Leaderboard

Ciao! This is a music video I shot with GH4 and G7 (both with Natural profile, saturation -5, contrast -5). I shot it very quickly: two afternoon and an evening, one week between the 2 days of shooting and in that time I sold the GH4, so the second day of shooting was with the G7. I shot all handheld without shoulder rig except for a part of the indoor shot with the voodoo witch, where I used a tripod while she mix the potion. The drone scenes are shot on DJI Phantom 3 Professional (not mine, we called a pilot), which is a little too "digital" for my taste. I used Andrew's EOSHD Pro Color for Panasonic and I'm really happy about the skin tones and the overall colors. I also used FilmConvert's Kodak Vision3 5207 with grain 20%. Thank you Andrew p.s.: can you spot which is the GH4 and which is the G7?

I used to work in the world of obscure international trade shows and magazines, first as an ad/space salesman, later on the operational side. The magazines - with enticing titles like 'World Plastics and Rubber Technology', 'Railway Interiors' and 'Automotive Testing International' were 100% advertiser-led. They had editorial staff, who called themselves journalists - but in reality they were employed to put the words of the advertisers and the exhibitors into a form that looked like journalism but was, in fact, thinly disguised advertorial. There was absolutely no way in the world that any of those magazines would have criticised any advertiser, exhibitor, or potential client of the future - the companies in those industries could have caused the immolation of a small country and the only news about them in our mags would have been about their latest widget. This became especially pernicious once the publishers all jumped on the (far more lucrative) expo business as potential exhibitors would be offered puff pieces in the magazines as an incentive to book stand space. That, I'm afraid, is the end game in non-news journalism once it becomes advertiser led. In fact, it even happens in pure news as well - witness the ongoing reluctance, for instance, of the Daily Telegraph to publish articles critical of China in the light of its regular, highly profitable, supplements sponsored by that country. Personally I stopped taking much notice of DPR once Amazon bought it as, having the experience outlined above, I couldn't see how a website owned by one of the largest camera retailers could maintain integrity in the long term. Whether or not they actually have started to water down adverse opinions of cameras or their manufacturers, the fact is that I can no longer be sure that they don't. And that's the pity of it. I don't make my living with cameras any more - it's a fun hobby, but an incredibly expensive one (well it isn't actually - I've got friends who are into cars and motorbikes who will happily spend tens of thousands of pounds on their passions and no-one really bats an eyelid - I spend £3K on a camera and people think I'm insane) so I need to know that the sources of information I use to guide my purchases are going to give me the bad news as well as the good. I no longer bother with any of the 'magazine' style sites at all - I research potential purchases here and on DVX User and get opinions, in the round, that I can trust.

Insane price on the gx80 (245£)! I could have bought two now for less than the price I bought one for less than a year ago! I'm loving mine and it and the Panasonic 15/1.7 are a lovely combo. https://www.parkcameras.com/p/P016419K/compact-system-cameras/panasonic/lumix-dmc-gx80-mirrorless-compact-system-camera

Yes one battery will easily last 10 min. I don't know how long exactly but way more than 10. I would say Panasonic colour is fine. I take issue with how aggressively it shifts colours (especially skin) from their true colour though. Sony does a much better job actually. Recorded in 1080. The EM1 II is pricey but there's nothing else like it on the market. 4K with almost no rolling shutter. The best stabilisation in the industry. The best continuous AF in M43 - with touchscreen control. Unfortunately for those needing 60fps, its quality is appalling.

This one is also entirely shot with 1080p: Yet for my next shot, I think I will go entirely for 4k, just to see the difference

Thanks for using Pro Color on the video JazzBox. I see you had contrast -5 It would have looked better with the optimal settings in the guide, which have contrast at 0. When you set contrast to -5 it doesn't give you more dynamic range. It reduces the amount of tones between one colour and another = Less colour information in the end result even when you add contrast in post. This is EOSHD Pro Color for Panasonic with Contrast at 0 (optimal, as in guide): And this is at contrast -5 (see how the tones on the face are mashed together?):

May the 4th be with you, Luke!

You're not wrong about Oly. And I shoot Fuji as well, so all these things are part of the mixed bag. The thing is, when we're talking price, when we're looking at cameras within similar classes, the difference is typically a few hundred bucks. At a certain point, determining my camera purchase can turn into a "penny wise and pound foolish," decision. A few hundred, or even a grand, is a small price to pay to own and use a camera that I'm comfortable with and does the things I need it to do. You know how it is. You balance liabilities of the gear with the needs of your work and one's own biases. For instance, I just did 6 30-min documentaries in 6 months. I did it with the GX85 and EM5II. I'm not lying when I say that I'm glad I did the job on these consumer cameras rather than something like an Arri. One would look INCREDIBLY better than the other, and I would love to use that camera for many many many things, but I wouldn't have been able to do half the work load (nor the radically informal work that yielded a lot of good results) without the flexibility of these goofy, small, hybrid, IBIS, 8-bit, cams. I know it's hard to fathom among a forum like this, but having the best IQ is not always a priority. My favorite industry idioms comes from the National Geographic guys. It's simply, "f8 and be there." And I think you can understand the sentiment of that saying. That's why I can't get caught up to much in the IQ debate. My factors for my particular work rely on a lot more than just IQ. You'll have other needs. Someone else will have other requirements as well. For instance, I'm doing a cinematic doc/narrative in 2017, and I plan on using a Sony F5 and 100% static shots, so it's always always an "it depends" sort of answer with tools one decides to use for a project.

When I can finally buy the perfect ink pen, I'll compose my masterpiece. It's going to be awesome. Just you wait and see.

My new setup.

Yes the sony has better low light and superior auto-focus performance in video.It also has better dynamic range but yet and still I sold my a6300 and kept the GX85.In the end the reliablity and shooting experience won me over.I always felt like I had a broken camera when I had the a6300 even with all its rich features.I really don't miss the image itself but the lowlight and auto-focus was quite nice.

That video has out of range highlights both for the Panasonic and the Sony, even the ungraded log footage has it. I think that if you make comparative test you should be very accurate and make sure your levels are correct and that you match exposure based on the scopes because an ISO value in one camera brand is not necessarily the same as in another brand and unless you compare T-stops for lenses you also have to account for differences even with the same F-stop. The train comparison uses lenses with different focal lengths and apertures.

I believe Jase shoots his videos in 1080p... or at least his earlier GX80 stuff was.

Slow motion test. All scenes shot at 1600iso.

I made a small tutorial on how to handle out of range video levels in Premiere Pro. Some cameras record out of range video levels, one of them is the Panasonic Lumix GX85 / GX80 on which this tutorial is based. Hope this helps and please go easy on me, as this is my first tutorial. The UHD should be available shortly as YouTube is still processing it.

The camera was just released this week so I doubt it is in a 60i wrapper. It's basically a one inch sensor GH4 with a fixed zoom lens.

I think he's referring to converting from 23.976 and 24, and vice versa. I do this all the time for clients that i make DCPs for and it's seamless. they typically deliver a 23.976 master that needs to be 24 to meet the DCI spec. and you could do the same with your camera originals if you knew you had to meet a specific framerate delivery requirement. I save the old Apple Cinema Tools app for this specifically. No one has made an app since (that I'm aware of) that makes the process as easy.

Eh, many just want affirmation that they're correct in their decisions. We're all guilty of it. Being able to step away from that insecurity is part of what separates the the accomplished from the enthusiast.

How far have the modern camera companies come from the founder of Panasonic and his business principals - http://www.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/16225/konosuke-matsushita-principles A long way backwards by the looks of it!!

It just goes to show that some pros will say anything. Literally just bullshit misleading drivel to get a pay cheque. It's as if reality TV is the new advertising blueprint for Canon. To think this video now has over half a million views and a sales spike in 80D's because of it... All because some dick is prepared to bare face lie through a sponsored video so he can enrich himself. And it totally undermines what we're trying to do, passing knowledge between us on the forum, testing cameras, putting time and money into reviews without any support from Canon at all. They can all go and fuck themselves. The video is so cynical. I hope Canon's dumb pro customers who don't know better do what Scott DickWanker says he does.... selling all the pro Canon gear for an 80D! That would be funny. If Canon want to encourage this, they could have at least fixed the moire and aliasing on it!

New 4K sample video from Norway:

Your wish is our command, mr mod! :P Happy 1000th post too!

Speaking of Nokia, I remember them making a big deal out of the cameras on their phones. Now, sure they were amongst the best, if not thé best, but then they would say 'ha! This was shot entirely on a Nokia' and then there was like insane rigging, lensing and staging involved, nobody would actually shoot with smartphone that way. Kinda what Eduardo was getting at. It sorta defeats the purpose if you're working around its limitations by covering it up using the best possible pro lighting, equipment, crews et cetera.

I shot that video a couple of week ago, but I'm going to set the contrast as you suggest in the guide, because the colors you gave us are AWESOME, so I want to record the best file possible in order to process it with your color science! I think that it is just crazy not using your profile: hours of work for getting right skin tones in 1 click! No Artist playing guitar, indoor scene and night scene are G7. All the rest (walking in the nature, girl, dancing etc..) is GH4

I shot clips for a couple of hours. Camera on all that time. Half to two thirds still left on the battery.

Thanks guys. I'd be happy with that. Thought it also handled the sky and water well. Good work Jase! Thanks very much for that. Were they recorded in 1080p or 4K. They certaily look good and better than some reports I've read.

For the sake of transparency, it would be nice to note the lenses the director used to shoot the video. This is common practice I have seen on other Canon videos. This video has a Canon logo on it, so there. And if Canon does not do this, it should be clear in the copy published on DPReview. It would be even nicer if you noted that the director used a huge and expensive Canon cinema lens for the majority of the shots: a 35mm T1.5 that costs 4,600 dollars!!!!

It may be that they have even fixed it as S-Gamut is supposed to be a standard colour gamut and having footage shot with all kinds of differently tuned S-Gamuts probably confuses the hell out of professional colourists! The FS5 is the same as A6300. As is A6500. A7S II however we can still play

If you are not using the 4k features for now I think you are wasting your money. Purchase a 4k camera when you actually want to record in 4k.

Very interesting post Tim. The first part of it you describe is what I mean when I refer to "honesty". For me, honesty in editorial is about emphasis. You can emphasise the positive or the negative. When you take out the negative, readers switch off and they may as well read the manufacturer's website instead or the box. There's a new form of advertorial called a 'balanced review', which are actually 80% positive and 20% negative. That the negatives exist at all in these review is seemingly all they require for 'balance' and I've lost count of the number of times people have mistaken a glossy advertorial piece for a 'balanced review'. It's very easy to do. Likewise it's easy to mistake passion and genuine enthusiasm in the product, for selling too. There are camera reviewers that get accused of this a lot. In the end it comes down to a creative business model which doesn't compromise your content. The mission should be to say anything - even rude things (which often are entertaining and add colour to the debate over a camera) - without links to a manufacturer or PR people. There are not enough business models being tried where the reviewer is completely unattached to a manufacturer, and whenever they get big enough, out come the offers from the PR people to the reviewer in an attempt to get them to self-censor.

Looked great, nice hand held work. Skin tones do look good with this lut. Didn't really spot the difference in cameras as the content got my attention.

My wallet is ready!

@Andrew Reid That's the point. And - as you have mentionned - it's not the first time this company lies. Confidence is important too...And there are people who don't want to give their money to companies they don't trust. Instead of investing in blatant marketing lies and spreading noncredible, bullshit advertorials, Canon could invest money in a real 1080p resolution in their DSLR cameras...Brave new world...

I totally agree. It's a bare faced lie in the video, all an act. Have we come to the point now where manufacturers have to lie to us to sell us a camera? The line between PR and editorial and advert has not just been blurred, they have brought the suspension of disbelief from the advertising world into some kind of 'reality' piece - which attempts to fool us even more. All this is severely backfiring on Canon, to the point where I may even consider selling my 1D X Mark II. I don't want to deal with unethical companies and it isn't the first time Canon has lied either. They did so to me via an official manager, when the 5D Mark III was originally released it only shot 720p via HDMI... they said the hardware wasn't capable of 1080p then 2 years later updated the firmware to enable it. Honesty is important.

Z Cam E1 perhaps.

Awesome news on the LX100 added to the compatibility. I was thinking of selling mine due to the dreadful skin tones and magenta cast on lips, but this EOS Pro Color makes me think twice. Now if Andrew can add Dual Pixel AF to a Panasonic, I can officially dump my Canon gear

Mercer, nice video! A couple questions: - Was this shot with auto or manual focus? How do you find the reliability of the continuous auto focus? - How is the stabilization in 4K? I found the FZ1000 to be a bit skittish and jittery, similar to the Panasonic 35-100 2.8 lens.

Added it to the compatibility list. It should have been there in the first place but I forgot to add it. I went out and bought an LX100 again the other day as I am liking the results so much with the G85. LX100 is a little gem of a camera.

@mercer I think we're all in agreement that it exists, if in perception only. It may mean different things to different people. Personally, in the (admittedly unscientific) studies I've done on the subject, it's got to do with things like precise frame timing, proper frame exposure (there was a bug in the original C300 - not sure if it's still there, I haven't shot on that camera in a while - where footage shot as 24p would always have a 1/60 shutter speed, reducing motion blur from the expected 1/48 by enough that was noticeable - it made all the footage feel slightly less "smooth", for instance), and of course ensuring that playback was at a matching frame rate. For others, it's got more to do with colour, for others, bokeh or lack thereof, film grain or noise "feel", and the anamorphic effects, etc. etc. and of course any/all of these in combination. This subject has been beaten to death and we could still talk about it, but I think it really comes down to how you, personally, define it, and whether or not you can, in post, create that effect or if it's purely the result of the in-camera hardware and encoding. That said, I'd argue you could make stuff that very nearly everyone except a small percentage of other filmmakers finds entirely "cinematic" or "filmic" with nearly any decent video-capable camera these days, and that it's not as much of a hardware thing as people think. Can you do it on all cameras, straight off the card, in available light? Not easily, and certainly not with as much success. My personal perspective on the whole thing is that we've failed to carry forward actual cinema production technique and style and values. The importance of lighting and light modifiers. The use of colour for symbolism and message. The practice of motion. The importance of DOF (not low-DOF) and when/how to use it. Traditional framing versus unconventional. The language of editing. The incredible contributions of the art dept. (even if it's just one person) and wardrobe/makeup. Having a good colourist. To me, these contribute FAR FAR more to the feeling of "cinematic" or "filmic" than any of the gear you shoot with or what LUTs you slap on the footage, and my own eyes, in blind viewings, have held that up so far.

The logical answer would be to employ the LUT you'll be applying in post, and failing that simply a Rec709 LUT. I know that Deakins, for instance, uses his own specially designed look LUT for monitoring to give him a good approximation of how the final images will look.

Sorry to bump this post but there was some discussion of the WFT-e8A on here. I had a huge lag when using it with the Camera Connect app and the Ronin-m. after a bit, I narrowed the problem down to the bluetooth connection inside of the Ronin. It always on and you can't disable it. The trick to fix it is to have your Ronin-M on and connected to the DJI Assistant app so that there is an active bluetooth connection, use the "viewer" mode so that its transmitting data to your phone. THEN setup your WFT-E8a network with the connection wizard. It will detect the interference and use a different channel. Drove me nuts! So I hope this helps someone else.

So, trying to function as professional in the industry is more about people skills than not. At least that's been my experience at the level I'm at. No one's ever going to hire me because I have a craft level that's superior to those in the upper echelon of film making. I'm just not that guy. Which leaves me in a precarious situation --as most of the time the work I'm doing has been quick boutique "one-offs" wherein I go in for a day or two, gather footage, then take it back to the homestead and edit it together. Rather simple, small and fun stuff to do. Nothing special about that. 12 year olds have better equipment and do the same. The tough situation I'm facing is that my ability to tolerate a difficult client has diminished. Maybe it's a sign of getting older? This is no small thing. Seriously, the desire to coddle a client has seemingly disappeared. For instance, I'm working on a documentary thing where the client is so maddeningly absent minded, she has forgotten about shoots, called me in at the last minute to locations, sent me on location for shoots that are irrelevant to the product, has failed to produce shoots that offer any useable coverage, won't stop talking (about herself) to the documentary subjects on location to allow clean b-roll of said subject, doesn't seem aware that words from an interview require some sort of image to cover the endless droning of a talking head, refuses provide interview (trans)scripts with accurate time-code, etc, etc, etc.... Basically, she's kind of incompetent (from my point of view) to direct documentaries. Nice person, but her choices and process are maddeningly pathetic. Nevertheless, she's paid me a flat rate to do all this stuff for her. Aha! Therein lies the problem. Never, ever, work with a bad client on a large project for a flat rate. --AND ALWAYS assume first time out of the gate, no matter how sweet they are, that you're getting in bed with a potentially difficult client. You'll end up being exploited and resentful; resentful to your client and resentful to yourself for agreeing to such ridiculous terms to begin with. Anyway, that's my advice. How to y'all cope with a shitty client? I drink lots and lots of wine and get fatter. You?

here a video I shot entirely with eoshd pro color, custom wb 2 (4300k) color phase 0 - I am very pleased with the result

Hey Scott. This sums up quite well what I loved about DPReview's editorial and why I was so proud to be contributor for those years. I looked upon DPR as something of a leading light, the most respected review site for digital cameras, one of the first, and that's why I hold it to a higher standard than others. I care passionately enough about it to get upset and to shout about it when it goes wrong and I think it's in danger. DPR did go in-depth, especially on the technical side and still does. If the new advertising in the form of sponsored content also did this to the same standard, then the quality would remain and not hurt the brand as much but even then there's a problem, because it would only work as long as it was impartial, which advertising never is and never can be. Flick through an old fashion magazine from the 1970's and it is almost ALL advertising yet readers still bought it in droves.... you'll see a lot of high quality advertising, fantastic photos (David Bailey, Helmut Newton) and minimal words, minimal editorial pieces! I am not against advertising culture entirely or with zero tolerance of ads and I'm not a communist although I do live in Berlin The problem I have is that more and more the manufacturers seem to be the boss, the paymaster and the editors, if not directly then certainly in subliminally controlling ways like with the PR organised events and it is wrong that this appears to be our only choice as reviewers if we want to get our hands on new gear at the earliest opportunity. We join the hype train by doing this and we trade our credibility, or at least it looks that way for the readers. I am open for a civilised debate on what we can do in the industry to recover some integrity in what we do. There needs to be some collective action. So the PR companies and manufacturers are after our jobs Scott. And we are going to just let them take over on the content side? But their purpose, if sponsored, is to sell a camera. For me that is not the purpose of what we do. I hate this insidious influence. If we for example are to put out educational content for instance and it is paid for by Canon, then whichever manufacturer sponsors us the most or pays the most, the more content on that particular brand there will be, and there's yet another form of bias. Even if the content itself had zero bias, the money still control the agenda. It's our job to create excellent content that's worth watching, not Intel's. By taking their money, you are trading your position as a content creator with them and one day you will be without a job. Of course! I understand that and always have. That's because it's being traded in bit by bit. Your voice replaced by somebody else's. If it's only a 3% increase in ad revenue and you're owned by Amazon, why do it at all? Why take such a big risk with the brand for the sake of bowing to the manufacturers and 0.001% of their overall ad spend budget? Tell them to fuck off! Thanks for the message on here Scott, I do appreciate it. If I can ever mend my relationship with DPReview I would. I have friends there and the only bad words exchanged were with Barney and Simon Joinson. In the end the buck stops with them. If they are going to take the site in this direction, they know my opinion on how wrong this is and why it won't turn out the way they hoped. They have a responsibility as the senior figures to change tac. Their responsibility to the readers should come before their financial obligations to advertisers anyway, because without any readers there won't be any advertisers!

Hey all, I work at DPReview, so figured I chime in and perhaps dispel a few myths. sponsored content and the end of the world as we know it... Yes, we do sponsored content. Most for-profit publishers do now, as banner ads do not work, and marketers are realizing this and switching gears. But it is not some clandestine operation, a complex web of ethical quagmires. DPReview hires scientists, PHDs, literally, to design our camera tests. We then perform those tests and write about real world usability to create a review, which is a combination of facts and opinions. Whether our camera testers get everything right (with their real world usage opinions) is up for debate, but we strive to ensure our reviews align with the science in such a way that questions about editorial integrity (very common well before we started sponsored content) do not hold weight. Go back to any review we've done and look at the data. You will bore yourself to death looking at test charts before you discover any bias towards a brand. Taking a step back, I can speak personally to how the advertising campaigns (including sponsored content) come to fruition because I manage them (I am the product manager). The reality is that camera manufacturers, if they are smart, realize they cannot put lipstick on a pig, no matter how hard they try. So they are resorting to finding ways to actually engage people. It's the early days, so a lot of the sponsored content is still shit. But the vision is that publishers influence brands to actually make content worth looking at, with the goal that the quality of their product, the soul of their brand (if there is one), actually resonates in an honest way. But it will always be, in some way, advertising. Maybe one day they will turn the corner and actually make content people want to watch/read on the regular, but only time will tell. So when we decided to go down this road, we asked a few basic Qs. What could we make that would be worthwhile? How could we do it in a way that we were able to make videos we wanted to make, but could not afford to do so. And one of the first roads we went down was having pro photographers use cameras in the real world, and make little short films showcasing their experiences. On the whole, I think those videos have worked out well, we have been able to showcase photographer workflows, tell stories about real people and places, have cameras used in real world shooting situations, and on the whole, do all of this with almost zero manufacturer interaction. There is a ton of room for improvement, and I talk with visitors all the time about what else we could try. But alas, the topic at hand, we also decided to do "Native Advertising", where we have no role in creation of the content, and simply provide real estate for a brand to promote content they have created. As I mentioned above, the vision is that this type of content will get better over time, but the camera industry is a few years behind the broader CE industry. I remember a good 4-5 years ago Intel sponsored a series of short films telling the story of a handful of creatives that were excellent, beautifully shot, and overall just worthwhile to watch. There is no reason the Camera industry cannot get there, but as I said above, time will tell. DPReview staff are photographers, no really, I swear. We are not winning any World Press Photo awards by any means, that's for sure, but we are enthusiasts just like our visitors for the most part. It's an important point because I think when the topic of editorial integrity, advertising, relationships with the brands, and all of these themes come up, it gets lost. Maybe I'm an optimist, but I like to think that generally people are "good", and difficult to corrupt, and that set of assumption definitely applies to my coworkers at DPReview. Our guys are using cameras every day, shooting photos, and spending a ridiculous # of hours every year thinking about cameras. The last thing they would ever want is to feel like everything they were doing was compromised, without purpose. It would be soul crushing, demotivating, and completely unsustainable. So yeah, I understand the need to be skeptical, critical, and diligent in pushing for transparency in journalism, and we are no different. But aside from the more potent reasons I just mentioned, there are also the legal realities of sponsored content; we are legally required to disclose when a brand is involved with something that goes on our site, and we follow it to a T because, quite frankly, the world of hurt we'd face if we didn't would be far worse than a 3% increase in advertising revenue. DPReview hates EOSHD, and had a bitter falling out with Andrew Reid. Simply put, this is just not the case. We obviously respected EOSHD and Andrew as we tapped him to be involved in our efforts to begin talking more seriously about video capture. The reality of our publishing process is that it involves several layers of editing, and Andrew is not the first writer we've worked with that experienced this process as frustrating, and wont be the last. Hell, I even tried to write a few articles when I first joined DPR and definitely pulled out a few hairs when my words and voice were changed to be in line with DPR's style. But editing is a necessary step in the publishing process, and in the end, even if DPR and Andrew didn't align on how to do this, none of us here view the situation as anything other than a freelancer not working out, it happens ALL THE TIME. There doesn't need to be a villain. Blogging is a much less rigid workflow and half of the writers we work with are much happier in that context. It makes sense. No hard feelings are needed.

I hate the screen dimming even more than the overheating. I'd rather the camera overheat 10% quicker but I can actually see what I shoot.

I think it is undermining to have two incompatible stabilization options for the MFT system. For MFT to survive Olympus and Panasonic should compete but also work together to make products that are compatible beyond mere mount compatibility. I believe this will strengthen the platform.

If the E-M1 II was going to offer something new aside to bringing 4K to an Olympus camera for the first time it has to do the following - - Dual Pixel AF standard performance in video mode (Nope) - Better than Panasonic G85 for low light, dynamic range and stabilisation (Nope) - LOG (Nope... it has a faux-flat profile that isn't even very flat) - Better slow-mo than GH4 (nope... none in fact) And Sync IS only works with just TWO Olympus lenses!! Not Panasonic ones. Dual IS on the G85 works with almost all of Panasonic's OIS lenses and they have far more than just TWO!! The Panasonic GH5 will STOMP all over this camera in a few short months and everyone that buys it for video will have major buyer's remorse. It's by no means not a great camera but for $2000 it has to be different. It isn't.

Shot this on my GH4 in one night. Used some color foils on my cheap Yongnuo YN300 LEDs and my Panasonic 20mm 1.7 lens. Recording was done internally in 4K DCI VLOG 8 bit, so some artifacts are definitely there. Tried to create a dark, gritty but colorful look. Still in love with this small, little and reliable camera. Director, writor and main actor: Uche Aguh