Castorp

How naive can some people get?
Max is on a PR mission, he's not here to actually contribute to a forum. The PR mission is only necessary as he's been outed faking a shot to make Fuji look greener than Kermit The Frog. If it wasn't for that, he wouldn't be here. Max exists for clicks and to make money, and if he can use the research and knowledge of other people for free to further his content along the way then he's all the richer for it.

Tbh the Fujifilm cameras feel like toys compared to the X1D. Very clear when you handle both next to each other. The build quality of the Fuji isn't even close. Of course, if all we ever want to discuss is paper specs then it doesn't look so good. 
As I see it the Hasselblad is something you buy because you appreciate the experience of it all, as well as the picture quality (nobody beats Hasselblad colours). 
 

You're welcome!
Video is tricky and colour and colour science is especially tricky because it's a very very deep subject.  
The main levels I see in colour are:
Use camera on full-auto in standard colour profile, don't adjust in post Dial in a profile to get the results you want in-camera, maybe using a grey-card and maybe not Shoot log using a grey-card and grade in post using LUTs and basic adjustments Grade manually without relying on LUTs to do the work Professional colourists I also hang out on liftgammagain.com which is aimed at professional colourists and in many ways the gap in skill level and knowledge between 3 and 5 (or even 4 and 5) is larger than the gap between 1 and 3.  If you're curious to have a tiny taste of what a professional colourist skill level might be like, check out Juan Melara on YT.  It's a fundamentally different kind of skill level. Here's a couple of videos to get you started:
In talking to the professional colourists I've come to understand that the world of Hollywood and the real pros has basically no overlap with the YT world - if all you know is YT then you've never seen a glimpse of how that other world works, with the only exception I know of being Juan Melara.  I'm happy to point you to other resources where pros hang out if you're curious.
In this sense I appreciate that you're torn between people that haven't got a clue how little they know and probably complain about anything resembling work, and those with more knowledge criticising you for not catering to a more informed audience.

It’s not necessarily more or less expensive. Competitive quality inkjet prints are not cheap.
A Nikon F90X, one of the best SLR’s, can be had for 50€ in great condition. Pair it with a used 50 1.8D and you have an amazing camera for around a hundred quid. 
That leaves you with hundreds of of euros left to spend on film and prints. All in all perfectly possible to make work for an entire exhibition for under 1000€. 

I shot hours and hours of footage to create EOSHD Pro Color.
Sony's latest cameras still need it.
Fuji is superior.
This YouTube clickbait, is not even a proper test.
It's some unknown, unstated default settings, completely unoptimised.
With maybe 1 or two button presses, the entire result would change.
Max has a well known Sony bias, and I simply don't trust what he's showing here is representative. If the Fuji is too green for your liking, and you are sure Max hasn't fiddled the results like he fiddled the poster frame, you know what to do about it. There's a hue control, a white balance control, a saturation control and 8 different film simulations.

They both look terrible - more indicative of the users failure to expose, WB and grade + poor profile choice than the inherent 'colour science' of Sony vs Fuji

I haven't watched the video and probably won't ever.
Is the poster frame a complete fake?


Oh yes, thought so... he's edited it to be more extreme.
Clickbait bullshit.

Well like I said, to me it is the closest -shooting wise- by the way I still own and shoot film on a FM2, Yashica T5 P&S but I don't develop/scan.
I went on a 5-day family trip to Italy with only one 16gb card, no laptop/SD reader. Had to manage the pics carefully with no real idea if I nailed exposure/composition until after the trip (again the LCD is a joke, worthless in daylight). Leica even has digital M models with the back LCD completely removed and a film advance level.

Of course it isn't real analog but in contrast to the latest gen mirrorless cams, the Leica M's are a total throwback..
 

This debate was settled a long time ago, but just to recap: ML raw is true 14bit raw, you can open a ML CDNG file in ACR and manipulate it just like a Canon CR2 raw photo file, the DR is identical, and there's no noticeable loss of DR in 12bit. More bit depth is good, but there are other factors that determine available dynamic range: https://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=11097.0
I haven't worked with ProRes raw, how well FCPX recovers highlights and shadows on ProRes raw files will be a bigger determining factor than whether the Z6 is outputting 12bit or 14bit raw video.

So the nikon z6 is now around 12 stops. but with the raw update beeing raw and all, and photo's are 14 stops of DR. We will get 14 stops of DR out of the nikon Z6 right?  Which would make this a 2,5K $ FF raw camera(with the atamos recorder included). Which is even only half the price of the zcam F6. This could be the next best thing and blows everything in the near range out of the water, or am I missing something here. What are the downsides of the Z6, as I never used it or saw it really? (I have a shitton EF glass, are there decent adapters out there?)
I went on to check some quick footage online. If its looks this good crippled, I can only imagine how good the RAW will look like. 
 

Kind of funny in almost the same year, 1981 as he did I paid $7000.00 Dollars for nearly the same system! So he might be right It could be a bargain. I made a Lot of money with mine.
 

I don’t see why some seem surprised. New top end professional Macs have always been expensive. Pretty much always over 5000 in today’s money if not a lot more. 
Hopefully prices will come down in time and there will be more options. As there has been in the past. 
This is a computer aimed at professionals. It is good to see Apple going for the serious pros rather than prosumer or gear nerd. 
It’s a beautiful machine. I would love to have one but it’s not for me that’s for sure. 
An iMac Pro is basically a throwaway. The initial cost for a Mac Pro will be high initially, but cost will come down as the computer is upgraded over time. That makes a difference in large institutions. 
Of course there are PC’s that are good value for money. But they are not Mac Pro. Apple has little competition which is why they can charge what they do. People have always attacked Macs for having component Y or X that cost Z and “it’s a rip off” bla bla blah. I’ve heard that literally for decades. And yet, I have yet to work with a better performing computer. 
I will never understand how some are offended when a camera company, or whatever, releases a product that isn’t for them. 
The Mac Pro  is right for someone, and if it isn’t, the product won’t sell. Simple.
Unless it’s some sort of conspiracy! Which is what some resort to with an almost incel-like tone at times.
To ridicule those who need for example an EOS R or a Mac Pro, or whatever controversial thing it is, can be a sign of personal insecurity I believe. 
 

I have been thoroghly enjoying fast editing with Lumafusion on my iPad Pro 2018. As we already know, it handles multiple 4K tracks with ease, making the editing part of the project a breeze, compared to the sluggish performance from Premiere in particular. 
File managment is however, as we also already know, a fucking nightmare on the current OS. Hopefully this will be rectified with the upcoming new iPad OS (Apple is however flaky as usual about it). But if external storage will work properly with this update I really feel the iPad Pro is becoming a very good option when it comes to creating on the fly, with minimal hassle. As a journalist I see many benefits from a fast and light weight option like this on the field, when speed and quick turnaround is key.
What do you guys think? And here's hoping Lumafusion adds waveforms and scopes ASAP.
 
https://appleinsider.com/articles/19/06/03/apple-supplements-ios-13-with-new-tablet-specific-ipad-os-branch

"I think Apple have made a bit of a misjudgement in not providing a competitive desktop Mac for the masses and smaller creative studios."
I do not think so. This is called the iMac and iMac pro. The latest 2019 iMac is very powerful, more than what most of "the masses" need. It bests the iMac Pro in many real world uses.
The iMac Pro will soon get an update and fill that gap as well. 

I recently invested in an iMac and I am amazed. I have a $500 4K 27" screen and it is such garbage compared to the iMac screen. You would spend $1000 for a similarly good screen. The power is amazing, havent restarted the computer in weeks, haven't had a bug since day one months ago, everything is blazingly fast and the system a joy to use. Also having such a clean and simple design of an all in one on my desk leaves room and is nice. I would absolutely hate to have a normal desktop, including the new iMac Pro which to me looks awful by the way. 

For work, I have from my company the latest Huawei Matebook Pro x which is considered by all major test website to be the best portable windows laptop on the market. It's such a garbage, full of bugs, have to restart it every week before it slows down too much. A PITA. Everything from the slow wake up time to the bad trackpad to the system is a pain.
People can continue to cry all day long about how Apple is expensive and I totally agree it is (sometimes justified, sometimes it's ridiculous). But it just works. 
By the way, the WWDC was the best in years. iPadOS is amazing. The new privacy features on iOS are incredible. Finally Apple is listening to customers.
I laughed good times with the $999 screen holder for the new iMac Pro. 

For the majority of content creators (including my self) this machine simply does not exist. It was released yesterday in a parallel universe. Stop looking at it.
If you need 28 cores and 1.5 TB of RAM for your every day jobs then this price tag is probably just fine for you. 
If you are about to start saving money by sacrificing other needs that you may have, so that you can buy the base configuration in the next year, then don't this. It's just silly.
When you are buying the base configuration of a Mac Pro, you are actually paying for things that you can't use until you stuff it with overpriced components. You are paying for the "fact" that your machine has the "ability" to get significant upgrades like 1.5 TB of Ram, 4 TB SSD, 4 x Vega's etc. If you need to "save" money for the base configuration then good luck with the rest. It won't happen. Stop looking at it.
The iMac 2019 right now is the perfect balance for almost any content creator that can't afford the new MacPro. iMac Pro is also overpriced for the majority of users.
I' am working with iMacs and FCPX for the last 10 years as a full time video editor for TV shows. Every 3-4 years i am selling my iMac and getting the next one, so the actual cost for every upgrade comes to 1500 to 2000 euros. FCPX is a truly unique and reliable application and yes i have worked with Premiere, Vegas and Resolve before. You have to actually "work" with an application and not just "test" it to make conclusions. If you are editing 10 min highlights or low budget commercials then all of these work just fine but wait until you need to edit a full length movie or a 2 hour documentary to see how the app reacts to this massive amount of data. FCPX is "rock steady". Period. 
A "slightly" upgraded iMac 2019 with Intel Core i9, 1TB SSD and Vega 48 (plus user upgraded RAM to 32 GB) will cost you about 5000 bucks. Is this overpriced? Of course it is. But it's also much faster from the base configuration of the cheese grater and you get a great monitor plus peripherals. Is it upgradable? Of course not. But nothing is upgradable nowadays, even this cheese grater. In about 5 years from now, this badass Mac Pro 2019 and it's tech will be totally obsolete and in 10 years from now that fu*^%ing  bul*&@t Afterburner (that i am sure it will cost 10.000.000 dollars plus tax) will be sold for 100 bucks in ebay.

I don’t see why some seem surprised. New top end professional Macs have always been expensive. Pretty much always over 5000 in today’s money if not a lot more. 
Hopefully prices will come down in time and there will be more options. As there has been in the past. 
This is a computer aimed at professionals. It is good to see Apple going for the serious pros rather than prosumer or gear nerd. 
It’s a beautiful machine. I would love to have one but it’s not for me that’s for sure. 
An iMac Pro is basically a throwaway. The initial cost for a Mac Pro will be high initially, but cost will come down as the computer is upgraded over time. That makes a difference in large institutions. 
Of course there are PC’s that are good value for money. But they are not Mac Pro. Apple has little competition which is why they can charge what they do. People have always attacked Macs for having component Y or X that cost Z and “it’s a rip off” bla bla blah. I’ve heard that literally for decades. And yet, I have yet to work with a better performing computer. 
I will never understand how some are offended when a camera company, or whatever, releases a product that isn’t for them. 
The Mac Pro  is right for someone, and if it isn’t, the product won’t sell. Simple.
Unless it’s some sort of conspiracy! Which is what some resort to with an almost incel-like tone at times.
To ridicule those who need for example an EOS R or a Mac Pro, or whatever controversial thing it is, can be a sign of personal insecurity I believe. 
 

You absolutely come off as the girl in your comments about "2 S1 bodies, 2 firmware upgrades, 1 24-105 f/4, 1 extra camera battery, 1 S1 battery grip. Retail total $7123. My total $5044!" or you come off as a braggart.  
I never mentioned the EOS R in a positive light ever. I also never said one negative thing about the S1 or S1H, ever.  I'm all for progressing technology that helps everyone. 
I've never understood braggers that have to post about how much they spent on gear, good for you but no one cares about braggers. What's the crow I'm suppose to be eating? 
And again, how long have you worked for Panasonic ?

Yeah but a flip screen sucks ass if you use it for taking Photos. I would much rather have it the way it is for double duty. And it is just a smaller package that way also...

Rubbish. It’s not just about autofocus performance. Ergonomics, build quality and reliability are equally or more important in a professional environment.
Autofocus isn’t necessarily important at all for professional use. Depends on the job. 

If it is a pro build top end video camera I don’t see why it should cost much less than a D5 or EOS1D?
The S1 is incredible value for money. 

@DBounce @Castorp
Clearly fake. And why on earth would they release an aps-c camera now?
We all know about the D5 and the 1dxII and you’re right, they have better autofocus and lenses if BIF photography is your thing. But the S1 is every bit as well built and murders them in video. And has an IBIS that is second to none w/r/t full frame sensors.

If it is a pro build top end video camera I don’t see why it should cost much less than a D5 or EOS1D?
The S1 is incredible value for money. 

I had no complaints with the previous firmware. That said, the AF, especially in dim situations, is faster more decisive. Eye AF was something I didn't even know I wanted but its very nice to not have to think about where the focus point is. Reminds me of working with manual focus in the way I am not being interrupted by having to consider AF focus points.
The automatic switching between mechanical and electronic first curtain is also very welcome. Another thing I now don't have to think about. 
12 FPS with full AE/AF auto is not relevant for me but should be useful for the thousands out there who apparently are forced to use the Z6 to photograph birds in flight  

I had no complaints with the previous firmware. That said, the AF, especially in dim situations, is faster more decisive. Eye AF was something I didn't even know I wanted but its very nice to not have to think about where the focus point is. Reminds me of working with manual focus in the way I am not being interrupted by having to consider AF focus points.
The automatic switching between mechanical and electronic first curtain is also very welcome. Another thing I now don't have to think about. 
12 FPS with full AE/AF auto is not relevant for me but should be useful for the thousands out there who apparently are forced to use the Z6 to photograph birds in flight