Leaderboard

I want a Porsche 911, a motorhome and a Nikon Z9. In any order.

And that goes for anything, not just DR. When ‘stuff’ looks (or sounds) better, folks do notice, but it tends to be in a more subliminal manner. When something is off though, it tends to jar and be highly noticeable. Negative stuff is harder to get right and easier to get wrong. I’m always doing stuff with my work, photo and video to not so much improve it, but remove any obvious elements that will take away from it. And then there is the pride factor in your own work, doing more than you need to even though 99.9% of other people will never notice. It’s often all the little stuff that adds up to make the whole.

You're thinking about this wrong. The P4K / P6K / P6K Pro have a very strong feature-set and this addition gives them PDAF. The only other ways to add good AF to a setup the same way is to either hire a focus puller, or to upgrade to a camera that has everything the BM cameras have but also has PDAF. Either of these options easily runs into the tens-of-thousands-of-dollars. The problem with cameras is that people don't compare the full package, only isolated features, but when you're buying a camera you can get one feature very cheap, but for each extra feature you want it multiplies the cost - by the time you have internal RAW and 13 stops of DR the addition of PDAF creates a pretty small and expensive list of potential candidates.

I'm comparing UHD on a 1080p timeline, but they're rough figures anyway. In terms of not being able to see 1-2 stops of DR difference, if its right at the edges of what is visible then yeah, you can totally see it. Have you ever even shot in uncontrolled conditions and tried to pull detail from both ends of the spectrum? It's really sounding like you haven't because I have, and it's really quite obvious.

https://www.cined.com/fujifilm-x-t3-review/ And you are not even comparing the same test to each other. It would be 12.4 at max not 13. Like you are really going to see 1 to 1.2 stops with you eye.

Everyone wants a new camera all the time. Except when they're asleep, and when they're thinking about what they're shooting and what is in the final video.

Yay for Leica (and the Panny S1R) not having a Sony sensor 😎

You're thinking about this wrong - when you shoot LOG you create highlight rolloff in post using the methods I have mentioned. For all practical purposes, all cameras are just large arrays of linear light measurement - they don't have any highlight rolloff at all. The "Look" of each camera is defined almost exclusively by the colour processing that happens after the image is captured (and a tiny bit by the sensor) and when you shoot log you're in control of the vast majority of that processing that occurs. I couldn't find reliable DR tests for the Z6, but the GH5 doesn't compare well to the XT-3... GH5 v1 has 10.8 stops, GH5 v2 has 11.5 and XT-3 has 13 stops. DR can make more of a difference than many people think when shooting in uncontrolled conditions and when it's not just art but needs to be informational as well. In shooting the GH5 v1 I am often forced to choose between clipping the whole sky and being able to identify the person sitting in the shade. A choice between "here's a photo of Susan and the sky is digital white" and "here's a nice photo of .... someone? who is that?" isn't a choice that I enjoy having to make. Of course, this choice is actually a factor of how usable the image is in latitude tests rather than just DR as a single digit. Having a photo of Susan where she's bright purple is better than her not being recognisable, but still leaves a huge amount to be desired.

True, at the end of the day the story is what matters. But man you really get a sense of satisfaction when you make an image you are proud of.

I disagree, I think even a lot of us can be fooled by some Smarthpnone stuff if it doesn't involve long zooms and big DoF. There are some damn good phones out now, and if you use Raw it can be even better if you are skilled at grading. So I really doubt the average person has a clue what is good or bad filming wise. It still boils down to if the footage is interesting to a large audience. When I was young stuff was so terrible quality wise it was ridiculous but hell I didn't know it at the time. I watched stuff in amazement as did everyone else. It is the story that holds you, not the camera shooting it. Sure, if are shooting weddings you need some good stuff and a lot of skill. But damn some of the best Si Fi movies were shot on crap cameras along with pretty crap actors, and horror movies hell the worse the quality the better.

Talk about DR.

Guess I’ve got to accept the facts. If I want the high DR look in even difficult evironments, I just have to shoot log. I’m actually considering selling my z6 and switching to a Fuji xt3, I think I could live without IBIS but having internal 10 bit log would be so nice for keeping things compact. I would use some of the fast sigma or viltrox 1.4 primes. How do you think the FLOG image would compare to my full frame NLOG image?

I’m not really sure how to answer this… For one thing, I rarely look at what anyone else is doing as it’s such a rabbit hole. Otherwise, I have a plan of sorts in regard to what I shoot with both stills and video, and there is some crossover, but at the same time elements unique to each. Ceremonies and speeches for instance I use 2 ‘extra’ static cameras which leaves me free to roam, mostly shooting stills. Details that a lot of pure videographers shoot, I tend to ignore and leave purely to stills. Candid people tends to be the biggest crossover area when I tend to capture the same scene in both formats ‘at the same time’, ie, seconds apart. There is also quite a bit of focal length difference. I dunno, it kind of just is what it is and kind of evolved by itself over the last 12 years I have been shooting hybrid… 🤷‍♂️