DBounce

The test was done in controlled lighting. If the image was underexposed I raised the output of the light. I shoot both log and raw regularly. This performance is not in line with how other cameras have performed under similar conditions. If it was, I would not have been concerned. I have shot CLog, Canon RawLite, FLog, VLog, VLogL, SLog etc... all under similar conditions. This big shift in AF performance stands out as unusual.

I guess what I'm saying is don't judge this camera by the specs alone. It's output and image quality is pretty dam good. Is it soft? Well in the default setting sure... but with most cameras the opposite is true... and what do we do? We almost immediately dial down sharpness. With the EOS R you just dial it up to level 2 and you are done. I'll often try to decrease sharpness by adding filters like the BPM to my lenses. By "forget the specs and shoot", I mean this camera doesn't get in your way. Ease of use and convenance go a long way to make one more productive.

So as some of you know I did some testing with the new Nikon Z6 to see how it compared to the current AF champion ... the Canon 1DXMK2. That post is here if interested. In my testing I was befuddled by struggles with the Nikons Face Detect AF. In all the reviews that I had read and watched online the Nikon Z6 performed head to head against the best competitors. So say it's performance in video mode trumped the Sony A7III, which is no mean feat. But yet in my personal testing I could not seem to get even mediocre AF performance. Honestly, I was starting to think my unit was defective. It's then that I decided to methodically explore all situations when and how the AF was failing. I made sure lighting was adequate for proper exposure, while keeping the ISO low; never exceeding 800, which is the minimum for NLog. I conducted the test as follows: 1. Recording internally, 8 bit, battery powered/ac powered, Default profile (NLog not available internally) result: AF GOOD. 2. Recording externally, 10 bit, battery powered/ac powered, NLog: Off - result: AF GOOD 3. Recording externally, 10 bit, battery powered/ac powered, NLog: On. - result: AF BAD I think it's safe to say that if you were thinking of getting the Nikon Z6 to record externally in 10 Bit with NLog, you may want to hold off a bit. The root cause of this issue cannot be determined by this testing. It is possible it is processor load related. And if so a fix may or may not be possible in firmware. Here is the test:

Plenty of hand held shots in this video. In the comments the videographer states he is confident of using it hand held. Also, I think the image looks fantastic. Certainly good enough to tell a story. This kind of work is what happens when you forget specs and just shoot.

I use a Ronin S. But it's nothing I carry casually. I almost never post stabilize. If I want stable footage I will use a jib, slider, gimbal, or if I need repeatable movements, or working alone, I will use a full blown motion control system.

Softness, which is virtually unperceivable is preferable to the jello effect and abrupt shifts that come with hardware stabilization. It's one of the reasons I happily ditched the GH5 for the S version. I think IBIS for stills is fine... even desirable as unstabilized lenses benefit from it.

Canons system is a variation on what you see in SteadXP. As it does intelligent stabilization utilizing real-time data from the camera and lens. Here is a video of the SteadXP system vs Warp Stabilizer:

There are always compromises. I've yet to see the perfect system. And I can tell you I have used the best. But let's face the facts... you can only physically move a camera sensor so far. And that distance is no more than a fraction of an inch. So that's you physical limit as to how much movement can be compensated for. Whereas with a larger framing, one could easily compensate for several inches of movement electronically. @frontfocus As for those that think a 5 axis hybrid stabilization system that accounts for lens geometry, gyroscopic data, speed etc... such as that in the EOS R is the same as post stabilization... good luck with that! All this smack talking is amusing to me. It was the same when the M50 came out. The spec sheet warriors tore it apart. But it became very popular anyway, because you have to look at the results, not just specs.

From Canons data: "The IS system acquires camera-shake data from both a gyroscopic sensor in the lens and image data from the camera’s CMOS sensor. This Dual Sensing IS system can accurately detect and compensate for low-frequency (slow) blur that used to be hard to detect with gyroscopic sensors alone. As a result, camera-shake blur on the EOS R is reduced by the equivalent of a 5-stop faster shutter speed." The 5 stops blur reduction matches the performance of the Nikon Z6 with IBIS. Warp stabilizer in post cannot achieve the same level of artifacts free stabilization. Which is why I never use it. I think electronic is the best solution. In its most extreme implementations such as in 360 cameras, its performance even surpasses gimbals. Here is a video demonstrating the EOS R IS system:

Bit the bullet... EOS R in bound... not sure what all the squawking is about looks really nice to my eyes:

It was exposed correctly. Or are we going for the old ID 10 T error? I’m just the messenger. Feel free to drop $4500 for this setup and have at it. But believe me, I tested with three different lenses under multiple lighting conditions. Both indoors and outdoors. This issue is a processing overload being caused by NLog. Not sure if firmware will fix or if Nikons NLog is just too processor intensive. But we will soon see if Nikon addresses it.

Ok, I have solved the mystery of why the Nikon Z6 AF performed so dismally during my testing. I can confirm that IT IS A BUG and is easily reproducible. See the below video for a complete demonstration of the issue and how to reproduce.

XQD and CFast cards are both pretty robust. SD is more of a concern. But are you shooting to both cards simultaneously when shooting video? I don't think so. That is unless you are shooting on a C200 with 8 bit proxy files. Though I think the GH5/s have this feature also.

Did you do a review of the EOS R? I would be interested in hearing about your experiences with it. Also, does the stabilization work in HD mode?

Honestly, I think IBIS is overrated. Almost all the implementations I have seen can add a weird warping effect to the footage. I prefer our four stills... actually love it for stills, but for video I think lens stabilization or a gimbal makes for more predictable results.

The Nikon Z6 and Z7 do not use Sony sensors. Canon also use their own sensors.

IDK, I think the newer look is growing on me. I do like what global shutter does to motion cadence.

They are fetching around $3k on eBay. But before we get all romantic about cameras of old, let’s not forget that most of these classics had abysmal low-light performance.

Face detect is really not that useful in my experience. You can manually tap the screen and it will focus after a short hunt. But if you are looking for set and forget type performance... look elsewhere.

Tested with both the 50mm F1.8 and the 24-70mm F4. Used base ISO and adjusted light to provide good exposure. Used both default and recommended settings for optimal face detect performance. I'm honestly not sure what I could have done differently. I was stoked about the Nikon and really wanted it to do well... but it did not. I'm not exactly new to cameras so I'm pretty confident that it configured correctly. Is the R bad at AF? I've not heard that good is the case. Quiet contrary, I've heard it's excellent and can even focus in nearly complete darkness.

I think it would have IF they didn't shrink the sensor to only 1". That pretty much killed the dream for most would be customers.

So I just shot 3500 images both Raw + JPEG with the Z6. Not sure what others are getting, but the battery still has a couple bars. I think the ratings are grossly underestimating the stamina of this camera. Also, from some video I recently shot at 4000 ISO, I can report that the low-light is very clean on the Z6. Still not sure what to make of the face detect AF. Nothing I try seems to redeem its dismal performance.

Strangely enough, I have a MBSB, and almost never used it with my GH5 series cameras. It just made them too large and ruined the experience for me... YMMV. That said, I am certain there will be SB's for EOS R. Canon always... and I do mean always, holds back something. But like it or not, they nonetheless do make solid cameras.

IMO, 24mm is probably fine for most use if your subject is not too near the edges. Usually, I favor close-ups and medium wide rather than super or ulta-wide shots, limiting those to establishing shots. I really like the compression created by fast tele lenses like the Sigma 135mm F1.8. The C200 is 1.5x crop vs EOS R with a 1.7X crop (not 1.75) vs 1DXMK2 with a crop of 1.3x. Yes, it's a cropped sensor, but I used the GH5 and GH5S without complaint. Other than when using the OG BM Pocket with it's S16 sensor, I can't recall being desperate for more FOV. Would I have preferred a true S35 sensor? Heck yes, but it is hardly the end of the world.

Ok here it is, short and sweet. In this test I really was more interested in the versatility of the footage in post. But as I reviewed the footage the DOF difference became quite apparent.