KnightsFan

You've got our support! I understand why you're upset. It's reasonable to not buy the camera--after all it's your money, and your time. Maybe Blackmagic forgot, maybe they did it completely out of malice. Either way, it's not worth getting into a fight about.

As we invent better sensors, at some point we have enough dynamic range and should focus on global shutter. I'm glad to see innovation on both fronts.

Well that is certainly exciting! Global shutter seems to be a tough one. Blackmagic promised it and ten backed off, and I seem to remember other manufacturers doing the same thing. Let's hope Sony can do it without compromising other qualities, and that it becomes a standard feature in the future.

Welcome to the forum! Nice work! Right now I don't have access to a calibrated monitor, so take my comments with a grain of salt. Also, since I don't really know what mood/story you are going for, take my comments with a big helping of salt! Overall, your grades are appealing and within realism. Nothing too stylized or extreme. Since I don't know what your goals with these grades are, I can't really say whether you've done well, so here are some thoughts on what I might do differently. Sequence 1: Looks nice! Perhaps a tad yellow/orange--I'm looking at the white boat in the foreground. I feel like you could up the saturation a little as well. Compositionally, I can't really focus on any boats as they are lost in the jumbled rigging, but the mountain draws my eyes. If that's intended, I'd try especially putting more saturation in the mountain, and maybe even add more contrast. Sequence 2: This one looks a little purplish. The concrete seems to have an unnatural tint. I think you could make the boat's red stand out just a little more as well. Sequence 3: This is another one where I think it gets too yellow. I do like how you've made the sky pop out a little more, but that seems to also be pushing the boats away from white too much. Speaking of which, a little more contrast might make those bright white boats stand out more from the dark background of trees and mountains. Sequence 4: Another one that's more purple than maybe natural, but I like it. Again I'd up the contrast. Composition wise, it might be nice to be a little tighter on the lighthouse and those islands, perhaps by cropping out the left side of the screen. That way you could really make that red roof stand out from the blue water and sky. Just a thought. Sequence 5: A little too much teal for me. I'd also love if the sky was a little more saturated. Out of curiosity, what ISO was this? Sequence 6 and 7 are pretty similar to 5. Sequence 8: Not much to say here. It looks good, both before and after. Maybe brighten the boat in the foreground a little bit. Overall looks good! Like I said, this is more a list of things I might do differently, rather than criticisms.

@andrgl Here's an interesting article about RX and non-RX lenses for Bolex. http://cinetinker.blogspot.com/2014/12/rx-vs-non-rx-lenses.html I'm pulling some quotes from the section about the aberrations caused by using non-RX lenses (designed with no glass prism) on an RX camera (which has a 10mm glass prism between the lens and the film).

@Cinegain I'm seriously considering it, once it's seen some real world use and there are reviews.

Samsung, actually. Sony a73 does seem like a decent option, but not enough of an upgrade to justify the cost.

Nor can a ff camera with an apsc lens... So you put a ff lens on and we're back to where we started with the changing fov. another reason not to buy! I'm not a pro. I can only afford one body that's a good all rounder. Probably other people can get dedicated cameras for sports, video, astrophotography, etc. I do a little bit of each for fun, and I bet most consumers, like me, only want one body. if the eos r works for you, great! But the crop is a deal breaker for me and (apparently) many others on this forum and elsewhere. And it's not the fact that it's cropped that bothers us--many of us are interested in the p4k--it's that as a hybrid stills and video camera, it fails to deliver what we need from a hybrid. "but just move back" you said? On a recent shoot I was balancing on a tiny rock on the bank of class 5 Rapids, shooting kayakers. Nowhere to move back. No time to change lenses. I happily used my nx1 to shoot 4K, 28 megapixel stills at 15fps, and nice 120fps hd. All with a consistent fov. Seems like a really poor deal to spend 2-3xthe money on a camera that can't do any of that. again, if it works for you, then that is fantastic! I'm Just explaining why it doesn't work for me. Right tool for the right job is only applicable to people with enough money to buy a lot of tools! if you can drop $2300 on a camera that has limited use as an all round photo camera, and requires two different sets of lenses (at the wide end) to shoot in stills vs. video, go for it.

if you auto crop to apsc, just buy an apsc camera. It will be cheaper and have higher resolution than the cropped portion. changing lenses takes time, which you don't have when shooting things like sports.

Exactly. And If you do use apsc lenses for video, and then switch to photo mode for a quick snap of the action, you won't be happy. crop sensors are fine, forced switching between crop and full frame on the same body is not. It's unthinkable to shoot both photos and 4K video at the same event on this camera.

This is my big question as well. It seems strange that in some cases, H.265 bitrate is twice that of H.264 (4k Long GOP, for example). I wonder if these are the only bitrates available, or just the maximum? Either way, I am glad to see H.265 filtering into the specs of a handful of cameras, even if not fully fledged.

No, surprisingly not. The other day I did some digging to see if it was still a thing, downloaded some test footage (ungraded, sooc) and really loved it. Tbh, from what I know so far, the Z Cam looks like the clear winner for me. However, the Fuji can take photos as well, so it would be MUCH cheaper since I could sell my old camera instead of add on a dedicated video cam. I'm looking forward to playing with footage from the Fuji! I can sort of edit 4k H.265 without transcoding in Resolve (I have a decent computer), but I usually create small, 2Mbps HD proxies in H.264. If I edit in Premiere, I export the XML into Resolve otherwise just edit the proxies in Resolve itself. When I'm ready to color, I use the Conform from Bins feature to switch out the proxies for the originals, do my color work, and export. If I need to go back and make changes, I can always Conform from Bins back to the proxies, edit some more, and then Conform my way back to the OG files. It's really very easy, all things considered, and saves terabytes of space over the course of a few projects, compared to Prores.

Wow! I've known for a while that I'll have to upgrade my camera perhaps in 2019. Since its announcement, the z can e2 has been the only new camera that's seriously interested me. But Fuji is really looking great! This is going to be a hard decision after all.

Yeah, the problem I have with the crop is switching back and forth, not that it's there. It's easy enough to take an apsc photo and then take an apsc (or slightly smaller) video. It's a lot harder to take a full frame photo, and then immediately take an apsc video on the same lens at the same event. Of course, i could take cropped photos so that they match the video but then why get ff at all?

I can't speak to other critics. I was optimistic earlier in this thread, before the specs came out, since I've liked every canon I've shot with. the 4K crop is a deal breaker. The only reason I'd upgrade from my apsc is to get full frame. I shoot photos an video, sometimes in quick succession. I can't have my current lens behave differently depending on the mode I'm in. I'd rather just stick with apsc. If I didn't shoot any video then it wouldn't matter to me, of course, but most members on eoshd care about video. 120 fps being in 720 is also a downgrade for me, and that's a feature I've used on almost every project in the past year an a half. so on the other hand I see the Nikon z6, which has much more of what I need, for less money. I'm not mad at canon or anythin stupid like that, but for me it is very clear that the eos r is not worth the money. yeah, unfortunately they don't. If I see a Sony or Panasonic (or canon) that looks like a worthwhile upgrade, I will! I'm pretty happy with what I've got at the moment, I just like keeping up with the news.

True, except that other manufacturers are putting better specs in their similar sized cameras. No one is expecting Alexa quality from a consumer mirror less. People aren't annoyed because it doesn't stack up against a cinema camera, people are annoyed because canon lacks features that others in the same class have have for some time now.

@Andrew Reid Exactly. And I think most of us count noise level as part of low light performance.

Yeah, exposure is the same. However, snip out a "crop" of the pic, and then blow that crop up to the size that the original was. Noise will be more apparent on the crop than on the original. If you wanted the noise level to be equal on the crop as the original, you lower the ISO, and open the aperture to compensate.

I looked at the E1 again recently, too, but I have no interest in it. I don't like the footage, and I don't need an extremely small camera. But if you do need something TINY for the occasional shot, the E1 seems like a great choice for the price, especially with a minuscule MFT pancake lens.

The cameras aren't out yet, but I downloaded test clips from the Z cam website and the facebook group. The 4k 120 fps is absolutely stunning, honestly looks like better quality than the 4k out of the NX1: perhaps less sharpening, and significantly less noise reduction. Z-Log is actually really easy to grade. And the best part is it was only 170 Mbps! As much as the P4K footage looks phenomenal, for 1/10 the data rate and very similar output, the E2 looks like the only camera I'd consider as an upgrade to the NX1 so far.

Ah, interesting, I didn't see this when I posted before. Good to know! Also, incidentally, I was just playing with the H.265 clips from the Z Cam E2 and they worked flawlessly in Resolve Free on Windows 10. So it seems that the color cast issue is specifically from NX1 footage.

It means a lot to some of us. Almost every project, I end up using an ultra wide (10mm on APS-C) on a few shots. Yes, I can put that 10mm on a cropped full frame for video, but then as soon as I want to take a picture I'm cropping half those 30 megapixels out, or changing lenses. I'd rather just buy an APS-C camera in the first place.

No problem! Glad we found out a bit more. I guess the question now is whether we can get rid of the color cast, seeing as it doesn't appear on Windows 8.1. I don't know if anyone else is still checking this thread, but those of you with issues on Windows 10 using Resolve Studio: do you have that "HEVC Video Extensions from Device Manufacturer" installed? I wonder if uninstalling it would help? My crazy thought is that maybe Resolve defaults to using builtin codecs, but if you don't have any, then it uses its own codecs? That could explain why my Windows 8.1 desktop has no issues whatsoever.

@mnewxcv Ah, I see, I misunderstood. So on this Windows 10 laptop there is a program called "HEVC Video Extensions from Device Manufacturer" in the Apps & features list, published by Microsoft. Seems like the one we're looking for, perhaps?

@mnewxcv Unfortunately I'll be away from my desktop for a few more weeks so I can't check until then. How would one go about checking which codecs are installed? I've never gone and installed a codec pack or anything, so I assume I've just got whatever generic ones Windows comes with. Although, I'm fairly certain Resolve Studio has native H.265 support, which makes me believe it should come with its own codecs.