Castorp

Not according to the Poll I did with 4000 answers. Nor according to the discussion on that FB group. And just by looking at this forum its easy to see that Canon users are constantly jumped on but if a Canon user says even a slightly negative thing, factual or subjective, about another brand all hell breaks loose. There are of course fanboys in all camps but a couple of brands definitely sticks out. Honestly, I dont believe that you believe it.
Lately Ive been thinking about encouraging Canon, Pentax and Nikon users to take a stand. Because the debates are so crazy when the Canikon users talks calmly and states facts and opinions about the gear and the Fanboy only responds with things like "idiot" or "stupid". On this forum alone its been so long with effortless diplomacy that Canikon users might as well try using the same rhetoric and see if that somehow opens Fanboys eyes to the fact that everyone has different needs.
For example: The EOS-R vs Sony A7iii
I bought the R and am thinking about buying one for the company I work for because it gives me the features I need and sadly, the Sony doesn't have them. But when saying things like that the response is often "idiot" or "zombie" or something similar.

So instead I can try the Sony approach and say that its because,
"The Sony A7iii is an underspeced, overpriced hunk of absolute garbage and only a true shill and apologist would buy one. Sony wine and dine the entire youtube at least once a week and zombies buy it because of the badge on the body. Nothing else."
I want to believe that that sort of nonsense wouldn't be constructive. Imo all cameras have strengths and weaknesses and all cameras are not built for "me". The A7 for example is a master piece imo. But maybe its time to try something different because the current state just brings everything down. Its tiring to read the same bicker over and over. Read a question from a noob asking what setting to use only to see him being jumped on by a bunch of Fanboys from another brand.
(NOTE: Im mostly a Panasonic and Fuji user. Then Sony. Currently I have a Panasonic, a Fuji and a Canon.)
 

Leica cameras that say "made in Germany" has to be 80% made in Germany. 

OK.. seems like it's somewhat sensitive thing.. To get back into perspective, what usually matters to cinematographers is the picture they get. And in this particular case I just wanted to say that none of 8 bit cameras I tested looked good enough with their log picture. While Nikon Z6 and Fuji X-T3 look really good. But this is subjective guys, I'm looking at the picture, testing where it breaks, evaluating this for myself, and only then looking at what numbers/bits it has. Let's not start a war over it. In normal conditions with careful exposing one can make any of these 8 bit camera look just great, no questions.

I don't know about the A7iii but my A7sii could not touch the DR of the 13stop BMCC, D750 or even the 12stop XC10 and 5Dmkiii raw. 
So I doubt the A7iii could match a BMPC4K. At least I haven't seen any footage that points to it being able to. Would love it if it could. Maybe then I could justify it's imo to high price.

Just announced... The Q2 offers a 47.3MP full-frame sensor capable of DCI and UHD 4K video recording, and sticks with the stabilized 28mm F1.7 offered on the first Q.

The Leica Q2 features a newly developed 47.3 megapixel full frame sensor that captures both richly-detailed still pictures and 4K video in brilliant quality at ISO sensitivities up to 50,000.
4K: 30fps / 24fps
C4K: 24fps
Full-HD: 24, 30, 60 & 120fps
Not expecting fantastic video performance like the SL2 (no L-log, 10-bit, ALL-I and 4K seems to have a crop) but if the RS isn't too bad this could be a cool walkaround hybrid..
The price isn't even that expensive imo considering the lens you're getting and sensor resolution.
..This might just be my first Leica

Courses for horses, I guess. I can't understand this obsession with 60p. It's a useful extra, but just that, extra. Color and bit depth over 60-whatever-p any time. And now we can finally have 10bit log in those tiny cameras. A bare minimum for real log. I find this the most exciting thing back from the Red One days.

True. But it's not allowed to discuss a Canon camera in a normal matter on this forum. So we all have to do our part to keep the psychotic drama going.

There is also a Sony a7S II on the ISS, so this automatically means that Sony's cams are the best in the universe. Now we just need to compile a list of cameras that are not used in the ISS so we can avoid these non-worthy brands. See what I did there with your moronic discussion?
https://petapixel.com/2017/07/27/theres-sony-a7s-ii-outside-iss-capturing-earth-4k/

Well I will say this thread is pretty awesome: a budget full frame camera, undertakers, professional sport photography, cinematic mojo, academy award winners and even astronauts. The only thing that beats a good old canon back and forth is a Leica one.

Sounds like they're in full on troll / click bait / Canon shrill mode. 
 
Well as one of the youtube commentators said.... 

"They have already build a 500$ mirrorless full frame camera. And then they overpriced it to 1300$, because that's what they do."

NASA uses Nikon. I think since the F3. I have seen footage from the space station with D3 and D4. They just bought a ton of Nikon D5.
https://petapixel.com/2017/08/25/nasa-just-ordered-53-nikon-d5-dslrs/
Also, food for thought, why would NASA use the lower resolution and heavier D5 when the D850 has such amazing specs?
Each gram brought is pricey on a space ship.
Reliability, robustness and handling.

FWIW i've done work on most platforms including big screen projects. The digital content company I'm invested in uses mostly Sony (FS7) gear these days. We rent whatever fits the budget/project. I'm not brand agnostic. That said for personal ownership, Canon does make most sense for me currently: on an ecosystem level they offer DSLR/MILC/Cine bodies, and a vast range of still/cine lenses usable across them. I wish Fuji/Nikon could do the same, maybe I would switch back to them. DPAF is also the only AF i can trust as a single operator, it's kind of a big deal to me and for sure what locked me in their system for video (most cine cams have garbage AF).  I could go on about the other subjective reasons why Canon appeals to me but you've probably already heard them all!
That being said my choice of gear and "defense" of it on these forums doesn't imply Canon is the perfect company or is beyond criticism. But I do find the vehement online bashing towards them isn't always justified and doesn't really reflect itself so much in the real world, these academy award winners being the case in point, without glorifying that too much or anything..

Yes, I use it as my main video camera at work. It's perfect for it. Have shown it in huge projections intercut with the FS7. Only visible difference is the Sony colors. I haven't shot any casual video like the NX1 stuff but probably will shoot something for the speedbooster review I'm working on.
I can PM you some video examples I've done tomorrow.
So far the DPAF has worked with all my EF glass including those two. I've only used AF on one project so far, just for fun. But I might have a project with gimbal shots in the pipe.

For a minute I thought you where serious.

Aye the Nikon clipped. But they had metered for her face, using a lightmeter, and the face was correctly exposed. Both Canon and Nikon have similar brightness and correspond well with lightmeter. I would be annoyed if I take a reading for her face and then it comes out underexposed (the Sony). Of course with any camera one will learn how it works and will adjust accordingly so it’s not a big problem.
Personally I prefer when the camera I’m using correspond with lightmeter standard. 

Ahhhh, "Motion Cadence".  I love it when that old chestnut gets pulled out regarding a cinematic image.  I've spent many days in my career tracking and matchmoving a wide variety of camera footage from scanned film, to digital cinema cameras, to cheap DSLR footage.  So I find the whole motion cadence thing fascinating since I sometimes spend hours to days staring at one shot trying to reverse engineer the movement of a camera so it can be layered with CGI.
So leaving out subtle magical qualities visible to a select subset of humans who have superior visual perception, or describing it like the tasting of a fine wine, I can only think of a few possible reasons for perceptible motion cadence.  I'll lay them out here, but I'm genuinely curious as to any other factors that may contribute to it, because "motion cadence" in general plays hell with computer generated images that typically have zero motion cadence.
#1  ROLLING SHUTTER.  The bane of VFX.  Hate it!  Hate it! Hate it!  For me personally, this must be 90% of what people refer to as motion cadence.  Plays hell with the registration of anything you are trying to add into a moving image.  Pictures, and billboards have to be skewed and fulling rendered images slip in the frame depending on whether you are pinning it to the top, middle, or bottom of the frame.  I work extensively with a software package called Syntheyes that tries to adjust for this, but it can never be fully corrected.  For pinning 2d objects into a shot, Mocha in After Effects offers a skew parameter that will slant the tracking solution to help compensate.  This helps marginally.
#2 Codec Encoding issues.  I have to think this contributes minimally since I think extreme encoding errors would show up more as noise.  I've read theories about how long GOP can contribute to this versus All-I, but I've never really noticed it bending or changing an image in a way I could detect.  I'd think it would be more influenced by rolling shutter however, so I can only think it would contribute to like 5-10% of the motion cadence in an image.  Would love to know if I'm wrong here and if it's a major factor.  More than just casual observation, anything technical I could read regarding this would be welcome.
#3 Variable inconsistent frame recording.  This is what I think most people think they are referring to when they bring up the motion cadence of a camera.  But outside of a camera doing something really bizarro like recording at 30 fps then dropping frames to encode at 24, I can't believe that cameras are that variable in their recording rates.  I may be totally wrong, but do people believe that cameras record frames sometimes a few milliseconds faster and slower from frame to frame?  Does this really happen in DSLR and mirrorless cameras?  I find it hard to believe this would happen.  I could see a possibility of a camera waiting on a buffer to clear before scanning the sensor for the next frame, but I can't believe its all that highly variable.  If it is really that common wouldn't it be fairly trivial to measure and test?  At the very least some kind of millisecond timer could be displayed on a 144 hz or higher monitor and then recorded at 24p to see if the timer interval varies appreciably.
#4 Incorrect shutter angle.  This could be from user error.  I've seen enough of it on Youtube to know it's common.  I'd assume it's also possible that a camera would read the sensor at a non-constant rate for some reason, but I'd think that would show up in rolling shutter anomalies as well.  Dunno about this one, but think it may be more of a stretch.  Should also be visible on a frame level by looking for tearing, warping, or some kind of smearing on the frame.  So, I doubt this happens much, but it should be measurable like rolling shutter with a grid or chart and detectable by matchmoving software the way rolling shutter is.
That's generally all I can think of, and without any kind of proof, I'm calling bulshit on #3, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong.  I'd be genuinely intrigued to find that some camera's vary their frame recording intervals at any amount visible to the human eye.
If anyone has any real insight into this, I'd love to read more about it because it directly affects something I deal with frequently.

Maybe because suddenly on every single topic about hybrid mirrorless cameras somebody (from above perspective) referencing exactly "cinematic" image as exclusively default property from manufacturer that takes minor part in cinema (and cinematic-image defining) industry?
 

I just don't understand what people expect anymore. The size and weight of a z6 and a Ninja 5 is smaller that using one of those entry level dslr and a small flash. That is less than the average Japanase/chinese tourist with his small Nikon/canon camera walking around taking photos in some random tourist location. The C200 is much bigger and not full frame, to have a full frame video camera with 10 bit just 5 month ago was the Canon C300 a much bigger shoulder only camera and now you have to add a codex recorder to put RAW. The fact is that your type of (small, unassuming, versatile, total lightweight package, easy to mount on gimbal, etc) does not need more than 8 bit shooting, 10 bit and even prores is an overkill to shoot those low level production.
Just six month ago, absolutely no one was expecting any manufacturer (I even include the likes of blackmagic)was going to release a full frame camera with RAW. In fact everyone was begging for 10 bit for at least the last 2-5 years. Just for a measure, this is the Nikon d3200, the smallest Nikon dslr compared to the z6-z7. In pure volume the Z6 is smaller (much thinner) and I advise anyone to look at the Nikon D3000 series camera in a showroom or people using it. This thing is tiny to the point of being uncomfortable if you have average man hand.

The thing with the Nikon Z is that it manages to have good specs but more importantly to me, has the best build quality, handling and feel that I’ve seen. It’s much more than it’s spec sheet. Love the thing. 

Did you miss out on all the news of the 4K 10bit output then raw video from the Nikon Z6??? Not sure how an EOSHD reader could be unaware of that 
 
Personally I see there is no chance whatsoever that the surely more expensive and possibly mythical (I have my doubts we'll see it in 2019) Sony a7Smk3 will have this 
 

Nice analogy.
The problem is too many shooters are Mr Spock!

Hmmm. Z6 sidelined for video... I have a huge Pelican case of vintage and modern Nikon-F glass that begs to differ. And Minolta MD. And Exacta. I can mount virtually any lens I want. B4, PL... Any look I want in terms of contrast, flare, lack of flare, glass-cutting sharpness of Nikon S glass.
Having shot professionally with: Sony, Panasonic, Samsung, Nikon and Canon, I’m not a fanboy of any brand. In a gen-1 camera, Nikon gives us: Full-width 4K readout. IBIS. Nikon color. Most legacy F mount Nikon/Sigma AF glass 10-bit 4:2:2 and soon ProRes RAW HDMI out. Eye AF (in May.) Atomos development collaboration. Weather sealing. Good battery life. Nikon build quality. An excellent touch interface. Nikon menu structure and customization. XQD/CFExpress speed, capacity and reliability (May.) Robust low light recording. Good tracking AF in 1.0 firmware...
Canon gives us crazy expensive glass (again), crippled features and weird fn slidy bar thingy “innovation.”
Panasonic gives us questionable DFD CDAF. The S1 is cool, until your bitrate is too low and your AF hunts and breathes constantly. Hmmm.
Sony gives us little robotic squares that do the job in 8-bit 4:2:0 like Mr. Spock, with all the associated charm.
I’m really more of a Captain Kirk guy. Gets shit done with flair and style. Reliable. Fun at parties.
Nikon has no cinema line to “protect” by making their RF/EF bodies suck. Nikon is free to innovate. More so than Sony, Panasonic—maybe all save Fuji. Canon. Meh. Idiots. Nice color science. Still, idiots to me.
Maybe once Sigma makes native Z glass and a smart adapter. Maybe one for EF glass too. People will look at the future and see Canon continuing to fall behind as B/C cams to Cxxx bodies. Maybe Sony heads in the same direction to protect Cinema cams.
My money is on Nikon Z. Literally.

?
Nikon Z is underrated... It has a lot more to offer & curios about the coming firmware update and other z's like z5 or 9...  Imagine the shitstorm if Nikon had 4K crop!

Tony Northrup is the worst. It's all about generating this or that in order to get views. It's cynical and horrible. Has nothing to do with cameras. 

I think offering full frame (no crop) 12 bit raw video on a US$2000 hybrid body pretty much meets the definition of going into complete and total overdrive.