EduPortas

All you said is correct. Unless your James Cameron et al. for the newbie artist the only real way to survive is by "comercial ideological alignment". That's my term but I'm sure others have used it before. If you wish to live by art and art alone you better make an ideological statement (which includes politics of course). Once you convince others to back your art by this "comercial ideological alignment" the sky's the limit thanks to digital environments. Social media has absolutely catapulted these artists into the stratosphere even if their art is "mediocre". Your reach will be massive, you'll get the eyeballs, but you need to find that specific group that sees the world as yourself and convince them to send your money. Movies, pics, anime, drawings, songs, stupid comments on camera, it's all the same since you can put it on a small screen.

Thank you, you're correct. I'm 100% sure can add an option on the menu so we get a similar experience as the Nikon EVF. I have no problem focusing at F5.6. I do however have a problem with the Canon method bc the whole screen moves in and out of the focusing plane. It's very annoying and makes the EVF unusable in the most advance option (Exp+DOF simulation) IMO. On the second you mentioned I do believe DPReview strived in the past to make good journalism writing 20+ pages on a camera review. We have a good example in Andrew's fantastic write-up on the GH4. Quality stuff.

Yes, I have no way to prove this but it seems the major brands have a digital troll army ready to attack anyone who questions or even remotely criticises one of their products. They'll hound you until you give in. I can understand that. Big companies will do almost everything to protect their markets. What's incredibly disconcerting is the unholy union of a journalism site specializing in photography and those electronic brands. It has now become clear the "mods" take orders from the Marketing Department. And yes, I checked a bunch of sites if reviewers had mentioned this particular problem on the R8's EVF when taking photographs. Nada. Nothing. Exactly zero profesional reviewers mentioned this obvious problem. It is a very good video-camera, though.

I'm talking about a purely economical perspective since the 40mm came out first. Both are fast and small lenses.

We all know about Andrew's problem with the site. A damned shame. What I never thought I'd see would be censorship in DPR's forums. I've posted hundreds of times and created almost 50 threads since 2013 (lurked there since 2006, by the way). And yet, last week my post was taken down in the Canon EOS R forum for petitioning Canon HQ in Tokyo to fix a Canon R8 EVF bug through firmware. My petition was very respectful. I dotted all my eyes and said thank you at the end of my text. The problem? The R8 does this weird "micro-juddering" when focusing through the EVF at any apertura other than the brightest aperture of the lens. This happens in the DOF+Exposure option in the EVF only. I'm no expert but it seems the focus planes are moving and that creates image movement in the EVF. It's incredibly distracting and sickening. I'm sure Canon can fix this easily. My basic Nikon Z50 works fine when focusing through the EVF and displaying both aperture and exposure changes in real time. Focus is rock- solid. And yet this subject was deemed too controversial and infringing on the rules of DPR's forums. IMO it's a been a steep decline after the new administration took over (and Amazon was not exactly a gold standard in the editorial industry, btw)

Problem is their own 40mm FX came out before the 24mm DX. I'm guessing most Z DX buyers like myself were starved for a small, fast and light lens for our Z50s. Having a 40mm F2 made buying a 24mm F1.7 almost redundant. The 40mm is very good for the price.

There's a huge difference between 12-24 fps. As mentioned here various times a great deal of experimentation was requiered to place the exact number of fps for something to look "right" at 24. 8-12-14-18 look very dreamy for sure yet no quite "right". The other and much higher fps you mentioned from the article look sharper = more real = more prone to danger.

Better than most DSLRs, though.

Nope, not there. I'm referring to high-contrast scenes in the last third of both films. Dialogue heavy, so the camera lingers on the subjects and the noise really becomes apparent. Just watch the films and you'll know what I mean. It's impossible to miss. Great pictures both of them.

No, watch both films. It's jarring and, as I said, you just can't ignore it. "Noise floor", "mosquito noise", "photon entropy". Poteito, potato. Called it how you prefer, it's there.

I don't know, I'm just looking at the final product on screen. Clearly someone in the final edit made a choice and decided to keep all that digital noise after lifting the shadows.

No bro, it's the digital noise that creeps up when you lift the shadows in a violent fashion and all kinds of artifacts show up. Blue dots, green lines, random pixels everywhere, you've seen it.

That's interesting, thanks.

Slow weekend. Watched "Anatomy of a Fall" and "The Zone of Interest" on streaming back-to-back. Both were nominated for a ton of different awards, including this year's Oscars. Now I understand why. They are truly fantastic narratives produced in creative poles other than Hollywood. And yet, I couldn't help but notice that BOTH films feature scenes full of mosquito-noise in the last third of the narrative. You cannot not see it. High contrast scenes in both of them. From extreme shadows to extreme brightness in the same frame. A good amount of time of on-screen mosquito noise, not a second or two. The director just said to the editor "fuck it, lift the shadows as much as you can and we'll show it that way, with all this digital noise. Who the hell cares". Just saying guys. Maybe we're just too close to the trees.

What? No love for Tascam's DSLR recorder? Menus are close to impossible to understand but lots of YT videos out there to make it work.