Leaderboard

1st rule of fight club...don't talk about fight club.

I don't see the either/or thinking. Both AF and MF can be useful in the right situation. I shoot only video, and MF is the way to go for 99% of the shooting I do. But I do want to say something about waiting for the next A7siii: If it existed right now I would not care to have it in the vast number of instances. Perhaps it might be useful in studio. But the weight of the lenses and terrible stabilization (compared to Olympus/Panasonic) make it very problematic for field shooting. IMO little has been said about the incredible in-camera stabilization of the new Panasonics and what it does for on-location shooting hand held. I've been shooting hand held with the G85, using a .72 focal reducer and speed booster, and using FD lenses and it is a world better than trying to manage the weight and limited stabilized full-frame Canon lenses. And the sensitive light and focus control is much better shooting manual FD rather than full-frame Canon lenses. Here are what I see for all the pros shooting video with Panasonic in-camera stabilization with speed booster plus FD lenses. 1. more sensitive and subtle focus control. 2. more lens choices---all are stabilized. 3. incredible low-light capability. I have in one small camera bag (very light) 1 85mm 1.8 (1.2 w speed booster), 1 50mm 1.2 (.095?? w/ speed booster), 1 35mm 2.0 (1.4 speed booster), 1 28mm 2.8 (2.0 speed booster), 135mm 2.8 (2.0 w/ speed booster); all stabilized, all giving me about the same perspective as the 1DX mk II. The whole set up is very light--nothing like the torture of lugging full frame Canon lenses---but wait! These are full-frame Canon lenses! Plus, I can use Rokinon Ef to MFT speed booster with click less aperture--all stabilized. Why the Hell would I forsake that for a larger sensor when all the weight and focus problems--and the cost come with it!! I mean, it's video. Just how sharp does it have to be--just how necessary is it to pixel peep till your eyes are blood shot?!? 4. FD lenses are cheap compared to their full frame equivalent--and with the speed booster they provide near a full-frame angle of view and faster F-stops. There's nothing Canon or Sony make the FD + speed booster can't provide you with plus at least one full stop more light. So, why should I switch to a full-frame Sony and have to pay full frame prices? and deal with the weight and the AWFUL impossible to use manual focus??? Other than Panasonic, another option I see is using the in-camera stabilization and speed booster FD lenses with the Sony a6500. That yields even better image/light results than the Panasonic G85, but the shooting is more physically challenging, inconvenient, and not nearly as pleasurable as shooting with the Panasonic. Can't say about the GH5 because it hasn't arrived yet here in the States. I pre-ordered mine, and it should arrive early next week. IMO: IF Sony put the body of the a6500 in a slightly larger, DSLR style body (like the GH5) and improved the ergonomics to make the shooting experience a little more facile I would buy it in a New York minute! --Hell, half a New York minute. I love that camera, and the results with its combination of in-cam stabilization, speed booster, FD lenses, and, IMO, image quality is second to none. Plus, the aps-c sensor is really much the same as the Super 35 sensor more traditionally used for video. The Bottom Line: An inexpensive, light, easy to use set-up providing freedom from the tripod, a beautiful image, amazing focus control and low-light, excellently stabilized---you lose almost all of those when you go to the full-frame Sonys, Canons, etc. But you have them in the GH5, G85, and the a6500---they allow you to shoot all day and not to have to undergo physical therapy for a week. Alas, if only Sony would improve the camera body--making it slightly larger, just a bit heavier, and with a better grip. Put the a6500 in something like that and you've got my money!

LOL This is "the" joke! Priceless. The best definition of pixel peeper I've ever read ; ) *thumbsup* :-)

The only GH5 video I've seen so far that I've really liked is James Miller's. All that it took was a Zeiss Otus and a 4k external recorder to accomplish a pristine baked-in-LUT downscale of 4k to 1080p. Every other test video simply doesn't have colors I like. The film look isn't there. If you told me all of it was shot with a GH4 I'd believe you.

Hell on my monitor it looks great at 100%. Well now Jon, not so great. For some reason the Red disappears when I blow it up here, but on YouTube it is too Red. But I just don't see the chroma smearing you are talking about?? I mean yeah the curtains behind him maybe what you are talking about, they look more OOF than smeared? This link shows for a GH4 at least, that a good LuT can change it tremendously from not so hot to holly shit! Christ those women in the feather things are well, GREAT! http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?340808-Leeming-LUT-One-%96-the-best-LUT-for-the-Panasonic-GH4/page52 I don't think we ought to be blaming cameras as much as we ought to be blaming the LuTs in them we use!! Not counting not doing WB, BB, wrong exposure, on and on.

I feel badly for people who are torn between this or any other camera for that matter based firstly on seeing great footage and then bad footage...if this is your criteria, then no film would have ever been shot on an Alexa...my advice to @Herbert Massey would be wait for Andrew's footage/review...he knows what he's doing, will give an unvarnished viewpoint of the camera and then you can make an objective decision re wanting one or not...this thread is becoming like a typical disaster movie where all the hysterical victims are heading for the exits first, only die off before anyone else in the subsequent stampede lol...

I will echo the advice to get the best tripod & head you can afford. You don't need to spend thousands, but you're probably looking at $300-400 to get something that's workable (unless you find a good used deal). In my experience, those cheap Manfrottos with the one-sided tilt mechanisms are nearly useless- once you loosen the tilt lock knob, the tilt mechanism goes all wobbly. I would definitely get at least a used Manfrotto 701, which is workable. I used a 701 for a couple years, then went to a Benro S6, and then got REALLY lucky on a Sachtler Ace L with carbon legs on eBay. The 701 was workable for a light setup, once I got used to the fixed drag. The S6 was a good step up, it was nice to have adjustable tilt drag and adjustable counterbalance. The lack of a pan drag adjustment sucks though, and overall it's built pretty cheaply- plastic knobs, plate release button was sticky, etc. Both the 701 and S6 are dampened, but I wouldn't quite call them smooth. The Sachtler is a whole 'nother league. Smooth as silk, drag on both axes can go light or nice 'n heavy, counterbalance is more finely adjustable. Having a bowl mount is really nice. Everything about it is really nice, and it makes using my old tripods feel awful, haha. And it's not just a placebo effect- I can see a definite difference in my shots with it.

I don't want to derail the discussion about the GH5, but I hate seeing bad information out in the world, and just have to correct this. For all intents and purposes, as long as the focal plane of the camera is in an identical place in the world between shots with different focal lengths, the effect is mathematically identical to a crop from a larger FOV to a smaller one. In other words you can animate a crop on an image to recreate the effect of a zoom with a lens. The only things that could possibly be different would be characteristics of the different lenses, such as pin cushion or barrel distortion throughout the zoom. Of course there are going to be varying resolving differences depending on the technique used. For example a digital zoom is going to reduce pixel resolution, but an optical zoom is going to be affected by any resolving differences of the lens at different focal lengths. That said, if you took a theoretically "perfect pinhole lens" and performed a zoom it would be identical to to a crop on an image with infinite resolution. I've run into so many photographers who don't get this, but I think it's an important bit of information to keep in the back of your head while out shooting-- you can crop in on an image and it will have the same basic effect as putting a longer lens on your camera. What's neat about the GH5 is that trick doesn't seem to have much effect on the detail in the image, so it really effectively gives you two lenses which is very cool. Just as a side note, that Jaws effect is achieved by combining a move through the environment combined with a zoom or crop in to keep the subject in the same scale in the frame. The key to the effect is that the camera is moving and not in the same spot from the beginning to the end of the shot, so you are getting the parallax of moving the camera. In fact even before digital, they used to do the effect using optical printers in the same way in which we can crop a shot today.

A lot depends on how you use your camera/s...if a camera sits on a tripod on a set properly weighted down, and someone walked into it, it should hurt them....not the camera??...regarding the head though, there's no more important piece of gear after camera and lens IMO than the best fluid head and legs you can afford....unless you only shoot with the camera locked off....the reason thousands of $s are spent on tripods for cinema cameras go beyond the weight of these cameras...it's about professional looking movement and repeatability...as these small cameras improve in image quality (4K resolution for example) they amplify poor camera movement....in the same way focus becomes unforgiving, so does movement...ergo the need for a fluid head that transfers the movement smoothly....again and again....but...it still depends entirely on what you use your camera for....

Honestly, Mattias' LS300 footage is better than anything I have seen from the GH5. With this update, this camera is epic. I don't love the form factor and I have no intention of buying one, but it really is unmatched at this price point.

I stopped recording after 11 minutes. It's safe to say it's continuous. So yes, there is a Santa Claus if Santa Claus = continuous 24p compressed RAW at 3168 x 1320 (max vertical resolution without going wider than 2.4:1). Here's a DNG: https://www.dropbox.com/s/8trg0exly76nx9a/m01-1531_000000.dng?dl=0 Santa Claus is yet to bring correct preview framing while recording or sound. Let's hope it doesn't take until April 1st 2018.

Do not touch the button! Do not take a cookie! No joke! Everytime there's a negative involved, you're starting to think otherwise. The big joke here is Canon. Period. Though I'm not sure that's even funny. They should really up their game with their con-/prosumer camera line-up. Like, how significant the 5DmkII and T2i/550D have been. So meaningless are their releases nowadays. If you look at Panasonic, Sony, even Fujifilm, Olympus and Nikon, they've made leaps in these last few years.

and a film at The Winter Efteling;

Atomos looked like they'd got great timing releasing the new Ninja Inferno at the same time the GH5 became available but its even better timing with this upgrade of the LS300. For a total price of $3550 from B&H these two make a massively specced package. JVC did packages with Samyang lenses and if they've got any sense they'll do a bundled version of the LS300 with the Ninja Inferno. Everything about the LS300 on the front end is there (Super35 sensor, 4K,LOG,flexible mount,ND,XLR,dedicated controls) as are the clever features like Variable Sensor Mapping and the brilliant Prime Zoom function and mating it with the Ninja Inferno now takes care of the rest of it as on top of all that you get 10 bit 4K60p direct to edit ready ProRes on affordable media and a no compromise professional monitor with all the bells and whistles thrown in. Thats a hell of a system for $3550. Its probably not going to be attracting the same sort of user (or buzz!) as the GH5 (to which you could of course attach the Ninja Inferno and get all the back end stuff) but for people who really need a solid camcorder for broadcast work that can also be used for digital cinema then I can't see any better options than this. But they really need to up their marketing game and let people know about it.

Thing is, most 1080p cameras can't actually resolve 1080p. This is due to de-bayering, scaling and compression. Zoomed in 1:1, most 1080p footage is blurry, lacking super fine detail. 4K (itself not completely sharp when looking at it 1:1) downscaled to 1080p gives you 'proper' 1080p with superb detail, way sharper than 'native' 1080p cameras can resolve. Oh, and as for lenses, most prime lenses can definitely resolve 4K. 4K is still 'only' 12 megapixels. Almost all stills cameras are higher res than that. If lenses couldn't out-resolve 12 MP, why would you ever need more than 12 MP for stills?

http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=19300.0

GH5 vs a6500 @6400 ISO GH5 vs EM1II @6400 ISO Stills, but... :-( Source: http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2017/02/14/panasonic-gh5-beta-first-shots

http://www.newsshooter.com/2017/03/31/canon-firmware-updates-march-2017/ For me - C100 mkii shutter angle priority is a lovely little gift from Canon!

To me, it doesn't look great. The ghosting is causing a strobing effect with anything with contrast. Especially with some of the pans near the end of the first video. I couldn't use that for professional work but I guess it's fine for personal footage? Colors look great though. It is only $2000. I wonder what the larger files will bring in the summer.

Simple handheld movements, pans and tilts shot on 4k 10bit 422 24fps.

A7s is smaller and lighter than the G85 (A7sii is larger), who knows what the A7siii will be. You can use the same lenses on the A7s cameras. To me, the A7s cameras are far better in the field. The A7 cameras have greater lens choice actually as you can use all the lenses available for M4/3 and M4/3 lenses if you want but you can not use E mount lenses on M4/3. The FD lenses ARE FF lenses. IBIS is nice but the A7s cameras need it less than any other I have used and again, who knows how well it will work in the A7siii. My GX7 has terrible IBIS for stills and non existent for video just as the first A7s doesn't have it, the second does. It gets better with each generation. No, it just means you can use a fast lens and keep your ISO lower than with a slower lens but you can do that with an A7s series camera as well. Plus the A7s cameras have an APSC mode for double duty (not so great for stills with the lower pixel count but for video is useful). What are you going to match an A7s and FF 50 f0.95 lens with? The FD lenses will work just fine (better as far as I am concerned) on the A7s cameras. I love my FD 24 1.4 and 85 1.2 lenses but they are much better for me on the A7s than the M4/3 camera (and the combination would weigh less on my A7s than they would on your G85). You would need a 12mm f0.7 to match the 24 and a 42.5 f0.6 to match the 85. Manual focus is excellent with the A7 series cameras (better for me than anything else I have used) but is also great with EF mount lenses. The TS-E lenses for instance, I think are better (easier to use at least on the A7 cameras) than on any current Canon camera. I love M4/3 but for low light, there is NO comparison as far as I am concerned. Your G85 would be a much better general video camera to me than the A7s but low light? No, I don't think so.

I used clearzoom few times and most of the time it sucks balls, result is too soft/pixelated when mix the footage with another one with proper zoom on another angle in multiple cam setup during event/theater setup, ETC mode while gives you really good result without degrading sharpness except the increase in noise at lower light environment, though both wont offer you the same bokeh as proper zoom.

I don't see it either! Between not knowing how people view these things, the monitors they use, calibrated and non-calibrated, the web browsers used (I see a huge difference between color rendition on my 5K IMac between Safari and Chrome), and who knows what other variables, good luck making comparisons. Someone posted how fleshtones were being pulled to magenta in one posted pix. Not on my IMac, fleshtones looked great. In other pix, one says fleshtones are great and someone else says they're terrible. It's almost becoming amusing to me. What's important to me, is thus far I'm liking the color I see on my GH5, but of course that's 'only' on a 75" UHD Sony or 65" OLED. . OK, granted I'm now only looking at this on an IPad, but I still don't see what you're talking about other than 'imperfections' in Jon's skin (don't feel badly Jon, we all have em'). I give up.

The autofocus is a bit bizarre on this camera. It works pretty well for stills, but for video it's inconsistent. I went outside and shot at ISO 400 in V-Log. It seems to be having issues focusing when there are big objects close to the lens.

The first of these videos were internal recordings. I do not thing that this camera has 10bit capabilities at all, as it isn't just a firmware/software thingy. At one point (soon), I assume we all be needing 10bit, TV industry pushes it slightly for now. https://www.atomos.com/cameras/jvc-gy-ls300

To satisfy my curiosity (it has been a while since I used the variable zoom with my A7s in video), I just mounted an old crappy Canon 28-90 zoom on my A7s, mounted on a tripod and set it to 47mm then used Clearzoom (virtually lossless variable digital zoom to 2x) and zoomed in to 2x then back out, then I used the optical zoom to zoom to 90mm. The Clearzoom actually looks better as the optical zoom is not parfocal so is a bit out of focus at the end of the 90mm. The optical zoom is also quite shaky (even on the tripod) while the digital zoom is smooth. I am not going to post it as it is pretty lame and not a great lens but anyone with a Sony E mount camera with clearzoom and a zoom lens that covers 2x at least can test it. For stills I would always prefer an optical zoom but for video in SOME circumstances, I would go with the digital zoom.

Look, this development is potentially huge. It's generally agreed that 5D3 MLRAW gives a wonderful image, especially in terms of colour, and comparisons with the Alexa are often made. While it may not have incredible dynamic range, it's still very respectable at around 11.5 stops. To date, 5D3 ML footage has fallen down in terms of its resolution. Because of pixel binning, the 1080p image suffers from a general softness and slight but noticeable aliasing. Its deficiencies are clear when compared with the downsampled-from-4K 1080 of the C100, for example, or even the in-camera 1080 of the GH5. Resolution for the sake of resolution is a fool's game. Recently, I was at a screening of the art collective AES+F. These guys' work is based on a slick aesthetic, in part commenting on the world of commercial advertising. The screen was huge. I was sitting in the middle of the theatre, and I was wearing glasses. There was a question and answer session at the end and somebody asked about 4K. AES+F replied that the work was in 4K, but had been presented in 2K because the projector was 2K, but it made zero difference to the appreciation of the piece. If the final image has enough resolution, it's incredibly difficult to separate 2K from 4K. The difference is there. But it doesn't matter. Back to Magic Lantern and the Alexa. It has been noted that the Alexa's 2.8k is ideal for a 2K or 1080p delivery as the downsampling counteracts the softness that is inherent to the debayering process. And this is exactly what we're seeing today with Magic Lantern for the 5D3. As I type, my camera is recording a 3072 x 1286 losslessly compressed 14bit RAW file to the card. It's a 1.5x downsize from this resolution to the DCP spec of 2048 x 858, eliminating softness and giving a sharp, clear image. And the camera has been running for 30 minutes continuously. Admittedly, I'm getting a greyscale preview with a low refresh rate, no sound, and a 1.8x crop of my full frame sensor. But if what A1ex is suggesting in his "April Fools" actually comes to fruition, these issues may no longer be issues. It's an exciting time to be an owner of a 5D3. Respect to Magic Lantern

Cancelled both GH5 pre-orders today. Not liking what I'm seeing, unfortunately. Will stick with my Blackmagic Pocket and Micro until a Pocket successor comes out (hopefully). Also, besides rolling-shutter, which I personally have no problem with, I am not finding the current GH5 image anymore superior to my A6500. Perhaps the 400Mbit ALL-I will change this? Anyways, good luck to all those waiting on their pre-orders, hope you get them soon and make some amazing things with it. Enjoy!

Well you can buy the code on bh for $100 usd

Honestly Jase, once again great job. I think you are the Panasonic master... continuously great colors... they should make you one of their ambassadors... I wonder what you could do with the GH5... and so far... I think it needs your help.

@webrunner5 If you read the reviews, most of the people have very limited use, or experience with video, or used to have small cheap tripods of no significant value (or performance). Maybe for the G7 and a specific style is sufficient, that is a personal matter, for most people those kind of heads are enough, anyway, with your ENG experience, I am sure you would love something sturdier and with better motion (and load). The only thing I am sure, these kind of heads are not even slightly ok with dSLR cameras (like the 5D) or even EF-S zoom lenses (18-135 anyone?). @Inazuma the difference between tripods are vast, that is why Chinese brands (I have used a lot of those) even though are trying for a lot of years now, can't really match the top performance and reliability of top brands. Try a Sachtler Ace head with your mirrorless camera and I am sure you will appreciate it the differences. It will be cheap to rent one in Manchester! Other things with more expensive tripods ( @jonpais already mentioned some) are the quality of the moving parts, the connections, the general quality of the materials, how well thought and practical are, how they stand through time - ALL the Chinese ones we had E-Image and Secced and some other brands- are now completely broken, or a nightmare to use (same for "cheap"-o Manfrotto ones) while big expensive Cartonis and Sachtler that we used to rent are still operational.

Yes I totally agree that this is a package that is hard to beat. It already was competition for the FS5 but now it is up there with the FS7 for a fraction of the cost and the IQ is excellent!

@pekoo Here is the first system I bought...no pan or tilt adjustment but very solid and most importantly allows you other camera options and rigs into the future (the buying inadequate gear and selling at a loss in the future quickly starts getting both time consuming and expensive)....I do know this is twice your budget!! https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/861080-REG/Libec_LX7_M_LX7_M_Tripod_With.html I have subsequently added a second set of legs and the Miller head...one set of legs is midspreader for use on uneven surfaces and the other set bottom spreader which allows you to get lower....beyond that I use Hi Hat support to get lower. This combo of tripods are also rock solid for a slider/ dolly system and still somewhat "portable"...and of course I hang 30lbs of sandbags on each set of legs when doing a slider shot. What Jonpais said! I have a good friend from Estonia....she always reminded me of a Russian saying "I'm too poor to buy cheap tools!"

As this is a A7Sii thread, it is appropriate to mention that CVP's mailing list just send a 400pounds reduction on A7Sii and A7Rii cameras. This is a huge reduction in any sense, and a lot of people in UK (or Europe, or wherever this discount applies) will pause for a minute. There is an 300$ offer in B&H also (prices of Asian products in Europe are crazy expensive). Is this the GH5 effect, a A7S(R) iii or something else? http://cvp.com/index.php?t=category/a7pricedropap17&utm_source=mailshot&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=email

I'm hoping there are some settings he didn't have right for this test, because the AF performance here is pretty disappointing Also a bit concerned that the camera will not fit correctly on the Zhiyun Crane (he mentioned it a bit earlier in the video). Still usable, but not ideal.

Abysmal is the word.

Just watched Max Yuryev's GH5 video and the autofocus performance did not impress me at all. Disappointing.

I pre-orderd the Smallcage GH5, for $44.50 its no brainer, and handle works well with the XLR adapter which all other cage miss it.

Hmmmm, not too impressive.

I'd like to see Sony revive the smaller VG camcorder line with the a6500 innards, just call it the FS3. The VG's were way ahead of their time - and way under spec'd with that crappy mic and line skipping 1080p - so they were DOA from the beginning. Now we have the MIS and the XLR adapters, so the goofy built in mic could be eliminated. Plus we finally have the lenses to make it shine either with E-mount or adapted. Touchscreen and PADF make it more user friendly. Do it!

Well, I do tend to do that more than make movies, so...

Why do that when you can argue on the internet

My step down arrived today so i went out with the gh5 and the Schneider Kreuznach Cinelux, still got no rail support... Wasn t able to playback the 4k photomode files in Premiere,so only "normal 4:3 mode" footage

And an approving nod for being able to change the ISO whilst recording as well. Having the dedicated ISO dial on the X-T2 makes for a very ergonomic and fast solution for a quick and dirty exposure correction when pushing in or out with variable aperture zooms.

From my tests today, the face detect AF in video is very effective indeed. I tried it on 18-55 f2.8-4, 35 f1.4, 50-140 f2.8 and the 50-230 f4.5-6.7 The weakest (although its all relative as it was still good) was the 35 f1.4 I was just shooting someone cooking (all handheld) so the subject was nipping around a bit and being front on, side on and facing away from the camera and moving towards it as well and it performed brilliantly to be honest. I was doing some manual crane ups from foreground objects such as bowls and appliances with the subject in the background and as soon as the face came into view during the raise it locked on to it and racked smoothly without overshooting. The big downer of course is that in only does this in HD rather than 4K but you never know with Fuji and they might bring it in next time. The other niggle I have is that AF Lock doesn't work when you have face detect on and it would have been nice to be able to hold focus on a foreground object and then let it got to choose when it racked to the face. All in all though, I must say that if I had to shoot a similar subject in a documentary type style then I'd go as far as to say that I'd forego the 4K and choose to shoot it in HD so I could use the face detect. Focus beats resolution all day long when you have to get the shot.

@kisaha you are absolutely correct that the OP posted a budget and that some of the advice indicates units in excess of this (mine included). However, there is a point at which it is also useful to hear from others that the planned budget is simply too low to buy an item with sufficient quality/reliability etc. Perhaps the purchasing decision could/should be postponed until the budget is increased? Indeed, perhaps the budget could be increased now in the light of advice received? This would potentially save money longer term. I don't think it would be appreciated if everyone simply posted a list of tripods within the budget with no comment as to their suitability.

The info from this rumor comes from a new source. That means any one of us cunts could have written it. Its not even worth discussing!

Hi there, I own both the lenses, just received my 12-60 a week ago. Long story short: the 12-40 is going away. I had an EM5 II with the 12-40 and I was happy for still (using flash indoor), but got very disappointed with video quality (a body proble). The 12-40 is unbalanced on the EM5 II, too front heavy for me. I had to add the optional grip. Then I got a g85, superhappy with video (and still) quality with both the 12-40 and the 14-140 (dual is2 is great), but the reach of yhe 12-40 was not enough for everyday use, and I was often preferring the 35-100 (an other great lens). I gave it a go at this new panaleica, and I am definitely satisfied with it. Same quality, longer reach, much better balanced (even on the EM5II), same size, but so much better at video. The zoom ring is supersmooth, the aperture change is unnoticable in video. the 12-60 feels less like a tank, but is very well built. The only thing I personally don't like is the colder colors with respect to the 12-40. But it is fixable somehow with in camera processing. Ot really depends on what you need, but for me the 12-60 is a clear winner, and with dual is2 it is going to stay glued to the g85.

Test Panasonic LUMIX GH5 180fps Profile 709L , ISO 800 , cloudy (low light) Sigma 18-35, handheld

What about the large portion of video shooters that never use AF? Seems like more of a hobbyist hangup than something that'd hold back a working pro.