Yurolov

I'd be willing to try my s16 superspeeds if someone can find a pl adaptor. I think Andrew is on the right track here. Canon colour, small package, ease of use and inconspicuous. Compliments a bolex well.

The monitors were sold and I owned one. But mine was an exact replica of a feelworld monitor just rebranded. The owner is a fiery spaniard but I dont see why they couldn't pull it off. Just dont expect any kind of service if you do buy it.

Sony can but it hasn't been utilised in the aloha series which is why I was excited about the fact that the purported as7iii will be getting Venice color science. People in video do not use the term color science in the same way as someone like Goethe did (I imagine). Simply put, it means how a camera reproduces color and also why it does it this way (which is color theory e.g. skin tone preference). There may be other definitions too. But we all know what we mean. Your arguments are semantic. Mine are substantive. I have explained to you why there are differences and what these mean to the final image. None of which you have responded to. 1. Subject isolation. 2. Dimensionality. 3. Skin tones and uniformity (see above). Now you can tell me why you think the Sony is better.

Look at what you said in your last sentence. That is the science of color. That is what I am talking about. The interplay of colors and their relation to each other. Effective use of this science yields results that have the effects that I mentioned previously: 1) subject isolation 2) dimensionality. Like I said canon also renders all hues similar to skin tones in a similar fashion (e.g a persons eye bags are not so pronounced on a canon because the tones are recognized in camera and brought to uniformity with the rest of the skin) so that skin appears smooth and uniform (not blotchy and patchy like sony) which further reinforces point 1 and 2 above. This last point is the one that most people don't seem to understand. You can see the blue eye bags with the sony image but that is corrected in the canon. It is a darker, more bluish skintone that is identified and corrected in the canon.

Some opinions are worth more, which I think you would agree with having bashed their opinions. I said: the results speak for themselves, because I too think their opinions are rather sophomoric. This is a cherry-picked frame. We all know that canon does not tend to green so I can only assume it is a WB issue. Regardless, you don't understand color science if you don't see that the canon image is far superior. In it's simplest and most effective form a good color science 1) separates and isolates the subject from his or her environs and 2) brings dimensionality to the image. If you notice all of the sony images look flat and boring and like they were shot with my smartphone. This is best exemplified at 4:00. You mention sharpness effecting the overall image. Yes that is true, but not to the extent you are saying. More important is how skin tones, and even more importantly, how tones which are similar to skin tones are interpreted by the color science. So that you can clearly see a blue discoloration under his eyes in the sony but not in the canon as that color is close enough to skin tone to be identified by the camera and interpreted as same to give the appearance of smoothness (and in his instance - health). This is my considered opinion, but even if I am wrong your opinions go against the weight of popular opinion.

Yes, you are right and everyone else is wrong. And showing me a video doesn't say anything unless you compare the two; case in point: I think the results speak for themselves. On an unrelated note, or perhaps not, rumors are that the new as7iii will inherit the Venice color profile which is something that could elevate the sony above its competitors. Exciting times.

Basically what you are saying is that the IQ for video hasn't changed all that much in quite a few years. Color is a major issue if we are talking about 8 bit cameras. Really the results speaks for themselves. 9/10 times the Sony footage looks like footage you'd get from a camcorder. The 1dx is another beast all together. It seems insane to me that you'd be willing to switch, but to each their own. The 1dx is a 5-7 year camera, maybe more, while the a7 will be replaced in 2. That's another consideration.

I would imagine so. But how much more are you really getting with the SmallHD product that will change the way you operate (apart from tilting screen, which is not a function of the monitor itself)? Seems remarkable what they have managed to squeeze in at this price point when you compare the price of accessories.

I think the thing that astounds me is that for a standalone 5 inch daylight viewable external monitor from a company like SmallHD you are looking at a price not too dissimilar from the price of the entire camera! But along with including LUT previews, you also get the added benefit of baking in LUTS. The OS of the blackmagics is second to none. The touchscreens are like what you would find on a smartphone. The same cannot be said of Sony's or Fuji's top-end cameras which leave a lot to be desired. Canon and Panasonic get it right, though. That's some kind of value. Really makes you think about what the profit margins are for companies like SmallHD and the bigger players in the industry.

I'd rather shoot this than the fs7 if it means the difference between having my images look like a Venice or having my images look like an fs7 lol.

I actually commend Sony for this. Their color science in the original fs5 was beyond terrible. The skin tones in this video, however, look fantastic. I know it is early yet but the skin tones appear to be superior to the EVA1 and the c200 and I am a Canon apologist. Externally, you have all the framerates you require, so if you don't mind removing the top handle and running an atomos, I think this thing could surpass most cameras in this price point in terms of IQ. The skin tones really do look gorgeous. I am surprised by Sony because they usually cater to the specs crowd, but this targets those of us who care about the image quality more than anything, which is a nice change of pace.

Whoops! I got a bit too excited. Just hope they keep same sensor size and small form factor and i will buy.

Looks like we have a new pocket camera coming.

There is a blue tonality and coolness that you often see in certain 16mm film present in your work which I really like. The images from the pocket are really hit and miss for me. This is one of the better examples. At it's best it really rivals the digital bolex. But at its worst the blue channel can be a bit funky. Do you find it is easier to get good color with prores straight from sensor or manipulating the raw? What kind of results do you get from each?

Why not wait a day? I think it is ballsy of him to email Andrew directly if he didn't have at least something to show. Unless he is a downright lier. It might be that he just needs a bit more time perfecting the settings. Who knows.

I am a canon guy and if you look above you will see that I have bashed both the fuji and the sony for various reasons. So I have no brand loyalty between these two manufacturers. But I have to say that the fuji footage looks 2x better IMO. I can see two things at play here: 1. Color science is much better in the fuji. The skin tones are a dead give away. Look at the very first scene with the sony and see how blotchy and unappealing his skin looks. Then compare that with the fuji. I feel like I can see every pore on his skin with the Sony. There are oil blotches everywhere. Funnily enough, this is related to color. Despite your grading, the color still looks off with the sony. Particularly look at his skin at 0:19 secs in to the sony material. That is very hard to fix. Another thing people often fail to mention is color separation. If the skin tone is pronounced the subject is isolated from the background. Go to 1:32 on the fuji and 2:24 on the sony material, pause it and look how much more he pops on the fuji material. The sony material looks flat as pancakes. 2. I can see the codec is more robust. The image looks a lot smoother and sturdy. There is less of that digital sharpness that you get with the sony, which makes it look very videoy. Having said that, if someone is working purely as a videographer I would recommend a second hand c100 (mk I or II) any day of the week haha. For hybrid, the fuji wins for image alone.

I think that was the lesson Arikham was trying to teach us all along. Verily, he is wise beyond his years.

What did you learn?

People who need more than iso equivalent 6400 would care, I'm guessing. And even at iso equivalent 6400 the fuji isn't super clean. So I wouldn't say it is a great low light camera, but it certainly isn't no slouch either. Max claims eterna gives the best results for the Fuji. Take from that what you will.

It was a flippant statement but he really is the most comprehensive reviewer on utube. He is a nice guy and should be cut some slack. I tend to believe him when he says he meant it as an extra stop difference.

How you liking it compared to the rodes? I'm thinking of upgrading my ntg3 as the pickup pattern is too wide for my liking.

Of course they are all flawed, so you pick your battles, but I don't expect that anyone will fix the issues I have with the camera, which can be fixed, if they haven't bothered to fix them upon initial release, or if they haven't bothered to add them on release. No one has assured us that the XH1's af will be fixed. They just seem incompetent releasing something that performs worse than their prior model. Firmware update or no - get it right the first time and there won't be these issues. GH5 has unusable autofocus regardless of the fix. And they only fixed it because people were complaining so much about how crappy the autofocus was. It is up to you to decide whether that makes panasonic noble for updating their products or incompetent for failing to plan properly at the initial release when they know their competitors have strong af. Same thing with Fuji - you are just choosing to view it in a positive light. Just playing devil's advocate here but it is entirely possible that I am right and I think Jon has a point as well. Zebra's should be the first thing they should update but surprisingly they haven't - so you never know what you will get.

I am not saying Sony is better. I would never claim that. A lot of what you mentioned though is to do with ergonomics which I agree for Sony are pretty bad. But only a new model can solve ergo issues. My whole point was whether the fuji firmware philosophy is really just a mask for incompetence. If they update the XH1's continuous video autofocus then clearly it is a mask, as the current autofocus is worse than that of the xt2s. It should really have been better from the start and not require a firmware update. I was playing devil's advocate. For me, I would not buy a product that is imperfect from the get go. They can add all the new features they want but the question remains why weren't these features included in the initial release. And by the time they release these new updates will most people have already moved on?

There are really two ways of looking at this and you are choosing to look at it in a positive light; the alternative, and this is me being devil's advocate, is that fuji underdelivers across the board with respect to the hardware & software capabilities of their cameras and tries to solve this is later in firmware updates by 1) adding new features to fully utilise the capabilities of the hardware 2) fixing software issues/bugs and improving the camera from a software perspective - for example with new algorithms. Manufactures like Sony, on the other hand, are able to provide a fully realized product with their initial offering. By this I mean that they are able to harness the full capabilities of the hardware. A simple example is providing 4k on the xpro2 - there is no reason this could not have been done upon release of the camera. I think Sony's strategy is better as 1) people are more likely to move to a new model, and 2) sony's products are getting better and better with each new iteration. Meanwhile, fuji is offering a more expensive camera that can't even come close to the sony's performance in terms of af - in fact, they have gone backwards from the xt2. That's what makes this release all the more laughable. Not only that but it consumes 25% more battery than the xt2 so you are forced to get the battery grip to make it useable. I am a huge fan of fuji, but I am passing on this one for sure. If they can't get it right first time then they don't deserve our money. Simple as that.