Andrew Reid

Isn't it strange how lens aesthetics work!! The funnel ones remind me of a compact camera with the extending optics. It ruins the look of an LX100 when that lens pops out, small willy style. The Nikon 35mm f1.8 Z housing happens to be exactly the diameter of the mount, and it's not a small lens. So they have fucked themselves there if they ever want to make smaller optics like Leica. Looks like I will be keeping hold of my Leica SL for longer than expected... Even with fancy Panasonic S1R on the way, that minimalist metal body is quite something. By the way here is the smallest Nikon Z lens vs the smallest Leica SL lens... Quite a difference Albeit they cheated and the SL lens is APS-C... And probably made entirely by Panasonic!

Since Photokina there have been a number of interviews with Panasonic, Sigma and Leica regarding the L-mount system and the alliance behind the new lens mount. Read the full article

So why does Canon stick to 709? Is it because they believe the benefits of a wide colour gamut are reduced in 8bit LOG? I have experience of both 709 and 2020 on the Sony cameras in developing Pro Color. 709 gives the better colour and 2020 stops highlights clipping - for example bright blue neon lights clip less early on my Sony A7 III in BT.2020 than on the Canon 1D C in 709. I can't help thinking Canon stay for a reason to narrower colour gamut in 8bit...and they have made it deliver. A classic case of 'ignore the specs sheet'?

Yes, it's extremely weird. Maybe Canon have a technology we're just not aware of in-between sensor and processor, that does wonders for the image.

At ISO 1600, again surprising. Canon LOG on the EOS R is virtually noiseless, very smooth indeed, with abundant colour info. The X-H1 shot, same ISO, F-LOG, has more noise in the blacks and a harsher look overall. Why does Canon LOG keep so much colour info and the warmness of the light, whereas F-LOG washes it out? EOS R: Fuji X-H1:

Something tells me it's a lot more complicated than a driving analogy.

Does that mean you have the latest glass, or old glass? By the way I actually really liked the swirly bokeh

Surprisingly I find Digital IS pretty capable on the EOS R so far, with only a small extra crop but a LOT more steady compared to nothing... And competitive with IBIS... which is the most surprising thing. There aren't any artefacts from micro-jitter. It's pretty well locked down. Even pans work out well. IBIS on the Z7 is superior, but yes the floaty look is there and not very cinematic. The lazy temptation is there to use it and leave your handheld camera skills and tripod at home The Z7 IBIS seems in-between Sony and Panasonic for effectiveness, so it's an improvement on the A7 III but not as good as a GH5. I'd put the EOS R DIS in between the two as well. So actually more locked down than an A7 III. So far the EOS R is earning a bit of a niche for itself in my crowded camera bag. And that too is unexpected. It's a bit like a Canon GH5S. That also has a 1.8x crop and no IBIS. On the EOS R we have 480Mbit ALL-I or 120Mbit IPB codec so pretty similar to the GH5S as well. The 10bit vs 8bit issue is controversial and needs proper testing, because the Canon colours appear at first impressions to bridge the gap or even exceed how pleasing the 10bit files are on the GH5S. Even the ergonomics feel similar between the two cameras. Both have very similar screen quality, same articulated design, similar EVF resolution and size. The one area the GH5S is definitely superior is rolling shutter. But the EOS R is FAR superior for video AF and tracking. Also it is a 5D Mark IV standard full frame camera with your EF lenses for stills and 1080p, whereas the GH5S requires a Speed Booster to get close to that look and it is not 30MP. Stay tuned for my EOS R review tomorrow, it may surprise.

I have a request Jon, can you stop leading people down these rabbit-hole style URLs with just one or two words underlined. It's going to get the forum flagged by Google's spider as poor SEO or spam. It's frustrating for us as well, because we click the link out of curiosity and then find it completely irrelevant. So if you're going to link to other sites, explain what it is you're linking to and paste the URL in separately so we can see what site we'll be lead out to. Thank you.

There the letter of the law and then there's the reality of it. There's a lot of user contributions and mood pieces on YouTube using high profile songs by high profile artists and they are allowed to stay up there, they are not DMCA'ed by the label, reason being the record industry is making money through YouTube streaming and a large proportion of that money is coming from third party 'unauthorised' use of the music, not an official band channel or record label presence. So they have no interest in taking it down. If you are using a Pink Floyd track for a wedding video you shot and got paid for, that's a different matter. That is cheating the artist out of a licensing fee and their permission. I am using Epidemic Sound (prefer it to The Music Bed) for music on my EOSHD videos at the moment but something important is MISSING. I miss the early days on Vimeo where DSLR shooters would regularly upload a camera test with something like a haunting Pink Floyd track and not one of those mood-pieces made money. It was purely artistic expression and fair use, appropriation of an art form. Now with Vimeo and content ID those are flagged instantly and removed. Not so on YouTube where they stay up and earn money for the music industry. I think artists should have fair use on the things they do for art. They are not trying to profit or steal. The videos made no money yet support ad revenue for the copyright holder, it's a win-win. It's officially agreed between YouTube and the copyright holders. The video is just personal expression. Obviously you can try this with a licensed track from a library, sure. It's not the same. The mood and quality of the library music JUST DOES NOT compete with the world's best bands and artists, especially the lyrics. I'd regret to see that side of artistic expression closed off to cinematographers and their personal projects. To take someone's lyrics and add cinematic moments and movement, is very special to me. Literally poetry in motion. When it comes to the pro world of video - of course you should PAY and seek the right permissions and right license.

Nice review Dave. And yes the colour science has a cinematic mojo. A7 III with EOSHD Pro Color is cinematic as well but different. And I'd rather have Canon LOG than S-LOG 2. So I have to agree that the colour is a big reason to shoot with the EOS R, just as it was on the Canon 1D C. In fact, the moment you stop thinking about it as a full frame camera and simply as a APS-C 4K Canon with a picture to rival the C200, is the moment it 'clicks' and you think - ah, maybe it's not so bad after all. The real killer is that rolling shutter. It's BAAAD. So you will want to use a wide lens for vlogging, to avoid that - and you'll want to be careful handheld with anything longer than a 35mm. It will restrict a few shots, may ruin you at any moment so be careful. However I have enjoyed cameras before with a lot of rolling shutter - Samsung NX1 and A6500 to name but two - and it really does depend on your shooting style whether it's a real problem or not. The flippy screen and EVF are done well on this camera. The EOS R is quite like a GH5S in some ways (aside from that dreadful RS) bundled with a free 5D Mark IV for stills. I wouldn't use the 1080p - it's too soft and dated - but I would use this camera for stills and 4K when I need that flippy screen and Dual Pixel AF. It goes very nicely with the Sigma 18-35mm in 1.6x crop mode (Canon APS-C). In fact when you hit record the 4K crop is hardly noticeable compared to that APS-C mode. A bit like the Fujifilm X-H1. The other cameras are certainly more bang for your buck though. X-H1 has IBIS. A7 III has full frame 4K. So Canon gave us a poor deal, but not without also giving us one of the best 4K codecs and colour on the market. EOS R... Not all bad.

Finally we learn some things. I liked his Japan footage especially the original BMPCC stuff. I find the comments interesting about the cleaner, sharper look of the new camera and missing the grain texture of the original. Maybe cameras should start to have a 'low-fi' mode or a more analogue mode which tunes down the modern look. It would save a lot of work in post. Digital Bolex still one of my favourite looks in that respect, it's even less clean and digital looking than the original BMPCC. So the 4K/60P in RAW only goes to 10 seconds to the best CFast 2.0 and Samsung T5, so looks like we'll have to wait for BMRAW to get longer record times in that. The data rates are just too big for the current media in DNG.

This is a bit like arguing over Mini DV tape has the best quality. Mitch doesn't say what picture style settings he's using, so that video doesn't exactly help inform the World's Most Boring Debate, but if the 5D4 really is more detailed (as opposed to just more digitally sharpened) in the video above of bricks, then what little you are gaining is offset by the moire and aliasing - it seems to have more than the 5D3.

Kai has the sharpness turned up on the 5D III compared to the IV. It doesn't have more aliasing. FUCK. Do I have to do a 1080p comparison in 2018? KILL ME NOW

Yes was he comparing DPAF to DPAF..... Or DPAF to 6D Mark II OVF AF sensor? 6D II has both.

I'll moderate the forum, the way I see fit. Thanks.

Do you work for Blackmagic? And isn't it my job to moderate the forum?

Some threads are starting to read like somebody's personal SMS app. It's ridiculous. Let's calm down, think before we post, if we haven't got anything new to add apart from 20 pages of chitchat!?! No? Let's not post! I am fine with some chat but not EVERY PAGE. Deal?

Ok thanks, so that's one answer. Now let's dive further into the details. I am not talking about commercial work on YouTube without a license for the sound track. We are talking here about artistic experimentation and non-commercial use on YouTube. If YouTube is paying the royalties, per stream, from their ad revenue, how much extra on top of that is a record producer liable to take? Are they getting 100% of their fair share, 50% or 10%? What are the figures? Let's say "JOHN" uploads a camera test with a Radiohead sound track and Content ID demonetises it and every time it streams, Radiohead's label gets a share of the YouTube ad revenue. That process is entirely legal, isn't it? Where is the illegal part? I am not saying it is definitely the right thing to do and 100% safe. But I am asking the question. I want to know FOR SURE what's what. And there is such a thing in copyright law as the fair use clause as well. These include - commentary, search engines, criticism, parody, news reporting, research, and scholarship. So if you use a portion of a film clip to comment on the cinematography, or you review a film and show a scene from it, that qualifies as fair use. I'd like for us to understand copyright better, and to get a film grasp on what we CAN and can't do. It's important new YouTubers know what's what.

You guys having a private conversation or something?

Was that video a comparison of Dual Pixel AF in live-view on both... or a comparison between Dual Pixel AF on the EOS R and through the viewfinder on the 6D II?

In terms of colour, you ARE going to be able to make a GH5 look like a Canon if you shoot raw on both, as the image processing would be identical, with identical tools at your disposal in Resolve for both cameras. Raw is a direct tap on the sensor and does not involve the usual in-camera colour processing. What matters most with raw is the raw performance of the sensor output, not the image processor or in-camera colour science. Sensors do vary in their colour capture but that is not the same as colour processing. Colour capture on the Kodak CCD sensor in the Digital Bolex for example looks very analogue, very pleasing. But the same sensor is in the GH5S and BMCP4K so if both shoot raw, I'd expect both to look identical in raw given the same spec of raw codec. It is not goodnight in the slightest The codec is just one aspect of the image. Put yourself in the position of the audience. You do not sit there and only notice one aspect of the image. You also notice the sensor size, the lens, the low light performance, the dynamic range, the frame rate, the motion cadence, colour, grain and more. Sure the codec will make it's mark on all of the above (apart from sensor size and optics). But honestly, there's a reason most Alexa shoots are ProRes, not raw. Because the image quality gain is minor (in terms of the end result)

Nice idea, but would have been more useful if he'd filmed off the HDMI feed to show the AF working, rather than film himself holding the cameras and putting up a rating out of 10.

I do go with stock music. But I would like to have this question answered anyway. Surely it is not copyright infringement if YouTube is paying royalties to the musician under a legal agreement between them and the record labels?

The 1080/60p is really detailed. I noticed that in my test. Upscaling it to 4K works very well.