Castorp

the preceding* body of professional work im influenced by was shot on film 

also, i can be objective about color, i went to art SCAD, SVA and Art Center, and took multiple color theory classes, because i was required to
 

Andrew, the comments about grading weren’t intended for you specifically.  Read the post.  I was talking in generalities about recent facebook groups I’d left and a similar entitled tone here. It was not a personal attack but you chose to take it that way.
Cmon, I shoot these shots for BMD for exactly this purpose. To be downloaded and graded.  If I was truly precious about it I wouldn’t do it again and again would I ? 
You’re throwing a tantrum, publicly, because you dind’t get an invite to a BMD event that is seems like few even knew about.
Somehow you think that’s got something to do with me so you went and wrote a post about me. A really lovely piece too.
I’ve said it already a thousand times.
I don’t work for them.  
I don’t have that much to do with them day to day.  Last contact I had with anyone at BMD was weeks ago.  
It’s not my job to make sure YOU get some attention from them.  That’s on you to make that case.  
And by the way, this kind of childish unprofessional behaviour is exactly the kind of reason any company would think twice about working with you.
Instead, you launch a highly personal assasination blog post as well as numerous personal attacks because I dared to try and explain that to you in a way that you thought wasn’t deferential enough ?
You don’t do this for free.  You sell something.  I don’t but you actually do.
Having traffic come to this site means you have a greater chance of selling something.
You sell LUT’s and you sell guides and you use the traffic here to do so. So don’t pretend all this free traffic is somehow a favour to BMD and free publicity.
I didn’t even see the post you made about the BMD footage till your personal attack on me,  but I noticed when I read your BMD post you’re mixing in a bunch of references to LUT’s you’re trying to flog.
How about this...
Delete every single post of mine.  All the IP that I’ve posted and shared on this forum? All those posts where I’ve shared my knowledge and experience.  
Go ahead and put your money where your mouth is.
JB

This is a great review. I very much like how he deals with all the problems and then at the end says how the camera was fun to use and is a really good and effective camera.
Looks like a great camera. 

Hmm, Jordan did a really nice job on this review. He seems to like it. It looks like a better video camera than we have thought. I sort of wish I could afford it now.
 

Listen, I'm a happy Canon user, so yes you will find me generally speaking positively about products I own in Canon related threads.
The difference is I don't go into other brand threads I don't own (and have zero intention of owning) to troll & toot my own horn..

Riiiight, because your comment doesn't come off at all like Sony fanboyism.
You might have had a case if you were using an A9 series (rest aren't even weather sealed). But the A6300... better than Canon.. for sports really? Cmon.
The joke of the LCD rear display with less than 1M px (not even half of EOS R's resolution) requires that monitor on top. Lack of ergonomics means you need that side handle.
That camera has worst RS than EOS R (more than double in FHD), overheats after like 15mn, AF nowhere near DPAF, no touchscreen, no IBIS/IS, weak battery life etc..
Yeah what a pro solution over Canon that camera is ? Better not rain during the game.. meanwhile Super Bowl last year:

RIP CANON ?
 

It would be more sensational, but I'll leave that to you, I'm more interested in facts.
In terms of how I interpret the data on those graphs, I do it by looking at the datapoints that I quoted.  If you're not sure how to read graphs properly then there are many good online courses from reputable university courses available.  
If you disagree with their methodology or results, then I look forward to reading your published and peer-reviewed paper on the subject.  Or actually making some kind of sensible criticism.  Zooming in to a low resolution graph and assessing the data point that's less than one pixel wide is just stupid.
I blocked you previously because of your disgusting personal attack on someone else here on this forum, but have been reading your comments because I thought that despite having basically no inter-personal skills (or no compassion) you had some technical knowledge to contribute.  But if you can't even read a graph properly, or more likely you're deliberately mis-reading it because you value being right more than the facts, then I'm not sure why anyone would trust anything you contribute.
I looked for that mentioned above but couldn't find it.  Maybe I missed it?
4K60 10-bit with HLG would really be something if it could do it!
 

I totally agree on calling out BS, so here goes - your post is BS.  
You're right that it's optimised for lower bitrates, but the advantages remain at higher ones.
This paper shows the objective (Peak Signal-to-Noise ratios) and subjective (blind test) comparison of the two: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=7254155
The graphs in the paper test bitrates on UHD 60Hz up to 38Mbps H.264 and 18Mbps HEVC (broadcast bitrates) and they conclude:
And what about higher bitrates?
This paper here shows the relatively quality of the two at higher bitrates - up to about 250Mbps: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b0bc/9342d1031250db0c7e2aabd2eeed51beef2e.pdf
Figure 3 shows that the 50% saving seems to extend up to around 6Mbps H264 (where the equivalent HEVC is about 3Mbps) but after that point there is a knee in the HEVC curve.
Figure 4 shows that the HEVC bitrate required to match the H264 goes above 50% up to the point where 40Mbps H264 requires about 30Mbps HEVC.
Figure 5 shows that the HEVC bitrate required to match the H264 goes back closer to 50% where 250Mbps H264 requires about 120Mbps HEVC, and for another clip 200Mbps H264 requires about 110Mbps HEVC.
Fact-checking the internet is fun, but it helps if you actually know the facts when you do it.
Yeah, some higher bitrates would have been nice.
I came late to the GH5 party so I don't know what the original specs were or what people thought of them, but they did introduce the 400Mbps and 5K Open Gate modes in firmware updates, so maybe there will be updates for this too?  I guess time will tell.

Most fun to shoot with? I've owned everyone of these cameras on the list except the BMPC. By far the most fun is the X-H1, followed by the Nikon Z6.
When I go out to shoot I pick up the X-H1, with a camera bag with Rokinon EF mount lenses, and three EF to F mount adapters: standard adapter, adapter with a throttle variable ND filter, and an adapter with speed booster---and get ready to have a great time shooting.
The last thing Sony needs is to go punk. 
Sony needs to go Mozart, or Brahms--or even Wagner. 
Anything is better than their devotion to the Zombie apocalypse look.

Raw is all the rage... and it can save the day sometimes.  But the truth is if you can avoid the need to shoot in raw you will make your post production much easier. I never shoot raw under controlled conditions. I try to setup my shots so post work involves only minor changes at best.  Storage of all that raw data can become a headache quickly. And even though storage can be had pretty cheaply... $3k or so for a raid... physical space for all the hardware starts to become a problem.  If Panasonic includes the mythical organic sensor... I believe raw becomes irrelevant for 99% of the user base. But honestly, I see little chance of this sensor making its way into a GH camera any time soon. However,  we might see it slow up in a Fuji camera. They partnered with Panasonic to craft the technology. 
Fixed TC will not happen... they could have fixed it on the GH5/s but chose not to. 
The 4k slow-mo is nothing I care about. Truthfully, I think I might have used slow-mo once. I don't shoot music videos and when filming my family... well they move at real time speed. I would wager slow-mo is more of a nice to have,  but not important to most people here just like it is on smartphones. It's the sort of thing that gets used once and then quickly forgotten about. 
 

First, the NIKON Z6 AND SONY A73 DO NOT SHARE THE SAME SENSOR. Nikon has their own engineering department and designed the sensors in the Z series to their own specs. They outsourced the manufacturing to Sony. 
As for Nikon only handing over the keys to their HDMI protocol... well that's selling Nikon short imo. Let's not forget that the entire new Z-mount lens series is specifically designed to work well for video.  The lenses all operate near silent... and all have minimal focus breathing. Even the just announced 14-30mm F4 is designed with a flat front, so that it can be fitted with ND filters for video use. 
Nikon is building a video friendly system... not just a single video friendly body. I believe this is hugely important for many of us here in this community. 
As for the 1DXMK3, I know it will be amazing for stills,  and the video will look great out of it. But it's hard for me to imagine Canon not pulling a Canon again... I hope I'm wrong.

You really can get them to look near enough to identical in post. That said, after spending more time with the pair I can confidently report that the Nikon trumps the Canon in image quality. AF is near enough as makes no difference... if you do not shoot N-Log. The build is better on the Nikon. Reliability is better... zero issues to date, while the Canon did experience three errors... granted easily recovered from. 
Where the Canon excels is in usability. It's very easy to shoot with. The flip screen is wonderful. The controls are also easy to manipulate from both in front and from behind the camera. Shooting to SD cards is great if you have tons of them laying around like I do. 
My overall impression is that when Nikon released the Z6 they aimed to knock one out of the park. It's a camera they intend to be in the lineup for some time. They are committed to improving it and adding features over time. Whereas, I get the sense that Canon released the EOS R kicking and screaming. It feels like a camera that is intended to have a very short lifespan; destined to be replaced by another model soon.

I think there's too many people concerned with defending themselves against the people with big problems and not enough concern for actually fixing those problems in the first place.
Then again I live in a country so full of socialist communist lefty hippies that the conservative government used a massacre as an excuse to take away all our guns, and now as a forty-something I live in complete repression with only the fact that neither I, nor anyone else I know well, has been directly impacted by gun violence.  Naturally, I'd rather be packing serious heat and going to funerals like all the free countries out there.  But maybe that's just me?

I'm all in favour of retro fun; I even put a roll of Ilford FP4 through my Pentax Spotmatic recently. Sadly I don't have the time or money to buy multiple expensive bodies, and the Z6 seems to be the Swiss Army Knife sweet spot at the moment, especially with my existing Nikon modern and vintage glass.

The stills side also need to be taken in account for hybrid shooters. Already got a z6 and wanted to later add a Bmpcc4k, I'm gonna wait to see what is coming from Nikon as firmware additions !

You can keep a model on the shelf longer if you keep improving it through its lifetime. Sony have been a bit cursed by releasing so many different models of camera, some with major, some with minor improvements, but with no upgrade path - beyond the fact you could keep you lenses and accessories.
To some extent it makes sense to "build in" the cost of software upgrades, as later purchasers will get them included in the price of the camera. Like Apple now does with OSX and iOS updates. There is an argument that not many users use Log output, so perhaps only the few should pay, but there are quite a lot of folk who buy for the flagship features who never use them, so it is probably worth including all possible software improvements to boost sales.
This is the same company who produced the retro Df, which deliberately removed video to keep all the photo purists happy! Nice to see they have moved on. 

Yes, that's exactly what I thought when I wrote "I'm not saying it is deliberate, but more a kind of opportunity to make the camera live a long and evolving life !". My rather limited English bridle my capacity to express what I think ? I too need to update my software !!

I don’t think it’s about releasing an “unfinished” product. It’s because our minds are stuck in pre-computerised concepts. Nobody would accuse Apple or Microsoft of unreleasing unfinished products just because they update the OS now and then. And it’s not only about fixing bugs. If you have a software system which you can improve, why wouldn’t you? I’d go so far to say there should be some regulation so that any product can be pushed as far as possible in firmware before releasing subsequent products. It’s horribly wasteful to do otherwise.
Its only quite recently that the nature of software is starting to make an imprint in a wider sense. We are hardware minded in general. I know, for example, more recently in airplane software there are structures making sure flight critical software is completely separated from other software. This way systems can be upgraded continuously without the entire system needing to be re-tested and certified. So the concept of upgrade is built in to the core architecture from the start. We’re still quite a few years away before the nature of software is fully absorbed. To treat software based technology, like digital cameras, as if they’re fixed hardware objects from days old will look equally ridiculous as early cars that looked like horse carriages look to us now. In a sense the current transition is even weirder.
I would say all cameras should be continuously updated. The camera makers may charge for that. I would not expect it to be free of charge. The failure to properly valorise software is of course another remnant of old thinking. People don’t want to pay for these things which is, of course, totally absurd. 

I don’t think it’s about releasing an “unfinished” product. It’s because our minds are stuck in pre-computerised concepts. Nobody would accuse Apple or Microsoft of unreleasing unfinished products just because they update the OS now and then. And it’s not only about fixing bugs. If you have a software system which you can improve, why wouldn’t you? I’d go so far to say there should be some regulation so that any product can be pushed as far as possible in firmware before releasing subsequent products. It’s horribly wasteful to do otherwise.
Its only quite recently that the nature of software is starting to make an imprint in a wider sense. We are hardware minded in general. I know, for example, more recently in airplane software there are structures making sure flight critical software is completely separated from other software. This way systems can be upgraded continuously without the entire system needing to be re-tested and certified. So the concept of upgrade is built in to the core architecture from the start. We’re still quite a few years away before the nature of software is fully absorbed. To treat software based technology, like digital cameras, as if they’re fixed hardware objects from days old will look equally ridiculous as early cars that looked like horse carriages look to us now. In a sense the current transition is even weirder.
I would say all cameras should be continuously updated. The camera makers may charge for that. I would not expect it to be free of charge. The failure to properly valorise software is of course another remnant of old thinking. People don’t want to pay for these things which is, of course, totally absurd. 

Here is the videocentric version:
After 2 months spent with the camera, I can honestly say it's my favourite Canon to date  

Alright, I need to rant. Slightly tongue in cheek so apologies in advance to toes I might be stepping on. Ok, who with any kind of self respect uses a camera that has “FULL FRAME” written on the outside? Yes let’s use a somewhat problematic term and paint it on the outside of the camera together with BIONZ INSIDE or whatever else crap is on there. I think there’s a f****g “4K” sticker on there too. These labels, besides being reminiscent of labels on cheap hifi from the 90’s, is designed to re-assure the insecure gadget consumer that they indeed bought the FULL FRAME camera.
That’s how I view these Sony-trolls that pester forums online. And no, users of Canon or Nikon or Pentax et c are not as aggressive. Many Canon/Nikon users I know would never even write on these places. They don’t care about tech. 
Sony is exciting. Sony is FRESH NEW TECH. Prepare to get excited!
Sony of course know the buyers of their products and they know which buyers they target. Hence the labels, hence the heavy focus on specifications that look great on paper while ignoring ergonomics, colour, durability and so on. The targeted consumer is a male tech geek. These nerds are typically, in my experience, incredibly entitled to the TRUTH. Which makes them entitled and arrogant. They know they have God, sorry I mean paper-specs, on their side. It’s the same dudes that were insufferable know it alls in college. 
Yet these dudes don’t understand why most successful photographers are using other brands. So there’s the insecurity again. Better read over my FULL FRAME sticker ten times, calm myself with the 4K label, and then go online and write about all other cameras being shit. 
I can’t imagine anything less attractive than a man-boy who feels good about themselves by affirming themselves with the latest teddybear, sorry I mean spec.
I can’t imagine anything less hot than a man-boy who instead of gifting a beautiful photograph or video to the world, goes online to preach about the importance of AF speed.
I struggle to understand what a gigantic turn off it is to relate to camera brands as if they were football clubs. 
I fail to comprehend the sexiness of going online to shout “mine is faster than yours” as if six year old boys. 
I would never ever, even if somebody paid me two grand, be seen with an A7. Someone might spot the “FULL FRAME” and with that, the writing is quite literally on the wall what kind of man I am. 
 
PS. Before you hang me please understand that this was written with intention of humour and not without cheerful self-deprecation. Have a nice day. 

Alright, I need to rant. Slightly tongue in cheek so apologies in advance to toes I might be stepping on. Ok, who with any kind of self respect uses a camera that has “FULL FRAME” written on the outside? Yes let’s use a somewhat problematic term and paint it on the outside of the camera together with BIONZ INSIDE or whatever else crap is on there. I think there’s a f****g “4K” sticker on there too. These labels, besides being reminiscent of labels on cheap hifi from the 90’s, is designed to re-assure the insecure gadget consumer that they indeed bought the FULL FRAME camera.
That’s how I view these Sony-trolls that pester forums online. And no, users of Canon or Nikon or Pentax et c are not as aggressive. Many Canon/Nikon users I know would never even write on these places. They don’t care about tech. 
Sony is exciting. Sony is FRESH NEW TECH. Prepare to get excited!
Sony of course know the buyers of their products and they know which buyers they target. Hence the labels, hence the heavy focus on specifications that look great on paper while ignoring ergonomics, colour, durability and so on. The targeted consumer is a male tech geek. These nerds are typically, in my experience, incredibly entitled to the TRUTH. Which makes them entitled and arrogant. They know they have God, sorry I mean paper-specs, on their side. It’s the same dudes that were insufferable know it alls in college. 
Yet these dudes don’t understand why most successful photographers are using other brands. So there’s the insecurity again. Better read over my FULL FRAME sticker ten times, calm myself with the 4K label, and then go online and write about all other cameras being shit. 
I can’t imagine anything less attractive than a man-boy who feels good about themselves by affirming themselves with the latest teddybear, sorry I mean spec.
I can’t imagine anything less hot than a man-boy who instead of gifting a beautiful photograph or video to the world, goes online to preach about the importance of AF speed.
I struggle to understand what a gigantic turn off it is to relate to camera brands as if they were football clubs. 
I fail to comprehend the sexiness of going online to shout “mine is faster than yours” as if six year old boys. 
I would never ever, even if somebody paid me two grand, be seen with an A7. Someone might spot the “FULL FRAME” and with that, the writing is quite literally on the wall what kind of man I am. 
 
PS. Before you hang me please understand that this was written with intention of humour and not without cheerful self-deprecation. Have a nice day. 

Alright, I need to rant. Slightly tongue in cheek so apologies in advance to toes I might be stepping on. Ok, who with any kind of self respect uses a camera that has “FULL FRAME” written on the outside? Yes let’s use a somewhat problematic term and paint it on the outside of the camera together with BIONZ INSIDE or whatever else crap is on there. I think there’s a f****g “4K” sticker on there too. These labels, besides being reminiscent of labels on cheap hifi from the 90’s, is designed to re-assure the insecure gadget consumer that they indeed bought the FULL FRAME camera.
That’s how I view these Sony-trolls that pester forums online. And no, users of Canon or Nikon or Pentax et c are not as aggressive. Many Canon/Nikon users I know would never even write on these places. They don’t care about tech. 
Sony is exciting. Sony is FRESH NEW TECH. Prepare to get excited!
Sony of course know the buyers of their products and they know which buyers they target. Hence the labels, hence the heavy focus on specifications that look great on paper while ignoring ergonomics, colour, durability and so on. The targeted consumer is a male tech geek. These nerds are typically, in my experience, incredibly entitled to the TRUTH. Which makes them entitled and arrogant. They know they have God, sorry I mean paper-specs, on their side. It’s the same dudes that were insufferable know it alls in college. 
Yet these dudes don’t understand why most successful photographers are using other brands. So there’s the insecurity again. Better read over my FULL FRAME sticker ten times, calm myself with the 4K label, and then go online and write about all other cameras being shit. 
I can’t imagine anything less attractive than a man-boy who feels good about themselves by affirming themselves with the latest teddybear, sorry I mean spec.
I can’t imagine anything less hot than a man-boy who instead of gifting a beautiful photograph or video to the world, goes online to preach about the importance of AF speed.
I struggle to understand what a gigantic turn off it is to relate to camera brands as if they were football clubs. 
I fail to comprehend the sexiness of going online to shout “mine is faster than yours” as if six year old boys. 
I would never ever, even if somebody paid me two grand, be seen with an A7. Someone might spot the “FULL FRAME” and with that, the writing is quite literally on the wall what kind of man I am. 
 
PS. Before you hang me please understand that this was written with intention of humour and not without cheerful self-deprecation. Have a nice day. 

No one stated the obvious so far. It is a shame they did not put a round a eye piece on the two cameras. 

Interestingly in his recent teardown of a Canon lens, Roger from Lensrentals says two things:
 
So it seems other notice too