessed relief to not be constantly chimping the histogram and re-taking shots to get the ideal exposure. And it was also a very good feeling to get the processing done in two or three clicks. It made both shooting and processing a lot more fun.
Who knows, maybe I'm ready for auto white balance next!
 

Here's a sort of uber-imaging setup with a 9.25" aperture/2350mm f/10 Schmidt-Cassegraine compound scope with an afocal imaging setup about 15 years ago: Sony TRV-900 3-CCD VHF camcorder with full man. controls, SS down to 1/2 sec connected to a telescope eyepiece (this is the "afocal" setup) which is connected to a 3X TC (Barlow lens in astro lingo). The Jupiter images filled about 2/3 frame height with the Sony at about 10X zoom. This method makes finding the object pretty easy zoomed out, works well in spite of the huge # of optical elements involved, and zoomed-in gives enormous mag. - maybe ~ 20-25 meters EFL @ f/100?
The film clips were processed in Registax, which selected the sharpest (due to brief reductions in atmospheric turbulence), stacked 400-600, which accentuated common detail features, than a complex multistage "wavelet" sharpening routine. The first Jupiter image was from the steadiest "seeing" conditions I've ever had - in the Florida Panhandle. The Mars image at it's historic closest approach in 9/3/03, from southern Mexico.

People talk about only "8 stops of dynamic range" as if it's unusable.  I love following Andrew's and everyone else's analysis of how to maximize various camera's potential, but we sometimes let things get out of perspective.  The order of important in my experience is 1. Lighting 2. Focus/stabilization 3. Lens 4. Sensor 5. Ergonomics 6. CODEC.   Yes, we can't control the lighting all the time, but we also have to compare cameras in how they do in properly lit scenes; that is, scenes at/under 8 stops of DR.  Here's my take on why we must never forget that shooting scene with more than 8 stops of dynamic range is something we really want to avoid.  No camera can truly save it.  It becomes a calculus of atrocities.