Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
rarp

z6 vs XT3

Recommended Posts

44 minutes ago, rarp said:

You are right, I like very much the look of the Zeiss 85

So, in order to record high quality codecs like prores, the recorder can have access to a higher bitrate than the camera itself can record?

Yes, I know about lightroom and its dislike for xtrans sensors. Until some time ago, I have been using a Fuji X pro1 and switched to using capture one for the raf files. And I remember the mushy details were a little bit tricky to sharpen. But probably things have evolved also in the last few years.

Yeah I am pretty sure the current version of lightroom is pretty decent. I just did a comparison between converted DNG's to Fuji RAF files in lightroom. There was a difference but only visible when cropping in and it wasn't that noticeable even then. 

Yes the external recording is completely different. It uses Prores data rates which are a lot larger than the 150mbps internal(I believe its 150mbps?). A single minute of ProRes UHD file (3840 x 2160) is around 5.3 GB (880 Mbits/s)

That is the nice thing about compressed codecs, Fuji's 400mbps is half the data rate. 

I do like full frame, which is why I have been using a speedbooster a lot on the Fuji. Though I have to say the 50mm f2 and 23mm f2 get nice bokeh for most situations when I need auto focus. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EOSHD Pro Color for Sony cameras EOSHD Pro LOG for Sony CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs

Re. the XT3 stills (we're going a little off topic here...) I don't understand this 'mushiness' comment.

Ever since the X series was launched 8 years ago, there has been more chatter about perhaps any other camera regarding the processing of images, especially since the X Trans sensor came out.

The single biggest issue I think has been not so much 'user error', but rather a case of using methods previously used for DSLR combined with the fact that getting the best from Lightroom was something of an art...so perhaps is best termed 'user error' after all?

With every version of the X Trans sensor and Adobe, improvements have been made and it's really only misuse of the detail slider that can cause any issues these days.

I've been shooting the X Series professionally for 8 years using Lightroom and if it was in any way crap, like thousands of others, would not still be using it today!

In summary, it does require some adaptation, but less so with every version of both hard and software.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, rarp said:

You are right, I like very much the look of the Zeiss 85

So, in order to record high quality codecs like prores, the recorder can have access to a higher bitrate than the camera itself can record?

Yes, I know about lightroom and its dislike for xtrans sensors. Until some time ago, I have been using a Fuji X pro1 and switched to using capture one for the raf files. And I remember the mushy details were a little bit tricky to sharpen. But probably things have evolved also in the last few years.

The camera output an uncompressed HDMI signal that the recorder records in the codec and bitrate of your choice from 8 bit to 10 bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...