DBounce

Well what? They give reasons for their specific choice to shoot with the Alexa 65 and wide lenses. And the choice made news, because it was unusual. Does this somehow invalidate the fact the virtually everything is shot on S35? Ful frame is a specialized look... S35 is the industry standard. I'd post a link to all the movies shot on S35, but I'm not trying to break the site with information overload. Nikkor 50mm f1.8 S Z and Canon 50mm f1.2 L.

Wider lenses tend to distort. Not great for close ups unless that look is intended to tell the audience something about the character or situation.

I think that's what it is... they are tiering their offerings.

I'm going to share some insight with you. After using the Z6 some more... under very controlled conditions, I can reveal the following: when it nails the shot, if you are close to the subject... within two or three feet, and if you are shooting at f1.8... to let the light in, it can be distracting. Why? Because in all honesty, the DOF is just too shallow. So much so that the entire face of a subject cannot be in focus. The solution to this is to stop down. But this means sacrificing the blurred backgrounds and giving up any lowlight advantage that may have been gained by shooting full frame. While shallow DOF works for still images, when used in situations where the subject is moving it quickly becomes a distraction. It makes it hard to draw the viewers attention to the subject matter, as the focus is just too narrow. You end up directing their view to eyelash vs eye, as opposed to face vs hand. I find myself stopping down to F4 to kill the effect. But then you can say bye bye to any lowlight advantages. I think there is a reason that the vast majority of productions are shot with S35. Let's not kid ourselves into thinking it's because these production houses are somehow "unaware" of full frame... or that they could not afford to shoot full frame. The reason they don't shoot full frame is because they don't want to... plain and simple. They understand that the DOF is too distracting... so it hurts the story... and everything is supposed to support the story. That is after-all the whole point. The production only exist to tell the story. They also know that any field of view advantage of shooting full frame is irrelevant if they are shooting with anamorphic lenses... which is always an option when you have a real budget. I'm going to post a quick video that is an attempt at some cinematic shots... again comparing the Z6 to the 1DXMk2. It was not my intention to demonstrate the difference that the shallower DOF produces, and truthfully, at first I didn't notice it. I only saw the bokeh. But once you see it... you just can't unsee it. Like many here I'm trying to learn and understand the art of story telling. So this has been very enlightening for me. While I believe FF may have its place for use in cinema, I suspect it's not a look that most are going to embrace as their mainstay.

To me it's a bit strange, this is their fourth camera with this form factor. So then I guess this means the price cuts will be coming on the E2? If they where flying off the shelves they would not be offering this model. I think they should have gone with internal ssd slot like Kinefinity.

Good point!

It wouldn’t, the Fuji was much better. But still a long way off from the 1DXMK2.

Face detect unfortunately. I researched the best setting and made several attempts before settling. It was s lot of work for a mediocre outcome. The gap is narrowing, but it’s still pretty wide from my experience. Yet many here use crop sensor cameras with little complaints. I’m honestly more concerned with IQ and flexibility in post.

The “Cine look” has nothing to do with resolution. I also believe sharpness has less impact on cinematic aesthetics than one may believe. It’s more about lighting, mood and camera motion. And I might add, how to move the camera is an exact science, if you want a cinematic result. Just as there are basic guidelines for framing a shot, shutter angle, fps; there are also guidelines for panning speed and how to move the camera to avoid unpleasant stutters that result from using the slower 24 fps... which is not really 24 FPS... because TVs don’t play back at 24 FPS. The Cine look is not dead. The Cine look is expensive if one lacks the knowledge of how to produce it. Barring financial resources the only recourse is investing time and energy into learning the art. But very few are willing to actually devote the required time and work to do this. Most give up, and then try to justify their decision with absurd statements like, “the Cine look is dead”. When what really died was their willingness to forge ahead and master the art. There’s no shame in giving up on art of creating cinema. There is a whole world outside of the lens. I just shoot for fun. If anyone likes what I shoot great! But if no one does I really don’t care that much. It’s just about capturing precious moments and having fun?

Do you think the EOS R is just hype? Granted, I would not expect it to replace a 1DXMK2... they are different categories of cameras. Anyone suggesting otherwise is either disingenuous or plainly ignorant. But within its limitations the EOS R could be interesting? Honestly, the MJpeg codec that the 1DXMK2 utilizes is system intensive. So I wouldn’t hate having a C-cam with a modern codec. And a clean 10 bit output is welcomed. As some have pointed out, reusing lenses saves bulk and weight. As you only need to carry one set. So if one already owns Canon lenses... it starts to sound plausible... even logical. While I do not expect flagship level AF, I do expect it to be quite good given the linage. Yes the crop, but my 1DXMK2 is cropped in video... and the C200 is Super35... which is a 1.5X crop. So is it such a deal breaker? Maybe this issue is overblown? Thoughts?

Funny the thumbs down with no comments. Truth must hurt? Some idiot actually tried to get that video removed from YouTube with a phony copyright violation claim. Unfortunately for them, it was cleared by YouTube.... but hey, nice try. Honestly, I wanted to love the Nikon for video, but in practice it’s AF is weak, in both stills and video. The competition has improved... the X-T3 beats the Z6. The Sony performs better than the Z6 under most conditions... but nothing comes close to the 1DXMK2; it can actually hold focus better than is humanly possible.

As promised... Comments welcomed

This post is a preview of my testing of these two cameras. The Canon is shot internal in 4k, while the Nikon is external to the Ninja V. This might seem strange, but this test started out as a color matching test, and later evolved into an AF test. I have long known that the AF on the 1DXMK2 is the best I have used. But it's not until you put it up head to head against it's competitors that you understand just how amazing it is. I can tell you, the AF on the 1DXMK2 is much better than even the C200. It is better than the other EOS cameras. Of course much has been said about the Nikon Z6's video AF. Most have said it is pretty good. Well let me tell you this... watch the test that I am posting. I can promise you nothing was done that anyone could not have managed setup wise. It is a simple test pitting both cameras against each other side by side. Both set to base ISO, F1.8 and shot at 24p with 1/50th shutter speed. The difference in performance is astounding. From what I have seen the EOS R is inferior to the 1DXMK2 in AF. But that said, what isn't? So my takeaway from all of this is the following: Dear Canon, I truly hate you... Why must you gimp your cameras? Leaving out features that we want and need, just so we are forced to buy yet another body to do a single task. Ok, maybe that's a bit much, but I know many most here feel the same way. I'll post more shortly.

If Canon had not made silly choice of an extreme crop in 4K, I would have bought the Eos R. It would have been the perfect B-cam. As it is I added a Nikon Z6... which can be made to match pretty darn well.

Hey, I have a clue... I've played with both of these cameras, and I can tell you this, I find the Z much more interesting than the P4K. Besides, do we really need another P4K review? That said there is so much coming out next year that it might be better to sit on the sidelines if you already have usable cameras. I'm really curious to see what Panasonic comes out with to vanquish all the competition. And lets not count out Sony just yet... they have the tech, but do they have the will? I'll wait until the dust settles and then decide. For now I'm more interested in the other elements such as camera movement and lighting. Let's face it any one of these cameras can produce a cinematic image it you nail the other components.

I agree... mostly. To work effectively it needs to be rigged up. That monitor on the P4k should at least tilt. I can forgive the lack of tilt on a very rugged camera like the 1DXMK2; but BM has no acceptable excuse for this omission. I largely try to avoid rigging cameras that I plan to travel with. I also hate pulling down rigged cameras so that I can travel light with them. This is why I usually opt to purchase a second or third body. The compromises are glaring on the P4K. And the reason for the compromises are obviously to keep costs down. Personally, I would have preferred it hit the $2k price point with the current shortcomings addressed. I won’t be surprised when BM announces a new pro variant that address these issues. It’s sort of a no brainer. The Z-Cam is closer to the mark. Not because it’s more complete, but because it’s not pretending to be the complete package. It’s expected one would rig to suit as the project requires. Nevertheless, it’s hard to recommend the Z given the lack of support state side and still unproven reliability. Imo, it’s a camera for beta testers at this point.

We recently got a couple of DJI Osmo Pockets and decided to have a play while on holiday vacation in the mountains. Here is some footage and a brief impressions video of this tiny camera.

Bit the bullet and ordered one. Did you get your upgrade yet? This is I think their third or fourth try at this system, so I am thinking the newest model should be about as good as it can get right now compared to the competition. I understand that the gearing on all the new motor driven motion control hardware is also upgraded to prevent any slop that the older hardware had.

Indeed... lol. But honestly, I really don't have a dog in this fight with the GS version... the fact that they upped the price while shrinking the sensor size... to what? 1 inch?... Pretty much killed it for me. Happy Holidays!

Obviously, I am joking about having a camera. I supposed everything needs to be explained? So many SJW running around, armed with a bag of insults. You don't even know me, yet, apparently, in your little world I'm a crook who stole your money? REALLY? Anyway, @Emanuelclaimed that the Z-Cam GS camera is released.... IT IS NOT. I see nothing regarding these GS cameras at any of the retailers... and no mentions of it on Z Cam's official website. So, if it is released, it was a piss poor launch. As for trust in Z-Cam? I know little about them. I'm not saying they are bad... or good. I just don't know them, but frankly I think most would agree, it's more likely that they go belly up, than it is that they produce something that becomes the new cinema standard. That's just the nature of business. Mind you I would love to see them put out great cameras that are dependable... I would likely pick up a body or two. Z Cam seems interesting, and I continue to keep an eye on them to see how things develop. Not sure why gear should be such a touchy subject? Silly rabbit, you're not Kinson are you?

To be fair, preorder is not a release. With a “release” you get the product “released” to you. Hence the “release” part. On another note I’m taking preorders for the new “Instant Hollywood Blockbuster” camera; it makes everything you shoot look like a Hollywood blockbuster. It’s only $2,499... it comes in two flavors... Spielberg or Bay. The Bay version blows everything the fck up? Release date TBD.

From the Atomos.

I have seen this "red shift" in virtually all the footage from the P4k. It's just that the popular view today seems to be that color science is a moot point. However, I am not so sure that this is actually the case.

So I came across this test comparing the Blackmagic Designs P4k, Z Cam E2 and the Panasonic GH5S. In the video the reviewer tries to match all three cameras in post. I think you will find the result to be interesting. I also believe that this test and others I have seen... along with my own personal experience would seem to suggest that color science is in fact a thing. What are your thoughts and experiences regarding matching cameras? Do you call BS on color science, or are those that claim it doesn't matter when dealing with raw misguided?