tomsemiterrific

https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v%3DGJ6ASrvWwcw%26feature%3Dyoutu.be&source=gmail&ust=1547484958974000&usg=AFQjCNE2Tb2J2DZSKZodygNgQY6nps3bxw

How many times will companies have to split the atom before people are satisfied?

Most fun to shoot with? I've owned everyone of these cameras on the list except the BMPC. By far the most fun is the X-H1, followed by the Nikon Z6. When I go out to shoot I pick up the X-H1, with a camera bag with Rokinon EF mount lenses, and three EF to F mount adapters: standard adapter, adapter with a throttle variable ND filter, and an adapter with speed booster---and get ready to have a great time shooting. The last thing Sony needs is to go punk. Sony needs to go Mozart, or Brahms--or even Wagner. Anything is better than their devotion to the Zombie apocalypse look.

Nikon has some glaring omissions in regard to exposure tools for us video shooters. That's the bad news. The good news is they should be easily put in a future firmware update. DEFINITELY need an exposure meter, ditch the histogram and install waveforms, and for heaven's sake, make it possible to use Zebras and Peaking simultaneously. Just those few things would make the camera much more usable.

I've tested it, and even if you don't want to use the LUTs Reid's LOG gives lots more dynamic range than the so-called "flat" profile, for sure. Maybe not as much as the Log Nikon provides for 10 bit video, but much better in-camera than the flat profile.

This is a bit rough---first time shooting in Reid's in-camera Z-log. But one thing I learned from this: Andrew's Z-Log provides a far superior dynamic range in-camera than Nikon's in-camera "flat" profile. Reid's Z-log holds plenty of detail in the lows, and protects the highlights very well. Even if you use or don't use the LUTS you come up with good quality clips---which I'm SURE anyone could grade better than I. This video was shot entirely in Andrew's cinema Z-log and hand graded--no lut. All hand held using an EF to Z mount adapter with Rokinon 1.4 lenses.

Where's it going to end. How many times splitting the atom will be enough?

I just purchased the Z6---and when I get my adapters I have every confidence this will be a lovely video imaging camera--and much more pleasant to shoot with than the a7III. Having said that Nikon nomenclature has be a bit flummoxed. F'rinstance, after some assiduous searching I finally discovered Nikon called "zebras" "highlights." My, how creative. So, now I'm wondering that do they call "shoot without lens?" Enquiring minds want to know. Any suggestions?!?

Andrew, I just received a Z6, and it looks promising. I've got an FD, M42, and EF to Z mount adapters ordered, but the Chinese, in good form, are taking their time getting them to me. Not shocked to see Nikon nomenclaturists to have invented all kinds of new terms NO ONE ELSE uses. Like listing "highlights" when they should list "zebras." In that vein, I cannot find where they list "shoot without lens" and where you can inform the camera what focal length you're shooting. Can you kindly help me with this?

I suspect that is so. I can confirm the 18-135 and 55-200 are not up to snuff. I find two problems with the information you provided. 1. The lenses you listed that work great with AF are not stabilized. 2. The lenses you listed that are stabilized are slow, and also hunt. What's more the 55-200 is VErY soft on the long end. Essentially, none of the lenses that work well for AF provide the essential element of stabilization for XT3 video. I'm hoping there might be an effective update for some of the stabilized zooms. Time will tell. Until then, the XT3 is only good tethered to a tripod or stuck on a gimbal---what a waste!

Excellent, practical test, Andrew. As a Fuji shooter I have a few questions. Can you name any other Fuji lenses that have the improved AF other than the ones you named. Second, do you think it's possible for fuji to update the firmware of older lenses (Zb. 23 1.4) for similar performance of the 23 2.0? ( I do have the 16-55 2.8, and it's AF and eye AF are rock solid---and the lens doesn't hunt in the talking head tests I've done.) But I do note the 18-135, 55-200 (?) don't seem to do as well.

I don't think the Fuji is really a low-light monster like the GH5s, but I think it's got it beat on color by far, and what comes out of the camera without torturing it in post is really great. I tend to shoot Eterna over exposed---not a great deal, but over exposed. The 10 bit codec makes exposure corrections no problem in post. If you do a skin tone test let me recommend you use more than one film simulation for different looks. I like Provia a lot and the lighter, softer version of Pro Neg when it comes to skin tones. IMO the footage that comes from the camera in the X-T3 is far superior to the GH5, requiring much less work in post to make it look great---and it's not just color, it's an image that is both soft on the eyes but sharp and clean. IMO Fuji may have the best color/image quality of any of the makers, and I weigh that as much more important that those stupid rolling shutter tests. Who the hell uses a camera like that? I have no idea. I only know I shoot Eterna somewhat over exposed. I think that's better regarding noise in the finished product.

Shot some clips with the X-T3 today using Eterna and a couple of stabilized zooms from Fuji. Not as much fun as shooting with Rokinon 1.4 lenses or FDs--and if you shoot internal 10 bit 265 you better bring a LOT of batteries.

I was shooting Eterna---it is a film simulation between the standard simulations and Fuji F-Log. Eterna is not, strictly speaking, a truly flat profile. F-log is what should be used on bright days like I was shooting on. It will give you a full 12 stops of dynamic range...not too shabby by any means. The reason I didn't use F-log is because I was trying out these FD lenses for the first time and trying to properly judge exposure and dynamic range in F-log would only complicate things. I wasn't trying to demonstrate dynamic range. I was only trying to show how you can shoot non-electronic, fully manual lenses in the X-H1 because of the 3 axis internal stabilization the camera provides. If I'd been trying to do something finished and professional I would have shot more on a tripod, definitely shot in F-log, been more careful with my exposure over all, and graded things carefully in editing. But in this I was only trying to say you can get some pretty good images with a lot of character, very fast speeds, and not have to spend thousands of $$ on expensive lenses. That's why I mentioned the footage was shot on FDs...never before was possible on Fujifilm cameras. You can do the same with Rokinon cinema lenses--but they're heavier.

Actually, I was not in AWB. I never shoot AWB. My kelvin was set on 5600. That day at the zoo the light was all over the place, with varying clouds, etc. There was no hunting for white balance. The camera was recording what was there in a given situation. If I had been doing something serious I would have white balanced almost every scene. Considering the situation I might have been better off. and gotten more uniform results using AWB.

Jon, I kind of like the bokeh--similar in some instances to some of the Russian lenses--they do look busy---I like to think of them as looking Baroque, but you'd be surprised how round and beautiful the bokeh balls are in certain sunset scenes using the 85mm and 100 mm. Maybe I need to control it better, but I like the look of some of it much, much better than the antiseptic clinical look I see in modern lenses---no character, nothing mystical or artistic, and everybody's stuff looks the same. Just my 2 uneducated ¢. Notice that the X-T3 did not hunt even once during the talking part. It performed on a par with Canon dual pixel. I tried some shots with my wife and daughter moving the AF focus/eye focus in and out and it worked better than my Canon 80D---it didn't fail in the least. The AF or the X-H1 is very good, but the AF of the X-T3 is off the charts excellent. Far better than Panasonic.

Exactly. What is Pani came out with a FF camera? Would the colors be any better. Would the AF still be pure crap?!?!? You bet your bipy the AF would suck. I got my X-T3 yesterday--and the AF and eye AF are fantastic---no smoke and mirrors here. This camera and the technology are the Real Deal Lucile. The problem with the FF version (if it actually happens)is the problem with the MFT version: weird color--inferior to the Fuji---and AF that sucks to high heaven. I just got my X-T3 yesterday and will be publishing a video in a few minutes that uses the X-T3 in a studio setting, and the eye AF and general AF is fantastic. And those Fuji colors. I really think they're better than Canon---better by a LOT! This video is shot with the X-H1, but there is about three minutes of intro shot on the X-T3, which I just received yesterday. (I've got friends in high places). The audio recording in the talking part was also recorded internally in the X-T3, using XLR microphones with an adapter---pretty damned clean audio if you ask me. The zoo shots were done with the X-H1 using standard and speed booster adapters with Canon FD lenses. All zoo video is hand held.

I'm going to hold out for an X-H2! I purchased the X-H1 and I'm smiling ear to ear at how much I love the image, how fantastic the film simulation colors are, and just how much frigging fun it is to shoot. Too bad the X-T3 doesn't have IS. fuk

Exactly, Jon. Jordan decided to follow his mother's advise while in Hawaii: if you have nothing good to say don't say anything at all. But what will we hear from him once he's back in the land of polar bears and hockey players? @Andrew Reid-- Congratulations Andrew, on your candor. IMO this roll out is, for every reason you mentioned, an EPIC FAIL---and utterly consistent with Canon's recent efforts at frustrating and disappointing their faithful---which are understandably shrinking in number. The only video centric camera they've gotten right in recent years has been the XC15--a remarkable camera IMO. If they simply produced that style camera in APS-C with interchangeable lenses they would sell tens of thousands of them---but, alas, I'm sure there would still be some pencil neck at the top of their bureaucratic policy making food chain who would manage to ruin it for us.

If Panasonic does a FF camera I REALLY hope they put the GH5s color science in it. It is a noticeable improvement over the GH5. These are exciting times for video/shutterbug nerds, but especially for video.

Does anyone think Fuji will get into this game? I can imagine their color science in FF.

Andrew, thank you so much for the article. This is significant for me, since shooting is a real weight issue, and the M4T lenses and camera systems are the sine qua non when it comes to weight. I tried to replicate your test and it worked great....but I did it with the following: The g85, EF to MFT speed booster, and three different Rokinon T1.5 cinema lenses. I'll say the test makes me reconsider the GH5. I have no idea just how much light a Rokinon cine lens plus metabones speed booster yields, but it's plenty for sure---adding a variable ND filter for outside shooting would open up marvelous possibilities. So, here's are my questions: 1. what differences in video shooting would there be between the Voigtlander 0.95 lenses and the Rokinon cine lenses+ speed booster? 2. Do you think the combination of the metabones speed booster plus rokinon cine lenses would be a viable alternative to using the Voiglander lenses? Presently I own the 24, 35, 50, and 85. Sorry my questions are perhaps a bit muddles. Can you make enough sense of them to give a response?

Just shot and edited this using EOSHD pro color 3.0--modified using cine 4 to get a bit better dynamic range. Editing in FCPX using Color Finale.

Googled a LOT of stuff, but nothing was helpful about FCPX RAW. And Google is not really my friend---or yours.

I understand FCPX has been upgraded to edit RAW files. When I tried RAW from my C200 FCPX crashed. What is the work flow to edit RAW in FCPX?