Leaderboard

Hi Guys. here is my first short test of my fresh GH5 with VLOG. Sometimes it was pretty difficult to focus on my dog as he is very fast!

Here a small test : 3009 x 1280@24p (upscale to 4k) + 14 bits lossless = continuous shooting. I used the new ML Cinelog-C to Ektar 100 LANDSCAPE lut of @hyalinejim Graded in Davinci Resolve 12.5, edited in Premiere.

Just for clarification. The 5DIII is not eight years old but just a tad over five. It shipped in March 2012. I took delivery of two of the first in the UK on 17th March 2012. The body only one was £2999 & the one with 24-105mm F/4L was £3689. Used a body only 5DIII is still worth £1000-1500. I think that it's amazing that the Magic Lantern guys are still squeezing new features out of a five year old camera that is still a decent pro tool. It doesn't shoot 4K but the colours & the full frame look are still gorgeous.

Can't tell if troll or fool.

Another shot in Natural..

I just post to overcome my 666 posts, and move from the demonic side of this forum towards the light (the opposite of high ISO)! I was editing a multi camera project these last days, and a lot of times I was considering giving some more light to specific cameras, in the end I just kept the atmosphere the way it was, because I had a very dark scene, the solution is not 1983754298 ISO because the scene is dark, if there is no light source on my scene, why to try to make it like it is? Now I understand why people are obsessed with high ISO (because they are shooting "night for day"!), and I comprehended why I do not have such problems (because I shoot "night for night"!). Even in real cinematography, you just do not randomly light a scene, you have objective or subjective light sources..

Just my 2 cents but I'd be inclined to think that for the circa £1600 for the GH5, I'd be looking at spreading that money in different areas. I'd be thinking say a BM Video Assist 4K at £700 which will give your X-T2 a huge boost in terms of better monitoring and exposure tools, FLOG recording, unlimited recording, edit ready Pro Res etc. This will also add functionality to your other cameras as well, so its a big win all round. The other £900 would get you an X-T20 for vlogging and/or when you need a more compact X-T2 and/or being able to do two camera shoots with some change left over for a Zhongyi Lens Turbo to use some old Nikon or Canon glass. Or the £900 could be used to flesh out your lens collection with the excellent 10-24mm f4 or 14mm f2.8 with enough change left over, if you shop around, for the 1.4x convertor which will I've you extra reach with your 50-140 with more or less zero impact on IQ or AF. *Apologies for teaching you to suck eggs if you've already got the 1.4!! Or the £900 could be used for the Edelkrone Slider One and Motion module with enough change left over for more lights or audio gear, of which none of us can ever have enough! When you add any of those combos to what you've already got, I think they are going to yield more return in terms of what you want to get to the screen than a camera body alone, especially as you've already got the Zhiyun Crane to soften the lack of IBIS pain. Have a look and see if you can live with some of the functional compromises the X-T20 has versus the X-T2 as you are getting the IQ with enough change left over to get a couple of the f2 primes. The touch focus of the X-T20 might be something that might interest you as its slowish performance in terms of transition can produce a nice looking pull ! It might well be that there are too many compromises (FLOG being one, although thats going to cost you a LOT more to utilise on the X-T2 anyway) but its worth considering if you can live with them.

After the latest firmware, my list of quirks is shortening. For example, the ability to map ISO the the front control wheel is brilliant because it means I can lock the ISO dial and not have to worry about it changing when I move the shooting mode selector. Here's some final things that I would like to see changed. I hope Fujifilm follows this topic. Ability to change the Custom Setting in video mode (so strange that this is greyed out!) Video AF functions: Ability to change focus transition speed (the time it takes for the focus to go from one point to another), changeable AF area size, face recognition in 4k, ability to choose face if there's more than 1 face, reduced focus drifting in AF-C, removed focus hunting in AF-S, focus tracking in AF-C, improved face tracking (currently loses you if you move sideways). Internal F-log (or a "Light" F-log that has slightly less dynamic range and a 400 ISO base) Reduced moiré in 1080p Increase of 1080p record limit from 15 to 30 mins, 4k from 10 to 15 mins. Seperate settings for video mode (ie. when you move between stills and video mode they both have separate custom settings) I would like to see an X-T2 "S" with the following hardware changes: Much larger grip Flip-out touchscreen screen (like the Canon 80d and many others) More accurate colour on back LCD (currently has a greenish tint) AF-S/AF-C/M dial moved from the front of the camera to the back Pop-up flash that can be tilted upwards Lastly I know that Fuji said they wouldn't do it because it would affect image quality, but I really would love IBIS. If they can't do this then they really need to put stabilisation on lenses!

Testing lenses if you're interested. 50mm has slight vigenette, but I cropped the sides to conform to 2.39 ratio.

Well, yes, of course they should. You should be absolutely entitled to dictate the free laborious direction of talented strangers. You're obviously a very special person that deserves to have their every wish granted, your laundry done for you, a hot bowl of mac 'n cheese served on the dining room table, and your jammies laid out for you before beddy-bye each and every evening.

Now changing subject, here's some marvelous imagerie from this piece of work: Shot on 12-60mm f2.8-4 and 100-400mm f4-6.3 -- only two zoom lenses and here we all can go very light ;-)

Yeah but she still has the best skin tone and still pretty hot. You kinda wish you could hook up with her again (even just once) if it wasn't for all her issues and the fact that she's a gold digger.

Thanks! Got myself a Smallrig cage as well as a top handle, improved the smoothness a lot.

Extreme narrow DOF has very little use if you are actually shooting a film as opposed to posting clips on the internet to make people go WOW! Most of the time you need more not less DOF. It's not like the laws of optics are new and still being worked out so why are people still arguing over 'equivelence' and some magical reality bending properties of MF lenses......

They should re-house it in an awkward box and they will make a mint.

Salut les copains, Here is my first test of the Focuser 8 from Aivascope Shot on a GH4 in 4k 24p with cineV profile Anamorphic lens is Möller Anamorphot 32 2X Taking lens is Canon FD 50mm 1.4 (f4 and f5.6)

Slow-mo raw shooters can now make use of an improved 2K 60p mode on the 5D Mark III thanks to Magic Lantern. In addition, 1920 x 800 recordings at 60fps are continuous to the card without a frame limit, a feat made possible thanks to new lossless compression. Read the full article

To be fare, like all cameras including the fs5 there are some negatives that one should identify to be able to work around them. But when you do you get a hell of bang for the buck.

The ricoh does. Nothing fancy but standard HD. I know Bigheadtaco uses it alot for vlogging. But that's probably for the size.

Ive always worked fulltime for companies or governmental agencies. Any freelance Ive done has always been for the fun of it. All my stuff and the YouTube have been for personal projects and to keep my shooting and technical "know how" up to speed. Ive never "needed" to use personal gear for work. Even if I sometimes have because it was good stuff I will still have a camera for stills and what not. But lately I haven't owned any good video shooter since they arent very good with stills. An xt2 would be nice but the xt1 is just far to affordable. Any who, went a bit OT there. If anyone is thinking about the LS300 all I can say is that its a great camera.

The original was a CCD and no video but 14Bit gorgeous files ... the M246 is a CMOS 12Bit ... as Leica says in monochrome there is no appreciable difference in the capture ... as a derivative of the M240 color it does capture HD video no 4K. Many are hoping for a monochromatic SL which might give us 4K mono files. When I settle into the GH5 I will pull the M246 and put it on my WoodenCamera rig and run some video. Need a few Variable NDs for my M Lenses ... Here is an intro video with stills and clips: And this looks like it was shot exclusively with the M246: A couple of stills ... Works for me ... Sorry for pulling the thread a bit off track .... Bob

No I dont have it. I dont have any personal video gear. Decided to switch jobs after 7.5 years as a producer. At the new place I will also shoot a lot of video. So no need to do that as a hobby anymore. Will rent for personal docs and such. For jlog I just ETTR. That usually fixed it. And if there still is a bit of noise is ok with me.

Bought it, turned everything into orange, asked for help, no reply given. Judge for yourself. Top is GH4, below is generic:

Although I respect Mr. Caldwell for his optical engineering prowess and for his high-quality products, his "calling your tests valid" (please provide a link to this statement) certainly "isn't proof of anything." In addition, Mr. Caldwell might not desire your dragging his name into this discussion. In regards to my "referring to bad tests done by others" as not being proof, note that not only did I criticize the setups of the tests but that I also analyzed the results of the tests. Those results show a difference in DOF/focus between optics made for different formats, a point which you still have yet to address. Perhaps you (or Mr. Caldwell) could explain why the "beer bottle" equivalence test shows the BG bush/car to be conspicuously sharper in the Iphone image than in the FF Nikon image. Perhaps we should first thoroughly analyze the results of the tests done so far, instead of glossing over the information and dismissing discrepancies out-of-hand. Why would one do a comparison test and not focus on the differences in the results? My guess is that such a tester does not want to contend with results that he/she is biased against. Again, dismissal out-of-hand... Mr. Ezcurra is clearly referring to how the Cyclops works and to the making of the Cyclops in the passage you quoted. He is not commenting about the results of the Cyclops. There are several videos on Mr. Ezcurra's Vimeo channel that show the unique look of both the "full" and "mini" Cyclops versions. Again, if you (or anyone else) can duplicate this look with just a S16 camera and S16 lens, I will give US$100.

Ricohs are wonderful great menus and wonderful glass ... had the GXR M Module ... should never have given it up. Kept hoping for an update .... Bob

I recently returned to a Leica M246. Looking forward to the HD output with no Bayer filter ... and M lenses. Bob

On my screen it looks very nice. B&W can never be over sharpened imo. And refreshing to see some nice monochrome video. A format used far to little these days.

That is an effect of applying the LUT over non V-Log L capture ... not recommended. Here is a Impulz REC709 LUT ... perhaps a bit better. Bob

Well the problem is with the GH5, is that it really has no problems other than being a bit too big. You have to admit the GH5 now is sort of the Swiss Army Knife for a fair price I think.

Thanks for the advice. I feel like I've gotta get the flagship though in case a project comes up where I want to rent an external recorder for 4k prores flog. I'm coming from a C100 Mark II for video and 6D for stills.

That is about the worse B&W footage I have even seen in my life! I Hope it was overexposed, and by a Lot. If not, throw that LuT in the garbage. Yikes.

I had a quick play with the new GH5 profile for Filmconvert, but since the GH5 has a different sensor than the GX80, I wasnt too convinced, judge for yourself: top is gh4 profile, bottom gh5 profile:

Sorry for my late response Andrew, from ML web site, here are the reasons behind it: Most important changes in 1.2.3 since 1.1.3 (source): - clean HDMI out - dual monitor support - AF at f/8 with teleconverters - fixed an AFMA bug - a bunch of minor fixes Unfortunately, in order to implement the dual monitor feature, Canon made some major changes on the display side (changed some low-level registers) and LiveView implementation (which is now quad-buffered, while on 1.1.3 it's triple-buffered, just like in all other ML-enabled cameras). From ML's point of view, this resulted in the following differences: - 1.1.3 is slightly faster when recording RAW/MLV (not much, only a few MB/s) - fast zebras are not working on 1.2.3 or later, but they are OK on 1.1.3 - no full-screen magic zoom on 1.2.3 or later - no brightness/contrast/saturation adjutments on 1.2.3 or later - "DIGIC peaking" is a little more limited on 1.2.3 or later (only the basic mode is working, not the ones with fancy backgrounds) - motion detection in "frame difference" mode does not work on 1.2.3 or later - I'm not sure if corrupted frames are still an issue (if you experience them, try downgrading to 1.1.3) Other than that, the two ML versions are pretty much identical.

No. It's not. As I just said, the fact is that all of the equivalence tests so far show a difference in DOF/focus between lenses made for different formats. I would be happy to point out those differences to you once again. So, given the DOF/focus differences inherent in all of the equivalence comparisons up until now, the "burden of proof" is on those who deny those results. I said that I would not bother to do a test unless it involved two extremely different formats, so that the differences are undeniable. The differences are already clearly visible in all of the equivalence tests so far, but biased testers and equivalence followers deny the results. Your two tests were flawed in almost every way, so they are hardly worth considering, even though the results showed differences in DOF/focus between different focal lengths. In the first place, you used the same lens for every single test image. How do you expect to get a valid result if you use the same lens (made for a single format) in every test? And that lens is a zoom lens to boot, which means that its internal convergent/focal point doesn't necessarily move to different positions to match the positions of focal/convergent points of prime lenses with different focal lengths. Using two different focal lengths on the same zoom lens is like using the same prime lens with and without a focal reducer -- there will be almost no difference in DOF/look between the two focal lengths. To properly test equivalence, one must use two prime lenses with differing focal lengths and with each lens designed for a different format. Secondly, you did not include any middle-ground in the frame that could reveal the character of DOF/focus fall-off. This mistake seems common amongst those making tests biased toward equivalence. Having only air between the foreground and a distant background renders useless any test of DOF range/falloff. Thirdly, you misinterpreted/ignored/dismissed your results. When you first posted your two tests long ago, I and others stated that we could see differences in the DOF/focus, but you and other equivalence supporters failed to address those points. In a more recent thread, I used flashing GIF images with colored circles which pinpointed these differences. You and the other equivalence folks dismissed these differences as slight imperfection inherent in testing equivalence that only becomes apparent in flashing GIF images, even though these differences are quite clear to me and others without the flashing GIFs. Furthermore, in your second test, you eliminated the variable of in-camera sharpening -- lo and behold, the differences in DOF/focus became more dramatic. However, you and other equivalence supporters glossed over these more conspicuous non-equivalent second test results and only "focused" on the first test in all of the discussions. Such examples have already been linked several times on this forum. You almost never respond to such links/points. Notable examples would be the PhotographyLife "beer bottle" equivalence test (note the obvious differences in focus of the BG bush/car to the left of the bottle) and footage from Gonzalo Ezcurras extreme large format Cyclops cameras (if you can show a lens made for S16 that has this same, exquisite DOF roll-off/look, I'll give you US$100). First, why don't you explain one-by-one each of the DOF/focus differences that I pointed out in your tests (especially the DOF differences in your second test). Also, please explain the huge, conspicuous DOF/focus differences in the "beer bottle" test linked above, which compared an Iphone camera lens to a full frame camera lens. Here is the first post covering my points on both of your tests and on the "beer bottle" test, and here is a further breakdown of your first test. There are a lot of specific focus/DOF differences both in the BG and FG in the tests that you (and others) have already done which you have not yet reconciled. Even the bokeh is substantially different in size and edge sharpness (both tell-tale signs of DOF differences). As I stated before, I will do an equivalence comparison if I can obtain a S16 camera/lens and a large format camera/lens, but you or some other equivalence supporter must be present to oversee the camera settings. In regards to the optical properties that might differ between various sized formats, once again, these have been posted several times in this forum.

Interesting night footage:

I dont need that HDMI clamp since I dont have any monitor / recorder or whatsoever. I have put the latest Firmware on my body, which made the IBIS pretty much silent, at least I cant hear it in the recordings (which are crappy anyway, but thats a different story). Or do you mean sth else with "show in usage"?

Aaah, Jase! Beautiful setup! One of the prettiest, that camera, that cage, that lens! Oh, almost forgot the handle:) Did you buy cage and handle in a set? Ebay or where from? I got myself a beautiful Tokina 24 40 2.8. It is like a rig for my GX85, awesome to hold on to. I have a question regarding stabilization. What is the best firmware version for IBIS? Does that version make a difference?

Not while recording and the mirror is up

Light the scene properly for your equipment. It's a crazy idea, but it might just work.

I still have the BMPCC, did some b-roll shooting with it and the FD 24mm today. I might post grabs tonight or tomorrow. I also have a Sony a6000 coming tomorrow, which is mainly why I got the FDs--to have some nice sharp vintage lenses for APS-C.

So much controversy around a MILC that never promised earth-shattering video AF performance. We've become lazy. Either move your wrist around the barrel of the lens and make the enormous effort of +focusing+ like pros have done for DECADES or buy a good videocamera and see your AF problems melt away thanks to its inherent design nature. This coming from an owner of a 7Dm2 which has, arguably, one of the better video AF systems in the industry (DPAF). Even them, I rarely trust the camera to do the focusing for me. I can't afford even a single AF hunting second. So I go full manual. You know, like a paid professional!

Cinema5D vídeos are so posed I can't take them serious.

True, but they don't have to watch *everything*, they just have to stop automatically allowing ads once you pass basic viewer number thresholds. Make it a privilege. Honestly, part of me is happy about this. Youtube was becoming this junky clickbait, desperate for views cesspole. I feel bad for those working hard to provide genuinely valuable content, but fuck those clowns who are just churning out boring "ohhhh so edgy" nonsense for money.

Yup, I'm definitely with you on that as well. I'm just not eager to stretch my ISO that much. I mean 800, a fast lens, and slower shutter will easily expose a face lit by a small campfire. That's pretty dim. And any camera made in the last two years will more or less give you that ability. Scenarios that are darker absolutely exist, but if you have a choice, best to try to avoid such settings. Running 6400 ISO simply because you want to stay at a relatively slow f4 seems silly and wholly counter-productive to me. If you know you're consistently going into the dark, I'd certainly suggest making other gear decisions. Such as just getting a low-light-high-performance camera like an A7s.

It's not censorship when someone doesn't want to pay you for your opinion.

I can't believe it took this long for advertisers to realize that it's risky to serve your ads up next to random, user generated content. Of course there are going to be awkward placements. Advertisers are very sensitive about associations with their brands. Glen Beck was fired from Fox News because he lost all his advertisers, and the same thing is happening to Bill O'Reilly night now. Tune into any number of popular Youtubers and they say stuff waaay more controversial than O'Reilly or Beck. No one should be surprised that Tide Dish Detergent doesn't want anything to do with Pew Die Pie. As an artist, he should be proud of that fact. There's always been a direct relationship between how much of your business depends on advertising and how bland your content needs to be. Broadcast TV is 100% ad based. That's why it's all sports, bland sitcoms, and boring dramas with no curse words. Cable TV is half and half, so it can be a little more daring. Then there's HBO who's free to do whatever they want. There are plenty of Youtube channels that fall into the mold of broadcast tv, family friendly content that Oreos or Pampers would be happy to sponsor. Dude Perfect is a great example. They get tons of advertisers because they do fun, super-clean videos. On the other hand, Pew Die Pie, who drops the f-bomb every 5 seconds is probably closer to the HBO end of the spectrum. An ad based model isn't gonna work for him. The realities of advertising don't change because #DigitalMedia. The fact that Pew Die Pie was able to pull in millions of advertising dollars up to this point was a fluke. If you want to be #controversial, you can't rely on dish detergent companies to pay your bills.

You press the 'up' button on the controller / joystick.

So I was bored enough this afternoon to shoot a quick comparison using 3 different formats and a couple of lenses. Representing full frame,APS-C and M4/3 we have my battered Nikon Df, slightly less battered Nikon D500 and criminally underused Panasonic GX80 respectively. Lenses are my - even more battered than my Df - Nikon 24-70 2.8G and Nikon 70-200 2.8GII with an original Metabones Speedbooster for the GX80. A multitude of caveats for this quick comparison are The 24-70 shots are a bit soft but its the same for all cameras (mis focused on the Df then it was left in manual for other bodies so error followed through to them) so doesn't really impact the results. It was quick so a couple of (minor) crops and exposure adjustments were done in Aperture. These were corrective for uniformity where I was a bit sloppy with the setups and again do not change the spirit of the results. Included in number 2, because it was a quick comparison, I've took a slight rounding liberty with the speedbooster calculation to make it easier to 'centre' the tests around the APS-C sensor. By this, I mean the 24-70 should really have been shot at 23mm on the APS-C to match what the M4/3 was doing at 24mm with the 0.71 Speedbooster but, well, that would've meant a different lens and I was already losing the will to live. Everything was shot in jpeg with standard profiles and then mangled into these lowish res comps so pixel peeping is moot but, again, it doesn't impact the spirit of the results. For everything else, did I mention it was a quick comparison ? The first comparison is at 24mm on the 24-70 and is 'centred' around the D500 at 24mm/f2.8 so the GX80 is 17mm/f2 and the Df was set for 34mm/f4. The second comparison is at 70mm on the 70-200 and is 'centred' around the D500 at 70mm/f2.8 so the GX80 is 52mm/f2 and the Df was set for 105mm/f4. My conclusions are : With the same (high quality but pretty soulless) lenses on three different sensors representative of popular formats there is not enough difference to be losing sleep over. I need to have the Df serviced. I need to pressure wash the patio.

You are expecting a level of precision in this comparison that is entirely unreasonable. Little things like changes in distortion and entrance pupil position during zooming make it impractical to make a blink comparator test completely perfect. What the comparison does show - with more than sufficient precision - is that you can optically reproduce all aspects of an image shot on a large format with one shot on a smaller format - or vice versa. The notion that, say, an 80mm medium format lens has some inherent "80mm-ness" or "medium formatishness" that somehow stays with that lens after you attach a focal reducer is just silliness. The combination of a 0.7x focal reducer and an 80mm lens is a 56mm lens. Period. Put that 56mm lens on a 24x36mm format camera and it will behave just like any other 56mm lens attached to that camera, the only caveats being related to aberrations and other flaws in the lens and focal reducer.