Leaderboard

HDR codec and HDR10 display will make a difference. Is the H.265 10bit? 4K 60fps on a phone proves heat can be managed in such a thin device, and that Canon with their shitty DSLRs have no excuses remaining.

I have never had any issues with BMD-log, Red-log, C-log, J-log, any log really. Accept S-Log. I can use it but it takes much longer. Maybe one do need to spend fifty times longer learning it. But that sounds like really bad log in my ears. To me it sounds just like when people defend Sonys weird white balance with having to learn it... thats like having to learn how to remove the lens cap. A simple and fundamental function that is super easy on all other cameras... Nah.. it sucks imo. Just badly done. And I know some will be tempted to say that its me that sucks.. dont bother. If I can set a perfect WB on any camera in the world but sometimes struggle on the Sony, it sure isn't me that needs tweeking.

Looking forward to watching hipsters jumping off cliffs into azure seas with their $1000 iPhones on selfie sticks, later telling the insurance company that renowned DoP @Ed_David 'said it was a GoPro killer'.

People miss one thing here: the dawning of HDR. They say the display is capable of HDR (whatever that means). HDR metadata can be embedded in HEVC (check). New Apple TV advertizes "4k HDR now! (check). 2017 iMacs deliver 800 nits (check). High Sierra will use HEVC as the new standard compressor (check). As I understood, right now there is no real standard for HDR. Apple may have made the decision.

A smartphone cannot "kill" an action camera. Totally different tools. I dear you to use is with a clip-on fisheye and strap it on any helmet. /thread

I was quite skeptical beforehand too, also had never been a great fan of any Zoom product beforehand (didn't help either I'd just got a Tascam DR680 just before the F8 came out!). What used Sound Devices gear??? You either need to go for something very old like a 744 or 552 (and you'd still be buy double or triple what a F8 is! And even more than an F4). If you're looking at something more modern like a 688 or 633, they're almost impossible to find easily secondhand, and when they do appear they disappear very quickly and only at a very small discount to buying new (thus you're still spending thousands more than an F8 would cost). If Sound Devices depreciated at the same rate as used cameras, and had as many easily to be found on the secondhand market as there are cameras, then I'd agree it makes sense to go secondhand for a Sound Devices. Actually their are not heaps and heaps of great audio forums out there when it comes to location sound recordist's needs. Those general audio forums have users whose needs and wants are so far off the mark from what a location sound recordist experiences that getting advice from there can be just as bad as getting it from video forums!! But yes, you can find useful info their if you remember they're seeing (hearing!) things from a totally different perspective than yourself! Thus take everything they say with one big grain of salt! Even so, I enjoy reading them and hanging out there for what crumbs of relevant info you can pick up. However in the end, jwsoundgroup is the *ONLY* forum dedicated to location sound recordist (since my shift in focus to sound, I now spend more time there than on EOSHD! Sorry :-/ ). But the environment there to newbie/hobbyist sound recordists is very hostile. A thread like this about DR70D vs H5 would run a high risk of just being mercilessly ripped into. So in the end, the amount of info there is for the newbie/hobbyist/semi-pro location sound recordist is somewhat limited and scattered (one of the reasons why I started up my youtube channel to vblog on this topic, to encourage more discussion of it, and help further spread more good info on this).

All of these were shot in Standard. The criterion was reproduction of what was seen. Obviously, that is not the aim of video or film, but if the starting point is off, it is more difficult to achieve a look one wants that deliberately distorts reality for a purpose.

Similar sounding problem here that was caused by a 3rd party battery

Thanks, @Jimbo and I agree with the approach you're taking. Wish I had more discipline, myself. The constant behind success seems to be focus. Ideally on the right thing! Which is why I need to figure out what I want in the first place. :/ @kaylee, I’m not signed anywhere for anything so I don’t have a clue. If anything, Tim’s advice (which rings true) is probably the best here. But I have a number of friends and friends of friends signed to major agencies. You need to look at it in terms of supply and demand. Maybe you have the commodity they want, maybe you don’t. If you do, they’ll sign you. It sounds to me like agency connections are the commodity you want, which isn’t necessarily a great start. Talent agencies have access to production value. They can put together a feature. What they need is a vision… at least an idea. Maybe it’s visual (say what you will about Michael Bay, but that guy can shoot) or emotional (Spielberg) or conceptual (Dan Harmon or Charlie Kaufman). Maybe you're just a competent director, or writer, or good looking actor. They can use that. They’ll provide the rest. If you're signed on something visionary, they’re basically going to ask you to remake your good idea with good production value. Your first gig after you’re signed will be essentially remaking whatever got you signed–this time with proper production value. It's not for everyone. Most people I know who get signed hate it. But a lot of what we’re focusing on at this site is how to get that production value without an agency behind us. And we have to ask ourselves why isn’t anyone funding our idea if it’s so great. And we also need to ask ourselves, if our idea is so good, why does it need all that production value just to get noticed. If you can answer this question–and maybe your idea really is legitimately ahead of its time or so personal or crazy you can only express it on your own and you need to make it to even express its potential–then focus on that aspect of it which makes it so good and yet so unfamiliar, exciting (to you), and new. As David Lynch would say: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4468dVu_PaM The donut, ideally, is what got you into this field in the first place! Anyhow, maybe I’m just writing myself a pep talk. But don’t focus on all the things you know can go wrong (still use your knowledge constructively or you might get in over your head) or all the tangential interests or gear you want to involve unless you’re exploring a new technique relating to certain gear specifically, and if you are, just focus on that one technique. (Like a stunning low light video or hyper lapse or motion control video.) Don’t add technical complications unless they’re crucial to the concept (but, like, get good sound and decent performances). Peter Jackson talks about how he wouldn’t have even made the films he first made if he knew what he knows now about filmmaking. He’d be too worried about what goes wrong (the hole) instead of what he wants to say (the donut). Spielberg seems to direct worse the more closely involved he is as a producer, or the more his financial obligations as a producer escalate. Even those guys don’t need those voices in their head. So get your other voices out of your head. You don’t have to impress every audience. What people on this forum want is not always gonna be what talent agencies want. Pleasing a given audience is a worthy goal. But pleasing every audience is going to put your work in a narrow cross-section or reduce it to lowest common denominator. Maybe it fits. There’s populist stuff that’s amazing. But if your vision is more peculiar maybe choose your audience as narrowly. David Lynch himself doesn't have a big audience relative to his fame, but his fearlessness lends to his cult status within that audience. Or if you just want to get signed or get into a festival for the sake of accomplishment or career then watch exactly what they’re producing or accepting and emulate it better and better and network harder and harder every year. This can work. If you're submitting to a festival without attending it first or watching a large portion of its prior programming it's like asking someone out without having a conversation first. Whether you get rejected or not, it's gonna probably end up weird. I don’t think that scene is for me anyway. Too shy. :/ Fwiw I've seen that web series thing work. I think there were four episodes. They were good! Made for pretty cheap, I think. And weird. Lastly, I saw a YouTube video where a successful writer mentioned that just because you have one grand idea doesn't mean you need to tell that story first. As much as focus matters, it needn't be on your magnum opus. Even if that opus is your donut of donut, maybe there are some good donut holes (not the figurative hole, but a figurative donut piece carved from the... never mind). Maybe take some other simpler ideas to start with and just have fun with those first. Plus, Gall's Law and all. Keep it simple to start.

no shit when i was in school, i remember asking one time Whats going on with the video village? Seems like a bunch of people standing around doing nothing now i DREAM of people standing around. smart, talented, informed people... just standing around. standing guard against the chaos of reality @Liam congratulations on finishing up your edit! whats the latest piece about?

Guys, don't bid on eBay until the last moment, don't start bidding wars.

A new one from Jurek (stoneinapound here):

You're right, in the domain of predicate logic, Boolean algebra, etc. Here we're talking about human perception of reality itself, and this squirrelly, wet bar of soap known as the ego. A long time friend, who's studied philosophy his whole life (along with his wife), suggested a couple books yesterday after discussing this topic: Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism "In this modern spiritual classic, the Tibetan meditation master Chögyam Trungpa highlights the commonest pitfall to which every aspirant on the spiritual path falls prey: what he calls spiritual materialism. The universal tendency, he shows, is to see spirituality as a process of self-improvement—the impulse to develop and refine the ego when the ego is, by nature, essentially empty. "The problem is that ego can convert anything to its own use," he said, "even spirituality." His incisive, compassionate teachings serve to wake us up from this trick we all play on ourselves, and to offer us a far brighter reality: the true and joyous liberation that inevitably involves letting go of the self rather than working to improve it. It is a message that has resonated with students for nearly thirty years, and remains fresh as ever today." and In Search of the Miraculous "Peter Demianovich Ousepnsky (1878-1947) was born in Moscow. He became one of the most important writers on abstract mathematical theory in the early 20th century. Ouspensky searched throughout Europe, Egypt, and the Orient for a teaching that would solve for him the problems of man and the universe. In 1915, in St. Petersberg, he met with George Ivanovitch Gurdjieff, who taught that most humans do not possess a unified mind-body consciousness and thus live their lives in a state of hypnotic "waking sleep", but it is possible to transcend to a higher state of consciousness and achieve full human potential. This is the record of Ouspensky's eight years of work as Gurdjieff's pupil. It combines the logic of a mathematician with the vision of a mystic." I'll read/listen to them soon. I found this as recommendations from those books via Amazon: Cosmic Trigger I: Final Secret of the Illuminati "The great modern classic of a brilliant rebel's personal exploration into the nature of consciousness. Cosmic Trigger deals with a process of deliberately induced brain change. This process is called 'initiation' or 'vision quest' in many traditional societies and can loosely be considered some dangerous variety of self-psychotherapy in modern terminology. I do not recommend it for everybody...briefly, the main thing I learned in my experiments is that 'reality' is always plural and mutable." What drew me to that book were comments about 'triggering' and people's egos (see the comments), very relevant as to what happens online and in the world today. I noticed a funny pattern years ago, that simply bringing awareness of the ego itself, could cause people to become irrational and angry. Understanding this pattern better is interesting for this ego (mine ). My buddy sent another one, Center of the Cyclone: An Autobiography of Inner Space "The Center of the Cyclone is an autobiographical work authored by famed fringe scientist and psychedelic pioneer, Dr. John C. Lilly. This is his most well known book and his first mainstream work, setting the tone for his dual career as scientist and explorer of human consciousness. In intimate detail, Lilly tells the story of how he left mainstream science to become an explorer of the "far out places" of the human mind. Using his own brain as a laboratory, and utilizing every method of consciousness alteration at his disposal --including LSD, isolation tanks, and zany new age encounter groups -- Lilly takes us on his decades-long quest to discover the true nature of consciousness and reality, overturning many of his own assumptions and those of mainstream science along the way." which leads to this book, Programming and Metaprogramming in the Human Biocomputer: Theory and Experiments, "Programming and Metaprogramming in the Human Biocomputer was written by Dr. John C. Lilly about his research conducted at the National Institute of Mental Health. In it, he discusses his invention of float tanks, early communication with dolphins, and investigations into the use of LSD for personal and cultural development. This historic work is reprinted in this version, in its entirety, for the first time in 25 years." Metaprogramming is a common technique used in hypnotherapy/NLP today... I find these subjects fascinating for personal and business relationships, and for writers and filmmakers, understanding how the ego and the mind works is priceless for storytelling.

The F3 has Slog1, a radically different curve to both Slog2 and Slog3. I remember plenty of people struggling with SLog3 on the F55, for example, who had come from Alexas and not put the time in to learn the curve. Exposing 'correctly' using a LUT is entirely different to learning how the curve works and placing your exposure where you want it. Which you need to do. I was disappointed with the noise and dynamic range out of Alexa's until I learned how LogC works and exposed accordingly. CineAlta is Sony, so they have Slog2 or 3. They're not pseudo-logs. Canon's C-log started as a pseudo-log. It's morphed since then, but it's original intention was to have a 'lightweight' log that was easy to grade and get a good image out of quickly. It comes at the expense of dynamic range (though Canon cameras also use digital gain for ISO, rather than the Sony/Alexa/RED method of shifting mid-point, which also affects both dynamic range and noise). Sony's intention is a more aggressive curve that gives you the maximum dynamic range possible. It's a more aggressive curve than the Alexa's LogC. If you expose it with knowledge of SLog and how it works and where it's best to expose the things you want exposed, it looks great. If you treat SLog3 like C-log or LogC you're going to think it sucks. That's not really a fault on the manufacturer, and realistically there's nothing forcing you to buy or use a Sony camera if you're dead-set against it. Many continue to at all levels of production, despite how supposedly terrible they are. It's a different curve to all of those. You should learn any curve you're going to be shooting on and expose for that particular curve as they're all different and they all put their exposures at different values and hold more or less information in some areas. SLog3 (and 2) are much more aggressive curves than all of those. None of those other curves put skin tones at 35 IRE. I've honestly never had an issue with Sony's white balance, so don't know what you're talking about. Do you mean AWB..? Look, I ain't no Sony fanboy, but I've used Sony's a lot (just as I have Alexa's and Reds and Panasonics). But I spend more than 5 minutes testing how to appropriately expose cameras. Of course I have camera preferences. But I'm a DP who shoild be able to make any camera look good. So when the best the rental house can do on our budget is an F5 or F55 or perhaps an FS7 (and/or I have to use my A7sII in some capacity), I'm going to say 'sure, I can make them look good' because I know I can. I'm not going to complain because Sony make 'such terrible cameras' (that somehow only a small subset of people seem to have trouble with...). I don't really like the images out of the C300. I'm not a fan of Canon's orange tints and ultra-warm skin tones generally. But I understand it and can work with it if necessary. I'm not going to hit up an Internet forum and talk about how bad Canon is because I don't like their camera as much.

I'm going to check it out!

The reason we try to take the tester's ego out of an experiment, is to reduce as many variables as possible in order to learn whatever the goal of the experiment is. For a camera test, our goal is to understand actual differences in the camera systems, vs. the tester's personal preference or bias (ego). This has nothing to do with computers, as human beings would then look at the results of the tests to see if they can see any differences and if so, what are those differences. That sounds reasonable. A non-biased equivalence test would allow many people to reach their own conclusions. And Andrew has all the gear and experience to create a reasonable equivalence test showing the differences between these camera systems.

That makes just as much sense as asking a computer to calculate what ice cream flavour that is the "best".

Honestly buying a second hand Full Frame, that is not a recent model,beside for your ego, is pointless when you can have an m4/3 for 2k usd new. m4/3 glass is much more advanced and competitive and you can get a more shallow dof for most focal if it s what you are after. The compression things is not accurate, its only relative to your camera to subject distance, you can make the same image on any format, just the dof change. The only advantage is the image ratio if you don t like m4/3,and mayyyyyybbbeee if you shoot landscape and want to close the iris a lot because of the circle of confusion ( but CMOS sensor get noisy on long exposure anyway) but in term of functionality those cameras are dinosaurs, I had a Sony A7sii, I had a fun time with it, but I traded it for a m4/3 and never looked back. If you want an interesting look, shoot polaroid, instax and packfilm... ... or learn to separate your personal preferences from facts. Image quality is not measurable. Specs don't mean jack. No camera in the history of the world is factually "better" than another camera. It depends on the user and is always subjective.

Here is the J. Derango video in which he claims color is close to the Varicams: Elle Schneider (Creative Director at Digital Bolex) is also testing one, but I don't know if that means colors are anywhere close to Bolex. Sure hope so And on the negative side, here are some comments about the excessive noise in the footage above: Again, I ll say that the EF mount was a bad decision. At least they should have made it replaceable. Here is a RED speedbooster: http://www.newsshooter.com/2017/09/14/abt-cine-speedmount-red-canon-ef-mount-with-built-in-focal-length-reducer/

Still not certain on the lens not connecting issues. But I would not be surprised if they are all traced back to the 3rd party batteries. Anyway, I just contacted the reseller and got issued a refund and ordered two of the genuine Panasonic branded batteries.

@DBounce I've also experienced an issue with the GH4.. it was just a shutter angle display that was missing, but the camera required a reset....that's why the GH5 settings saved to a memory card is such a great feature....lastly, I only stick to Sandisk Extreme Pros and only use Panesonic batteries, except when hooked up to a Shogun on a rig....I then power off Vmount with an Indypro adapter to Dtap and the GH5 thinks it's running on AC power....The GH series is bombproof...of course it's not impossible to get a lemon, but your's sounds like a 3rd party battery issue...

The sensors are different, though they use the same CFA. And really, 'not nearly as good' has a slightly different meaning when talking about the F65. You're certainly right, but the F55 has been used extensively on numerous ultra high-end TV shows and feature films and I would posit that plenty here wouldn't even know. But that's kinda the point. Canon has tweaked Clog to get more out of it, but it's essentially designed as a 'pseudo-log' for consumer use that was able to hold more dynamic range than would otherwise be possible, however still be workable in 8-bit and be easy to pull it back to 'normal'. S-log is entirely different. And that's the problem. You really need to learn your log curves to make things look 'right' - otherwise you shouldn't shoot log. Many people did (and still do) come from Canon and attempt to apply their basic knowledge of Canon log to Sony footage and then get upset when it doesn't work the way they want. S-log3 puts skin tones at about 35-40%IRE or something. Which is super low. You look at that in your live view, assume the skin tones are underexposed, crank the exposure so they look right, and then when you come to grade it can't figure out why your skin tones look so bad. Turns out S-log doesn't put as much information into the exposure where you've ended up putting your skin tones, so of course they start to look ugly. Then you blame Sony for not being able to make a camera that looks any good. Man, it's cheaper than an Alexa SXT. Alexa, which uses SxS cards or needs Codex cartridges and a more expensive card slot for raw, doesn't have a full frame sensor, doesn't shoot in 8k and doesn't have auto focus.

Glad I got 4x Newmowa's.....

Any phone can shoot amazing stuff if you light it properly (get exposure to base ISO). DXO is a poor benchmark. Study studio scene comparisons and come to you own conclusions. Ed, you are killing me.

While I ultimately agree with you i think it should be pointed that the surface are of the sensor in the iPhone is over 50 times smaller than a full frame Canon making it much easier to cool.

Thank ya kindly c: In this one I play twins, haha. So I'm probably officially out of live action ideas that won't require any other actors. Possible I can do another animation soon, but if people wanna start offering me stuff before then, I can save it..

HDR screens already implemented and supported by Netflix and Amazon on LG G6 and Samsung S8.

I'm just finishing up the edit on my 4th no budget film, made with no help.. money isn't the issue, I need people. The other day I was like, "Ooo, what if I had 20 million dollars??" Well.. nothing would be different career-wise. I love that Channel 101 was brought up here. Seems like the opposite of eoshd. I usually get a response of general disinterest and then, "You need better sound." Coolthanks... I should have written it wih better sound. Less of an issue with those guys.

@mercer youve inspired me ive seen the stuff youre making and i was like Time to get off my ass and do something my thoughts exactly...

Research Dogme 95 and create the rules for your production... for instance maybe only use props that are bought at either a dollar store or a thrift store. Use lights that are bought at Home Depot or even better use available light and reflectors. Keep the story duration as short as possible that way you can keep each actor/actress in the same costume for the entire film. Write the least amount of dialogue as possible... for a show don't tell reason and because free actors/actresses usually suck... so do most low paid ones to be honest... so cast based on their look... but repeatedly tell them how great they are while thinking how you can edit the scene around them. Make the location a star, with as few stars as possible. Well... that's all I can think of right now. One more thing... as conceited as this may sound... you are the star of your film at this level. You have the most to lose. So although film is a collaborative medium, that collaboration is not as important as your vision. Every single person on your set... especially if they're working for free... believe their ideas are great and better than yours. Don't be closed off to good ideas, but don't succumb to any pressure to do a take of every idea thrown out to you. So think of kind ways to make them feel included without jeopardizing your vision. Feed your cast.

That is around double the price, and is less easy to use than an F4 (or F8) & is less inputs. You really need to pair it with a mixer front end, which further drives up the cost and weight. Yeah I'm pretty calm and chill, is water off a duck's back for me. But the hostility (to n00bs) on pro location sound forums is quite unlike other forums, and it also means you're not likely to get constructive answers instead of just flaming. I love google! :-D

wow tons of good stuff there thanks @squig!!! i had a similar experience with a friend in school – he NAILED the horror look/atmosphere in a way that was..... i guess professional is the word id use? looked like something expensive even tho it was $0 budget, everyone was blown away although ive never been into the horror genre per se (does the shining count? lol), i recognize its popularity, im definitely going with the idea of paranormal/supernatural. people love ghost stories! close enough, right? ? basically, @squig, ive done the same thing, i wrote a great feature that i need $250k to produce, which isnt much for a feature, but it might as well be millions to me right now. THIS TIME, im only writing for what i have at my disposal, i swear to god, ive learned my lesson lol *looks up at sky fearfully* im gonna find local small town actors who wanna be in this (for FREE), and im going to write FOR THEM, not the other way around. im gonna put a flyer up ASAP!

Co-sign on the PMD661s MKI and II (NOT the 620s tho!). As for the MKIII and the newer PMDs, Marantz is owned by a completely different company now, so I'd be wary about recommending anything beyond the PMD661 MKI and MKII until actual tests and real world reviews come out. The PMD661 is a bit bulky compared to the newer portable recorders but imho it's best bang for buck if sound quality is your priority and you don't need multi-track capabilities. I've seen several go for $300 (even less) this past year alone. And that's in Canadian dollars! I was skeptical about the Zoom F4 and F8 at first but I've heard nothing but great things about it lately. The pre-amps are supposed to be pretty good! Which actually makes them an anomaly compared to previous Zoom products (which the Marantz PMD661 would still beat hands down). But they're obviously pointless to compare to anything other than other multi-track recorders like the Sound Devices stuff. Also at the price they're going for right now, I'd just pay extra for a used Sound Devices recorder. I'm also hoping people aren't using audio opinions/recommendations from his forum as their primary gauge of what type of portable recorder to buy. That would be as troubling as getting video camera recommends solely from people on Gearslutz. There are sooo many great audio forums out there with amazing tests, comparisons and advice from career people who live, eat, sh*t audio and nothing else. And what's cool is the raw data from the old tests can still be used to compare the older recorders to the newer ones. Here's a good example of some raw data that still holds up imho: http://www.theatreofnoise.com/2015/03/portable-audio-recorders-2015-update.html It's broken up into Pocket, Hand held and Shoulder portable recorders. They're listed in order of size NOT overall quality rating. The Marantz PMD661 still holds up pretty well and even though they're referring to the MKII, the original 661 honestly isn't much different (they actually have the same EIN value of 125). Funny enough I learned that lesson about old blimps just today. Was looking at some older Rycote blimps that were going for reasonable prices and after doing some research realized why I should just save up for one of the newer modular ones.

Curious to know why the price difference between the US and Europe (especially the UK) is much bigger for the D850 than it is on the other Nikon pro bodies.

Wow. Incredible stuff. You're right it makes me want to go outside right now! (But I can't...)

In all this discussion no one has mentioned has even remotely mentioned Marantz, which is a big mistake. People just seem to get a hold of names & think they're the best - Zoom & Tascam are pretty average & that's why they're cheaper. Sure Sound Devices are king, and for a price you get real dependable excellent quality - but they're really for people who earn their bread & butter recording only sound. Marantz are a step down from Sound Devices, but they are worth checking out as a much better alternative to Zoom/Tascam - remember, just because loads of people have them doesn't make them the best, just makes them cheaper. A Zoom H5 alternative has to be the Marantz PMD661 mk2 or 3 will absolutely shame anything from Zoom period - at £500 it's more expensive, but you'll be glad in the long run. I've been using the MK2 for a while now & it produces great sound - I even use it with my old SD field recorder in order to record the sound digitally, blows me away everytime. You can find 2nd hand one for around £300! And have noticed that they now do a model for DSLRs similar to the Tascam - Marantz PMD706 for only £300! I have no experience of this model, but if it's anywhere as good as the 661, then it'll be much better than the Tascam.

Yup, but then again, is that what one wants for whatever production they're doing? Speaking for myself, I'm not a big fan of huge dynamic range in fictional narrative. I'm a product of gritty 70's American cinema and I'm not afraid to admit that I think there's maybe TOO much "unthoughtful" resolution and dynamic range in modern productions. Hollywood comedies are the worst with this. Boring lighting and cinematography with such a high resolution sheen one starts analyzing the uncanny valley flaws of the sound stage. The visual info is just distracting. There's something to be said for deliberately obscuring what the audience sees in an image. That opinion maybe puts me at odds with the majority of people out there, but so be it. However, I do think good dynamic range is perfectly fine for corporate video stuff, nature docs, --or even certain narrative fiction, I guess. Depends. It's a tool, you know? I mean, I can Ooo and Ahh with the best of them when watching pretty 60p 8K time lapse footage on huge monitors, but just visual stimulation ain't enough for me and pretty pictures gets old real fast without an appropriate story. Eh, it's all subjective. All of this is OT anyway, so I best shut-up. Balance your decision on what matters to you, and you'll be fine.

On a more serious note, I suspect that if writing speculatively as an 'unknown' there might be more chance of getting lucky if one aims one's ideas at long-form episodic TV.

I agree. Face ID seems like a gimmick and actually a downgrade in terms of practical functionality. Apple has been almost as frustrating as Canon the past few years.

After seeing all the keynote and seeing how that Face ID failed, right now I'm thinking more seriously about LG V30. I don't need Face ID and I can't accept it that it is easier and more intuitive to use Face ID instead of Touch ID. Instead of spending millions on making emojis animated! they should have implemented that Touch ID somewhere in the phone!

Not me.

@BTM_Pix Just expecting to see some 4k low light footage and then hold it in my hands and do some test shots. Last week I've buyed a Zeiss Otus 28mm 1.4...with Nikon F - now I only wait for the proof of the D850 qualities. BTW: I shot the Zeiss with a cheap K&F Nikon2NX adapter on the NX 1 some days ago. Colors, contrast and detail are mindblowing - from edge to edge...Can hardly wait to see this exceptional lens on a D850...

GH5 order placed - the only reasonable response to all this. Thankfully I kept my best M43 glass......

Indeed. That's my point exactly. If you're happy with, why to move along? : ) I have to be pretty sincere on here. I normally resist to trade in my tools for the newest promise to keep up the vibe. To me the secret is always on combos. That's just my weak point :-D Speaking of devil, 5D2 only had two flaws: DSLR form factor (I did the move to the GH series to begin with the GH1 and never looked back in any way other than as when ML RAW popped up) and aliasing/moiré. The latter one much prone to overcome with the proper handy skillful workarounds. We did a feature film with (even before ML hack) becoming a web series too later, at least:

I jumped ship, sold my NX1 16-50S & 50-150S. I purchased the a7ii (returned it, I really like 4k recording and this didn't have it), a6500 (still have it, I love the eye AF but the camera is just too small for my hands) and tried the a7rii (returned it, picture quality was good but camera operation was too slow). I am really thinking about purchasing the NX1 again as the only reason i sold it was because I was afraid that if I needed service, no one could repair it. I loved everything about the NX1 the operation, handling and the picture color/quality. The NX1 was easier to take photos with. Also, I can't afford Sony's 2.8 lenses. So I'm also trying to decide to if I should buy the NX1 again.

Short video of Chicago trying the GH5. There is 4K, 180 VFR slomo (with aliasing...), timelapse and hyperlapse. Even though the sensor can't match my 5D and 6D for ISO, the DR seems better for timelapse.

Random clips shot with GH5 and Olympus 25/1.2 in standard profile.

To my eyes, my G6 HD appears to have more resolution than my GX85s HD, with less aliasing and artificial sharpness on the same settings. Started to dialing sharpness down from -2 to -5. Also, from one experience, I got the impression that electronic native lenses might involve some automatic processing to the image. One note on this, in the GH5 thread someone stated about some native lenses that they produce an artificial outline around oof shapes, sharp edges like cut out pieces, so to say. The native lens I shot with back then was the 14-45mm. It was a two cam setup of my and my collegues G6, one mounted to the 14-45, the other one with a boosted 28mm FD. Both lenses were very hard to match in post, even though they were on the same settings. So, maybe some native lenses are key to even more artificial sharpening and rendering because of additional processing.