Leaderboard

This was all shot on the D750 with Nikon Ais lenses (besides the few slow-mo shots on the NX1) I'm really enjoying this camera.

So, I spent about 3 hours trying to figure out exactly what the best contrast setting would be for specular highlights. The goal was to avoid any high-contrast lines between blown-out portions which is often a tell-tale of poor video quality. Methodology I placed a shiny rounded object on a surface and had a light source in the distance. I adjusted camera settings so that focus was sharp, on a tripod, fixed aperture (F1.7), shutter at 1/50, ISO 200, fixed WB. With Zebras set at 105 IRE, I made sure part of the shiny object was overexposed then recorded 4k video in Natural profile (sharpness= -5, NR = -5, saturation = 0). Contrast was first set at +5, then went down from there to -5 with a total of 11 videos takes. I made these observations: Panasonic does a great job at keeping a subtle degradation from blown-out areas to areas with detail. Contrast settings seem to simply shift midtones up or down, there was only a small shift in the shadow floor, if any. I found it difficult to match 2 shots with different contrast settings; so, something else might be happening with the curve. Increased midtones in post yielded superior results (noise & artifacts) when contrast was at “-5”. Conclusions There’s no real benefit for specular highlights in terms of them looking more “video-like” when contrast was set at any of the 11 settings. However, if you plan on increasing midtones in post, you’ll have superior results with contrast set at -5. Otherwise, you’ll need to live with no visible detail in the dark parts of the image.

My first video review, shot on the X-T2

G80 for "video purposes" review is a must!

Hiya. Im an noob to video but really impressed by the quality of the G80. Had it for a couple of weeks now. Heres a sample, hope you like it! https://youtu.be/xjh2dhCHZug Still lots to learn but really enjoying using this camera.

So, we had a quick shoot, here's the result: Setup: GH4 4:3 anamorphic mode, pentax 50mm smc f1.7, Sankor Compact 2x Single focus anamorphot which is still for SALE, DIY LED panels, homemade dolly with a fluid head and a regular tripod work. You might notice that the opening shot is with a spherical lens, well that's because of the glidecam. Edited & graded in premiere with some luts. Cheers!

The handheld closeups are made with a the Leica/Panasonic 100-400mm lens on the GX85:

I also notice that you can control the colour depth on the A7S II with S-Gamut selected, but on the A6300 you can't. I'll be doing an updated EOSHD Pro Color soon and a few other tweaks. No need to email me yourself - I'll be emailing all EOSHD Pro Color customers once it's ready. Ah yes but if you want to apply a LUT it's better not to shoot with a profile designed for baked in straight out of camera colour. SLOG2 is for LUTs.

No, after the FS5 I am done with the bigger cameras, they are too fussy and a bit overkill.

I don't think transcoding to ProRes is going to help but you can always try. ProRes and H.264 pretty much use the same compression technology, but ProRes does not use inter-frame compression. It is hard to scrub the timeline with inter-frame compression because the computer has to calculate the current frame starting from a key frame which may not be nearby so transcoding it often helps. By the way you can encode H.264 without inter-frame compression as well. Lumetri functions use the CPU and GPU and do not depend on the codec because they are processed after internal decoding. You could enable 1/2 or 1/4 playback on the program monitor or use lower resolution proxies.

Be careful judging the camera from these sample videos. You can't just an image from so many close-up shots. The food video looks better because of the close-ups. As soon as you go to infinity with wider lens, the EOS M5 and 80D resolution falls apart with a heap of moire and digitally sharpened softness. Looks good on the end of a telephoto or a macro lens though.

I always assumed the EDIT function had a time limit -- a 30 to 60 minute window to make changes.

It is definitely 10 M lenses and a couple of generations away (or a ML treatement away!) but I am glad they did make the first serious mirrorless camera. We need all the players producing good cameras and up the game For most people dual af and color science (translate= nice pleasing pictures) is all they want. The price will go down really soon, and the M will be more attractive than the a600(a6300) in no time. Also, the myriads of Canon dSLR owners would probably prefer a really capable mirrorless for casual use and/or backup camera, especially while the EF adapter is just under 99$, or given for free with a M5 in some markets. I would, if I was a Canon die hard fun, and there are a lot of those! It is funny, that the first M was the one that made me really interested in mirrorless cameras for the very first time, I thought it would be amazing to have one of those as a B cam, the reality was far different though, and since then , I sticked with NX.

To me, like Andrew said, this is just a mirrorless 80D. I don't really see the added benefit of it being mirrorless much, unless they would've given it all the mirrorless bells 'n whistles. There aren't many lenses and the ones that are there aren't all super compact or anything. So... people really start using it like an 80D with an adapter and EF lenses... ok, so maybe all the features? Well, no 4K, no slowmo, no nothing. 'But it has stabilization!' lol, yeah digital one. Such a joke. And have you seen prices? It's not exactly cheap either. And the tilty flippy screen folds downwards... who the hell came up with that. So... they borrowed the design from the G5 X, but failed to copy the vari-angle screen. I just don't get it. Might as well get the 80D already? Ha, or better yet, pick out something different entirely. It's a few generations away from being an actual viable concept. It's only straight out of camera colors and dualpixel AF keeping Canon alive at this point, folks get told at stores to buy one because they can mess up the least themselves. Other cameras might actually require a little knowledge and skills, but then get the far superior results. Panasonic, Sony, heck even Samsung innovated a great deal by going mirrorless. With Canon... it's just more of the same. I just don't really get it and therefor I won't get it.

Same question here! Buying a GH4 right now does not make much sense unless you get it really cheap. In my opinion the quality of the GX85 and G85 already surpassed the quality of the GH4. I would either wait till late spring/summer for the GH5 or buy a G(X) 85 right now.

Will post some test once the m5 reach my hand. Even if it's in the powershoot camera with a lot of limitation ... knowing Canon it should be somewhat of a good tool/toy

I really like the results--better than any I've ever got from standard Sony color. And the LUTS in his LUT package are the best I've ever used. Here's the out of the camera footage, and at the end a clip of his S-log 2 ungraded, and then graded with one of his LUTS. I was happier with this footage than anything I ever got on an FS100, FS700, and FS5.

24 hours with Sony's A6500 mirrorless camera https://www.engadget.com/2016/11/18/sony-a6500-sample-images/ Woof! Sony a6500 sample images are here https://***URL removed***/news/8992012425/sony-a6500-first-samples-images

Hello, I have a question about microphones. I need two microphone with xlr that can take up two casters with good quality. I don't know anything about microphones. Any one have any sugestions ? More info: These microphones are going into a extern sound card with two xlr in. Then the sound card is connected through USB. These microphones need to take up good speech sound from two people. I need to use them for panels and film making. Best regards Mike

Best is a mater of taste. Check the work from some photographers to get inspiration, people like Alexey Titarenko, Rut Blees Luxemburg and Fan Ho to name a few.

LMAO! Been trolling this guy for kicks - complete noob. BEWARE OF SELLERS JACKING UP PRICES ON EBAY! Also, beware of posters who just like to insult/belittle people on forums - they've always got something to hide! Anyone who has seen me post for the last few years knows that I speak my mind & also give good advice. If you're going to spend £1K, or there abouts, on an anamorphic then this is the one you should buy (it also comes as the 8/19/1.5x) - hands down one of the best anamorphics out there! This one is very nicely priced & focuses closer than the 8/19/1.5x. http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Rare-Bolex-Anamorphic-16-32-1-5x-for-M39-Leica-Mount-w-H16-RX-Ring-4089-1210-/222334873744?hash=item33c430f090:g:RqgAAOSwHsRYDiiO

The Olympus might not be available before Christmas from what I am hearing. A6500 at least is out now. I have the G85. That review is coming soon!

Pro is definitely one of the color modes I'll be testing! From my short testing, it seems that Pro retains a lot of the saturation and richness while providing way more accurate colors

Thanks @PepperJay! @Dr. Verbel', like I mentioned in my post, it was shot with a spherical lens. To be more precise: GH4 + Lens Turbo + Tokina 11-16 set to f2.8 (x0,72 = f2.0 &), shot in 4K (so 11mm x 2.2 crop x 0.72 lens turbo = 17mm FOV). I did not bother to add anamorphic lens flare to it in the post. Everybody can feel the difference between the shots so why fake it? The camera was mounted to a glidecam, the operator was sitting in a trolley, therefore we eliminated the Y axis but it was still a bit shaky, so I stabilised it in premiere, you can see some artifacts, but hey, like we care :D

EOS M5 footage? I doubt it. 80D is ok. Expect the M5 to have similar video quality.

Much more successful than without light! Play with it, it's a creative process. Reflectors and/or LEDs (with or without gels) will make it look good.

Looks great on my 5k iMac. I'm also impressed by the lack of banding in the skies, aliasing with all the lines on the boats, no weird artifacts on the rippling water, and no moire in the brick walls.

Not sure what a "unaltered raw photo" means. As a general rule, the less data your image contains, the nearer you want to be to your final result in camera.

In my tests with GH4 and Natural profile I have not found any quality differences between contrast -5 and contrast 0. The banding, noise and cleannes is about the same. -5 has lighter or flatter image (more what eye sees) but otherwise the quality is the same. Choose the look you prefer. P.S. Both has banding in skies and fine gradations. I use deband filter to remove that banding.

Yeah, the newer ones rock purely because of the sensor performance & stabilization (and price/value of course!). The GH4 is still a production tool with the most bells 'n whistles of 'em all. Be it just for the headphone jack (or mic-in), the advanced slowmo, anamorphic mode, V-LOG L (paid option), 10-bit out, timecode, et cetera. You run it on sticks or a gimbal in more controlled set-ups, it might be the better option. Handheld and do not really need those features? Then yeah, would be a shame not to consider the G(X)80... or to wait for the GH5. Not sure about the lens you're adapting. You say you will be using it for stills. Does that mean, you already have said lens and an APS-C camera? Like... a 60D or something? Because else, I would have to say as well... better stick to native glass unless the zoom you're using is e.g. a Sigma, Tokina or Nikon. And depending on you budget, might make more sense to get the Nikon version... see, the Canon lenses allow aperture control only though electronic means, that means an adapter with electronics to support that. These are vastly more expensive. Metabones has the best offering here, the SpeedBooster XL 0.64x is the no.1 choice. Also the priciest. The Ultra 0.71x doesn't make much sense anymore since we have the XL. Much cheaper you'll find the excellent just mentioned Zhongyi/ZY Optics/Mitakon Lens Turbo II. They come in at 149,- USD on their site, VS the Metabones XL 649. That's a whopping 500 bucks perhaps better spent otherwise. Of course the XL version in Nikon mount is a little cheaper. You know, Nikon lenses are driven by a mechanical interlink which allows for a cheap mechanical ring construction, opposed to some more expensive electronical interface. But even going with the little cheaper Nikon mount still leaves quite the gap. Below that you have the Aputure Lens Regain. It's more of a system and is only for adapting Canon EF-mount lenses. Below that you'll find e.g. the R.J. Lens Turbo, Kipon BAVEyes and the brandless one sold at the Roxsen eBay-store... but these are priced somewhat similar to the Zhongyi Lens Turbo and the Zhongyi is vastly better. If you're not looking for a focal reducer, I'd say get a K&F Concept (Kent&Faith) or Leinox adapter from eBay. Those are very basic and inexpensive adapters.

Wow, thanks for the test! This will help me a lot...

From what I can read you partly instigated it. You're both as silly as each other. Move on. His advice that the lens is not worth that much is 100% sound advice, as it's not worth that. Does it mean that we can find them easily for under that price? Probably not, but that's also not what he said. There aren't many 1.5x anamorphics, not just for that price, but in general. Does that make them better than other anamorphics? No. Does that mean you should pay silly inflated prices for them? Let your intelligence and wallet be the judge.

Or even a Panasonic G7 is a great option until we see what the GH5 brings. The GH4 would have to be $750.00 or less before I would buy one now. They are a great camera no doubt. You really need an even wider lens than a 24-70mm when you figure in a 2x crop with MFT and it is even higher than that with the GH4 using 4K. Like a 2.3x crop factor. That ends up at 55mm on the wide side! Not terrible but..

Maybe some truth to it. I've had some people send me abusive/threatening emails after posting reccomendations for alternative products to theirs... so wouldn't be at all surprised.

I tested at ISO 6400 and the noise was indeed better than the GH4, of finer grain and less of it.

here's another one not able to embedded though: https://vimeo.com/193513057

I am impressed with how little rolling shutter it seems to have in 4K. A much better option than a Sony A6500 for handheld shooting, I think.

It's right on the borderline of being terrific. Another update in 6 months and it will be there. A drone that doesn't take the whole back seat. More than enough to tell some cool stories.

Too soft, here and there. Enough balance in some others. That's the business of the shooter. To balance the elements. Mushy outcome both from low bitrate codec and youtube encoding don't help, not even to evaluate either, the miracles a good colorist can achieve from.

Thanks for your post. Interesting soft 4K, sharp enough for cinematic inserts to be used if justified. I am sure it'll happen to be in the middle of a few professional productions worldwide. My beef with GoPro is also the sharp edges.

Looks like many are setting focus onto themselves when it's close to the ground and not changing to infinity.

Peau supplies the best mod out there as workaround to the native fisheye: https://www.peauproductions.com/collections/peaupro-cameras

You bet! : ) In comparison with the excellence a standard like 35mm format (as well, sensor size related) with all the sorts of low-grade variants from 16mm to video has led the motion picture for more than a century to face our eyes. Take a second read in my stuff earlier along the thread (posts, likes...). They are all the same shit, more or less. As said before, they can be synonymous of fun, personal use, even some inserts (de)pending on certain circumstances and tricks. No more than that. A purchase can't necessarily mean a professional tool, as for instance. As same as a toy can be used in a gig if works. Mission accomplished. What's wrong about it? Just don't expect you'll become a race pilot only because you're able to drive fast in the highway with your brand new car. The F1 from 80s, 90s or whatever year you want will always belong to a different league. No matter what techie pins they will try to sell the fanciest new toy you/we all want to buy and play with. So far, at least :-)

Sorry dude, I can't help you out... Maybe you took those inserts upside down, trading places between cameras or the tricks@post among the same "mushy and blurry" flaws you find on Mavic... ; ) or those shiny edges to scream sharpness to everyone just not present in the other toy. A certain thing anyone can be sure, though: your enthusiasm seems more the like of an amateur who buys one or another one rather than someone really used to also shoot with these small sensor capture devices, if/when necessary. At least, this is the idea you leave behind the trace of your "HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA"s and alike. I'm sorry to disappoint you :-)