Leaderboard

I have an M5 and is my travel camera mostly for photos because my 1dx and 1dx II are too big for that. I had a M before but the M5 it is much better. I also use the M5 as remote camera or as wide angle second body for some stuff that I cover. I have only the 11-22 and the 22 2.0 for the rest I use my EF collection. Regarding video I have used only a couple of time a C camera and it is just ok very similar to the 80D, classical canon 1080p For photos: The good: + photo quality, it is good with good DR finally at 100-400 ISO. Classical Canon sensor so I process the Raws as I do with the one for 1Dx. M5 more noisy but to be expected + ergonomics + touch screen + touch screen even when off can be used to change focus point while looking in to EVF, very handy + remote port + 7/9 fps + DPAF very accurate and works even low light. Fast but not blazingly fast. + size + 11-22 is very very good with IS and tiny and quite affordable. This is why I use it a lot as a second body for wide-angle shoots. + 22 2.0 is also very good and super tiny and cheap. A bit slow on the AF side but still usable + adapter works well and most EF lens AF work well and quite fast. I have used quite a bit the 24 1.4 and 50 1.2 on it and with great success. I also use the 8-15 fisheye on it quite often + wifi The bad: - small buffer in RAW - takes a lot of time to clear the buffer - much slower than the 1dx in operations like picture review, etc… - EVF is not great but I hate EVF so maybe I’m not the right guy to comment on it - no live view while taking burst. A no go for action/sport - no fully silent mode (fully electronic shutter). Why why and one more time why?!? For video: + DPAF very similar to the 1DXII + 60fps same quality as 30fps + canon colors - no 4k - classical soft canon 1080 - less bitrate than the 80D I would not recommend it as primary camera for video there are better choice in the price range. Where it shines is a travel, backup and eventually B/C camera for canon user thanks to the tiny size but full support including good AF with the EF lens. If my primary system would not be a canon I would not have brought the M5 but for my need is quite good. Of course if it would have had 4k 30p even only at 4:2:0 100 mbits would have been much better for video.

For anyone looking for a cheap 4K travel camera with a 30x zoom (!) that can have cinelike d then I can confirm that it can indeed be done for the Panasonic TZ80 And if you are travelling through Stansted airport then if you go to the Dixons tax free shop then ask to buy the demo one as I've just been there and left it already enabled on C3 for you

More of a vent than anything and I know Panasonic are just as bad but.... All I wanted was a little travel camera..... I thought to myself "I quite fancy an RX100 IV. Genuinely pocketable, vloggable, a bit of slo-mo (which I don't really have), slog2 so it can be pushed a bit more.....and I can have a play about to see if I can get my hardware controller to be Sony compatible too" Easy. And then I started the, "Mmmm....the mark V though, better IS, touch screen" "Yeah but its so much dearer" "We're into A6300 territory there" "But then if we're going there, why not go a bit further and get the A6500" "No lenses though" "Yes but we've got a few Canon ones and they can be mounted cheaply. And with AF too" "Stop it now, its getting really expensive and way out of what we wanted" "OK, RX100 IV then" "Mind you, the RX10 III does all of that and more and has a 600mm equivalent lens" "Yes but now we're back in A6500 price range" "OK, how about the RX10 II, its way cheaper and has NDs" "Great idea. Not pocketable though" "OK, RX100 IV then" "You'll regret not getting the V though" "Shut up, its too much to be paying for a tiny sensor as it is" I've been like this cat for about a week now.

Shouldn't this thread really be called "the other issue with my budget"?

Waiting weekend to detail test single focus for 35NAP

Here's a project I just finished shooting. I tried playing around with some different settings than I've used in the past, and I'm pretty pleased with how the color came out in a lot of the shots. The whole thing was shot on a bitrate hacked NX1, almost entirely in 120p, with the NX-L speedbooster and Rokinon 50mm T1.5 used for most shots, though there are a few shots with the Roki 85 and Sigma 18-35 as well. All the gimbal shots were the NX500 with a Rokinon 12mm on a Zhiyun Crane.

Who cares about sales? Most people are sheep with minimum knowledge, and as I'm not a Canon shareholder I don't care about who is in the lead of sales, I care about what is going to give me the most artistic image, best specs, the most convenient form factor and best value for money.

Shot with X-T2/MB/Helios/Sankor

Point taken, but it's not really an issue with the C200 is it?

Mmmmm....yes and no. It takes the command and protects highlights for sure. But it does this by shifting everything a bit to the left of Karl Marx. I need to look at it again to see if its salvageable with the prodding device but haven't got round to it yet. Yes but if it is shit then at least it can now be shit but with a much flatter profile

I had the Mark V and the a6500. And let me tell you, I loved and hated both of those cameras. The RX100 V is so damn cool for a pocket camera but I got an overheat warning, then shut down 30 seconds into shooting slow motion in the middle of winter. I had the screen away from the body and every little trick I found online about precautions. I got the warning while setting up the menu without ever shooting a second of video. So it's basically useless. But I liked the sLog and Cine2 image so much I decided the a6500 and its bigger body would at least make it usable... it is " better" and man that is some of the nicest looking 4K I have ever used. sLog3 almost reminded me of Raw video with its detail. I live in the middle of the woods, so the way cameras pick up the details on tree bark and leaves is very important to me and sLog3 looked damn close to Raw. And sgamut 3 cinema or whatever it's called is beautiful. The camera is well built and the 5-axis was a joy to use with my vintage Minolta lenses. But again... in 35 degree Fahrenheit weather, I got the overheating warning. It never shut off, but that was just too much for me for a $1300 camera. So I returned it. Here's a small test video I did with it and sLog3 and cine gamut3. I can only imagine what you pros could do with it, if the overheating can be worked around... When the camera gets down to the $800 range or less, I may pick up another one. And here's a screengrab with lowlight in SLog2...

You might want to look at these other threads about work I'm doing on colour profiles. Main description of it is first And then some information about testing outcomes from it The controller will allow multiple versions of these custom created sets to be sent to the camera.

Nice colors!

This particular thread started as cinelike d for the GX80 as per the title so, yes, obviously there is no benefit to G80 owners in that regard. The longer term benefits to the overall project for G80 owners will be found in the hardware controller to enable the camera functionality to be operated wirelessly from a physical unit rather than menu diving. The different file formats are what other contributors have put up to enable testing to see if they work so you shouldnt have any expectation of those and I think that is documented in the responses by those who have tested it. With regard to ISO, I didn't do the one with multiple variants and don't have a G80 but I suspect if you put it into an auto mode where the camera chooses its own ISO then this will take care of it. If it doesnt, then put this into a browser while connected to the camera and it will revert to 6400 and take it from there. http://192.168.54.1/cam.cgi?mode=setsetting&type=iso&value=6400 Hope that helps The hardware controller, incidentally, enables the higher ISOs to be used in video mode if like the GX80 it is clamped at 6400. The Hue command should also work if its not an already editable parameter in the G80. There is some usage guidance further up the thread for operating it from a browser but again its something that will be more readily and usefully controlled from the hardware controller. I don't have one but maybe someone who does could chime in if they've tested it. The G6 was a fail so I'm not sure where the GX7 sits in the chronology relative to that so wouldn't like to guess.

I signed in just to thank BTM_Pix and everyone else who have worked on this project. I do not own a GX80 (yet) but I believe that everyone should encourage people who spend their time to our benefit... P.S: By the way is there any chance for Cinelike to work on my GX7? Thank you!

i have the panasonic G80 and today i have tested some of the files are available and i will like to thank you for your effort , but, i would like to understand some things better . At my case (panasonic g80) which are the benefits ? e.g. i already have cinelike d & v . i came up to some troubles .....i used the extended iso at 80 iso but i could not recover it to the mainstream choices Also there are choices like 200mbps that there are not available , although , they exist at the files and create confusion about availability . could someone categorize these files at panasonic GX.. and panasonic G.. and also remove things that they don't work at the moment ? thanks !

I think my way of doing it is easier, however you will end up with basically the same result.

The buffer is much better than the original M and it is around 18-20 Raw photos and it takes around 8-10 seconds to clear it. It seems big but when you shoot at 7 or 9 fps it is just a two second burst and then you need to wait 10 seconds.... Not sure what it means in regards for RAW video assuming that there will ever be a ML for the M5 Btw the original M was the slowest camera that I ever had.

Clearly, attaching this would be the foolproof automated solution to this issue. If there is enough sunlight to heat the camera then it will also be enough to cool it

I think iPhondo moved up to an a6500 recently but prior to that was doing all his videos with the rx100 iv I think. He had a system of little fans he would stick on the back. Also the speed of the continuous photo option is TWENTY FOUR x 20MB raw+jpegs per second with continuous AF >.<

Instructions unclear, I got my dog stuck in a toaster best comment on that video

V mount or BP-U60 is another common option

There is something in the overly reduced contrast levels and noise interaction. I'm definitely going to create an automated test routine to produce an evaluation video file with different permutations. The snag is that at 2 seconds per permutation, even eliminating unreasonable combinations, it will still clock in around the 3 hour mark. We might need to watch it in shifts. Although we could probably have a decent crack at the Tate Modern putting it on as an exhibit.

Yes, the XC10 is ALMOST so good. The stabilizer is really great. I love the color you can get, but the image is a bit unreliable. In the right setting however, it looks amazing.

We got the XC10 for this... but no nuts. the fuzzy-motion noise reduction, not great low-light, all kinds of little quirks and issues... they do need a dedicated b-cam, but they're too afraid of losing sale. A litlle half-size C50 with C100 sensor and so on would do it Of course you'd want internal stabilisation, and they'll never give it to us due to wanting to flog stabilised lenses.

Its very early days yet and I've got a ton of work to do on it but it is definitely showing promise. All the stuff is in there its just that being able to manipulate it in real time to see it makes a big difference imo

Patience, patience All will be revealed when its finished. The hardware module part of my system does the WiFi part and I can interface to that with USB, wireless (as in the controller from the video) and Bluetooth. As I said in the other thread, I'm collecting a few different controllers (in about an hour actually) and at least one of them will be suitable for what you want. Bear in mind as I said at the start of this thread that the reason that the cinelike d happened was as a byproduct of me researching to make a hardware controller. And specifically one for a gimbal so its all in hand

Also, would you like to develop a phone app for that? I have couple of nice ideas how it should work, I can draw some sort of draft. The idea behind this is simple - you have a big ass slider at your finger tips, and you can set focus pull marks just by pressing those buttons, which will limit the focusing distance. This will make pulling focus a pleasant enjoyable experience! The draft is very basic, but you should get the idea. It also would be cool to add some gesture support, like - 1 finger scroll = normal speed. 2 fingers = more precise and slow. So a person would be able to switch those on the fly to his liking.

The slrmagic lenses are lovely...occasionally the 25 & 35 are offered as a pair at a great price....they balance beautifully with theGH4/5 for handheld...I have a set of FD primes on a speedbooster...the problem is below 20mm they get very expensive and slow...so if you go that route, you'd need to pair them with something like a Tokina 11-16 Not sure what that would do on IBIS on an Utra speedbooster, but you can simply zoom till any vignette dissapears or fix in post...personally I would sell the EFs and get the SLRmagics....the pricey one is the 10mm...I own the 12 and decided to stick with that...a 12, 17,25 & 35 make a lovely set...the 12 is 570 T1.7...the 10 is 700 T2.1 and comes with a variable no as part of a kit at B&H....

I hear you. However, the Sony FS5 costs $4750. The Sony A7sII costs $2600. Total for both: $7350. Those cameras are simply not in the same price bracket as the $7500 C200 (and that price doesn't include CFast cards for shooting raw). There's presumably a big quality difference between shooting on the FS5 at 4K 8-bit 4:2:0 and shooting on the C200 at 4K 12-bit raw. And if you're not going to shoot raw on the C200 because CFast cards are expensive, then why get it in the first place? Then there's the A7sII, which will require lots of rigging and peripherals (and different batteries than the FS5) to turn it into a usable video camera, and even then you can only shoot with it for a while before it overheats. That may be fine for some types of shoots, but when I'm on a job I need the camera to run 100% for the entire event non-stop. I'm all for people getting whatever cameras help them achieve their goals. If an FS5 and an A7SII works for your type of shooting, then great! I just think that picking a C200 as the A-cam means you've jumped into a much higher price bracket, and the B-cam is also going to have to be more expensive (unless you don't care about the difference in image quality and usability). A C200 + a C200B (with monitor) = approx. $14,000. That seems entirely reasonable for that level of camera. If you really want to go low, get a 5Dmk4 for $3300 as the B-cam, but then you're once again dealing with all the hassles of a camera that wasn't designed primarily for shooting video. Again, if it works for you, then go for it. But the C200 + 5Dmk4 = almost $11,000. At that point, you're probably better off spending a bit more money and getting the C200B + monitor as a B-cam and then you have two full-fledged video cameras that use the same accessories, batteries and peripherals, and none of the compromises of shooting on DSLRs. Exactly. Use whatever you can afford and deliver the content your client wants. The B-camera has absolutely nothing to do with cost. It has everything to do with shooting an alternate angle or B-roll while the A-cam is shooting the principal action. You can use whatever camera you want as a B-camera. It doesn't have to be less expensive than the A-cam. Right now, I shoot theatrical events with two C100 cameras. One is labeled A and the other one B. I get footage from both that match each other seamlessly and use all the same accessories. That's the ideal scenario. If you don't have the budget for two of the same camera, that doesn't mean the camera company did something wrong. It just means that camera is out of your budget. I'd love to shoot everything on two Panavision Millenium DXLs with Primo Artiste anamorphic lenses, but they're not in my budget, so I don't use them. Saying that Canon hasn't made a B-camera for the C200 makes no sense, especially because they did make it. It's called the C200B. If you can't afford it, that's perfectly fine. There are other cameras that are less expensive that would fit in your budget. Use those.

We just finished a MV with GH5 and Zhiyan Crane, using Olympus 12mm f2, Pana 25mm 1.7, Pana 42.5mm 1.7, Voigtlander 17.5mm 0.95, footage look pretty good, shoot everything 4K50P, We did have Sigma Art lens with Speedbooster but doesnt use them at end since it mostly shot on gimbal with few handheld on Voigtlander lens We can change the 3 primes without rebalancing the gimbal which speed up the flow. Having a good gaffer make scene look so much more amazing and higher production value.

Yes, if you're going to do a lot of post-production pushing and stretching of the image, you certainly want at least 10-bit 4:2:2 footage. But that's not what the C100 camera is designed for. It shoots HD in 8-bit 4:2:0, and that's plenty for most uses of that camera, which require little or no color grading in post. Making a 4K 8-bit 4:2:0 C100mk3 would cater to exactly the same user base as the current C100mk2, most of whom are perfectly fine without 10-bit (myself included). Making it 10-bit 4:2:2 would mean turning it into a more expensive camera, and then you might as well get a C200.

It indeed looks like either part of an optical printer or reconfigured to or from print duplication use. Seen this lens being re-sold 2 or 3 times from different sellers without much time between auctions - which raises alarm bells as to its real practicality for filmmaking use (and where is footage of it at infinity and variable stops?). No doubt the optics are going to be top notch but I'd want to be assured that its focus can hit infinity with that aperture inside (causing added space between optics), since I would presume that lens was always intended for closeup duplication use, as part of a specific optical printer or telecine machine. I suspect that the variable aperture inside the lens is not going to make the image much sharper when coupled with a taking lens, but rather cut the light transmission to the taking lens and dramatically increase vignette. In a nutshell, if it was the wonder lens that it is supposed to be, where is example footage of it resolving infinity focus and its results when stopping down with its internal aperture? EDIT: Found an expired eBay auction that sold for $250 that confirms my hunch... "This is is multiple lens assembly that was used at Deluxe Film Laboratories in Hollywood for 35mm anamorphic conversion to flat formats for theatrical trailers. It should not be confused with camera or projector lenses. Printing lenses are ulta sharp intermediate lenses designed to resolve 35mm camera original high resolution color negative without distortion. The assembly consists consists of three separate lenses, each of which may be separated for individual use: Isco Lens VII - Base Lens Isco Anamophis Printing Lense 2x with Manual IRIS Ring (Like F-Stop) Isco Lens III - Output Lens I highly doubt the Isco printing lens can hit infinity without stopping it down to a crazy small aperture. You can see from the original configuration that it is basically used for near-macro focus distances, as part of an optical conversion chain. If it could indeed be used for filmmaking use, I would be interested to hear how on earth you would achieve infinity focus. I think the current seller on eBay is a member of this forum @Hunterj11 perhaps they can shine some light on this lens?

That definitely should not have been ETTR'd. L O L!!! But seriously, there is something really eerie about that... like I went back in time and looked through a peep show at a kinetoscope booth. I wonder if you chopped off the lens and attached a Nikkor if it would sharpen up a little and soften those highlights? Either way it's really freaking cool and could work in my film. How would one go about digitizing it? This one's even creepier... Just kidding BTW, I wouldn't use one in my film, but the spirit behind the image is interesting.

I reckon NASA have bought them all to fake another landing somewhere

I know I droned on about it regard the Sony A9 but its a classic example of what he's talking about. They just don't have the lenses for the task they're trying to push it at so it could do a gazillion frames a second at a trillion ISO and they're still going to get the reaction of "That's nice...now where is your 400 f2.8 then?". Same for Fuji as well, even though I enthuse about it. I mean, I am actually using them for pro sport work but only within certain limits and I've still got to be hawking a 400 f2.8 with a Nikon on the end of it around with me. Funny thing, actually, is that I was shooting what could be described as quite a big football match a couple of weeks ago (TV audience of 350 million people) and thought for sure that someone amongst us would have been shooting with the A9 as Sony would've handed a few out to get it into this particular game but there wasn't a single one. In fact, out of the 140ish of us covering it, the only one not exclusively Nikon or Canon for the game was me! A few people use mirrorless cameras for build up pictures and shots of the crowd and so on but not for the actual match because there just isn't the lenses. During the warm up session, I handed the X-T2 with the 50-140 f2.8 on it to one of my old mates who was shooting the game as well for him to have a go. "Fucking hell...this is actually a contender isn't it?" he said and then enthused for a few minutes about how fast it was and the image quality. And then...... "Where's the 400 f2.8?" Oh.

So I've been playing with my new prodding device and.... Its interesting. What I did was record a clip of a colour chart from lets call it a well known brand of camera that is named after a primary colour and then put the same lens that was on that camera on to a GX85 and shot it again. Both clips were recorded onto a Ninja Inferno. What I was doing though was monitoring the recorded clip of the posh camera on the Ninja Inferno with the scope overlay on and then switching to the input to look at the GX85 and using the prodder to manipulate the parameters live and try and replicate the signature of the recording of the posh camera. I then tweaked a few things in FCPX to match a bit closer with the purpose of then taking those changes back to put them in the profile of the GX85 to match it better straight out of the camera. One of these images is the film log setting from the posh camera and the other one is the GX85. There are definitely challenges regarding noise with doing this on the cheaper camera so its obvious which is which but I've got some ideas about that. Tweaking the values and getting instant feedback was very productive and I think this may be the start of an interesting journey.

Sure. For me, it's not just the wider field of view -- it's the compressed spatial and defocus qualities of relatively longer focal lengths married to a wider field of view that really revs my engine.

Doing the same thing with 400% crops from my test earlier day (which was daylight obviously) you do see differing things going on in the blue channel. Not just the overall level (which you can see is higher and in a different range as are the other colours which are more bunched in the mid area) but you can see it gets rolled off at the top. So there are differences but its certainly looking like the studio lights shift it a lot more noticeably. Natural profile on top, Cinelike D below it.

I'm doing a research about the LOG curves most used in the market to use for my classes. As far as I could go, I got these reference levels. I need to find out the EOS HD C-Log and Cinestyle curves. Someone has theses values for these two "LOG" Picture Profiles And the white clip level for S-Logs from sony, didn't find them too. THIS WAS MY TEST: IRE TABLE RELATION AS FAR I COULD GET: https://ibb.co/epY1yQ Canon Neutral Profile exposed at EV=0 - 18% Midle Gray (IRE20%) 54% at spotmeter https://ibb.co/f0XGXk Canon Neutral Profile exposed at EV=0 - 90% White (IRE 100%) 97% at spotmeter https://ibb.co/bDvs55 C-Log Profile exposed at EV=0 - 18% Midle Gray (IRE20%) 43% at spotmeter https://ibb.co/jdCTdQ C-Log Profile exposed at EV=0 - 90% White (IRE 100%) 80% at spotmeter https://ibb.co/eATek5 C-Log Profile exposed at EV=+2/3 (2/3 stop overexposed) - 18% Midle Gray (IRE20%) 50% at spotmeter https://ibb.co/kNNTdQ C-Log Profile exposed at EV=+2/3 (2/3 stop overexposed) - 90% White (IRE 100%) 90% at spotmeter https://ibb.co/k8ZkQ5 Based on these tests and the ETTR method, looking the histograms, I can set as a right exposure for C-Log for example the 2/3 stops over. So, based on that would be: 18% Gray IRE 20% - C-Log at 50% to 52% aprox. 90% White IRE 100% - C-Log at 90% Am I right? On the other hand, not using ETTR, I would have: 18% Gray IRE 20% - C-Log at 42% aprox. 90% White IRE 100% - C-Log at 80% So what you guys would say is the best option? Andrew could help here?

Heres my latest entries : This last one is still private, its only due next week, but since this is a specialty forum, there should be no harm. Everything shot on the NX1+16-50s 2.8, and graded with my own Vellichor luts, available for purchase here if any of you wants to have a look - https://sellfy.com/p/HNAk/ Hope you guys enjoy :D