BasiliskFilm

I am not dissing education or training. The thing is the academic route was set up when access to professional tools and equipment were limited and you could only get to practice with expensive kit by signing up. Now that a digital camera, a few lenses and a laptop with software are in everyone's hands, the colleges are no longer the gatekeepers, and work can be shared on-line. Even if you go to college you probably still need to buy your own kit, in addition to fees. So think of what else you could do with that time and money.

no one ever asked me about my degree. OK that is many years ago now. It is all about skills, portfolio and word of mouth. If you are a self starter you can build these yourself.

I didn't watch in detail. But a couple of points that need clarifying. 1. Mostly one girl/woman, rather than "girls" 2. What about the poor guy, who has quite a lot of screen-time? 3. What film was this shot on? 4. Isn't it 2019 already?

Does a Tamron 28-75 f2.8 FE (adapted) focus as quickly/smoothly on the Nikon as the native 24-70 f4? I have to say the Tamron f2.8 zooms are a big attraction, budget-wise, of the E mount system, but if they can be adapted well, or Tamron produce a native Z version, then Nikon looks much more attractive. Maybe Tamron needs to get someone from Techart to work on their AF protocols?

Is the Leica M AF adaptor smooth enough for video (when used on a Sony body)? I have seen that it is accurate, but thought it was not very smooth.

Two things keep me from coming down on the Z side of the fence. Lens selection, which is probably years behind, especially when you consider decent value f2.8 zooms from Tamron. And AF performance for action photo/video. Maybe the solution is to get the Z6 with the Techart adaptor, Sony glass, and an APS-C Sony (A6400?) for the best of both worlds?

Nikon video AF looks fine, but currently Sony seems to take it to another level, with magical levels of stickiness with object tracking. Considering a camera that is capable of wildlife and action video/photography, this could be a deciding factor.

The image from a crop sensor camera using a 50mm f1.8 lens will be identical to an image shot with a full sensor camera with the same lens cropped to match in post. If you keep all variables the same it doesn't matter if you crop before or after shooting. The image is the same. I honestly don't mind if you disagree with me though.

You are turning a full frame camera into a crop frame camera - the centre 50% of the sensor is about the same size as a micro 4/3 sensor. The standard way of working out full-frame-equivalence is to multiply the focal length and aperture by the crop factor, in this case 2x. The actual focal length and aperture remain the same, obviously.

your 24 f1.4 prime would become the equivalent of a 24 f1.4 to 48 f2.8 zoom. Aperture equivalence is proportional to frame size.

If they had turned the lights on someone might have noticed the starbucks cup

Shooting dialogue or a talking head, the option of capturing the equivalent of a midlength shot and a portrait shot simultaneously is a no-brainer for saving time in shooting and edit. Mostly I deliver in 1080p, but oversampling for best quality never hurts: C100 does it in camera and produces a nice result, but that is for technical reasons that should no longer apply. If you could have the full sensor output, why would you not?

I had full frame 35mm on my Olympus Trip 35, 40 years ago. So you are not going to persuade me that APS-C is anything other than a poor compromise for stills photography. Progress in chip manufacture means that you can get full frame for £800 (original A7) now and that will only come down. Nikon could make a cut price Z5 by skimping on a lot of features (digital vs sensor stabilisation) lower res EVF and back screen, smaller buffer, simpler controls. They can cater for APSC by making an EVF version of the D5400. It is pretty small already and they can continue with their current lens lineup until demand fizzles out.

Is it really worth entering the mirrorless crop frame market? It would need a whole lot of extra lenses for it to make sense, and even Sony who have sold shedloads of A6xxx bodies hasn't really got serious with dedicated APS-C lenses. Would Nikon actually produce a more compact body, when one of the things that folk appreciate about the Z series (over Sony) is the useability and ergonomics? Canon, Sony, Fuji, Panasonic, Olympus, started with smaller sensors on mirrorless before full frame was practical, but having cracked it, Nikon should keep with full frame (with a good crop mode), and possibly bring out a stripped down low end model like Canon have, rather than waste resources on a backward looking crop format body. Filmakers can shoot in S35 on the current Z models, and most stills shooters appreciate the benefits of a FF sensor.

Canon now have a low end RP model, and Sony is still selling the A7 and A7II low prices. Nikon may still have the best value full frame hybrid model in the Z6 (as Canon still doesn't do full frame video on mirrorless), but they don't want to vacate the sub £2000 market altogether. Sony is offering a similar discount on the A7III in the UK. The mirrorless market has suddenly got very crowded, and price competition is a new and mostly welcome thing. It doesn't mean they won't make it back with overpriced lenses though (as was always the case with e.g cheap inkjet printers and expensive cartridges...)