Leaderboard

Your right. They are just the largest and most successful manufacturer of both mirrorless and DSLRs with huge profits. But this announcement must appeal to a OliKMIA or they are done. Because they are one single customer short of bankruptcy.

it means theyre gonna fuck us again! ?

Stumbled across there two articles which I felt are interesting enough to share, as Art Adams goes into amazing detail in his break down of the demo reels. Fascinating how much info he can draw out of a video! http://www.dvinfo.net/article/acquisition/a-critical-look-at-cions-new-demo-reel.html http://www.dvinfo.net/article/acquisition/panasonicp2hd/a-critical-look-at-varicams-latest-demo-reel.html

I'm after more of an Elven drone myself.

18% off the already reduced price thanks to the Obsidian version, so basically 28% off! I've always wanted a drone that shoots MJPEG!

I read rumors that Sigma will come out soon with the Art series lenses for Sony. Maybe it pays to be patient and see what happens before investing in its version of Canon. https://www.sonyrumors.co/category/sigma-fe-lenses/ I propose a new title for Sony users: THROW AWAY YOUR CANON SIGMA LENSES! (?)

Oh, by rereleasing the Mavic Pro, except in white, in 2022

They are not just competing, they are engaged in a war to kill the competition and they are almost done. They killed 3DR and its solo, they killed the GoPro drone attempt with the Karma (the Mavic was announced only a few days after the Karma in 2016). Now there is only a bunch of Chinese competitors left like Walkera, Yuneec and Autel. All in bad shape, they recently announced layoff. They are also way behind in terms of technology. Once DJI got rid of the competition they will slow down. Interesting, nothing is impossible with DJI. We'll find out soon.

Matthew, on GH5 vs. A7RIII image... For stills: the A7RIII is vastly superior to me. But A7RIII does weird white balance stuff (same problem with A7/A7II/A7RII) - inconsistent and often wrong. GH5 stills quality is vastly improved over the GH4 and the ghastly GH3/2. The jpeg engine on the GH5 is really good and I often don't bother messing with RAW. And I found DR is much better on GH5 over GH4, files are much more malleable, especially on highlight retention. But shadows are cleaner too. But A7RIII stills just have a lot more latitude and I actually prefer Sony color (feels more natural, accurate) when white balance is right. I shot with Fuji X-Pro 2 and X-T2 and X100T for a while and those cameras are awesome at auto white balance. Colors are really pleasing, if not accurate. For video: I haven't shot the A7RIII much, just got it and I've had a bunch of opportunities to shoot stills but not video, so far. So nothing meaningful to add on video image quality. But clearly IBIS is not in the same league, that is immediately clear. The main reason I bailed on the A7RII was usability as a hybrid cam rather than stills or video image quality. The A7RIII is much, much better as a hybrid camera. Not as seamless as the GH5 in switching between roles as stills and video camera, but much closer to the GH5 than the A7RII. The other reason I prefer Sony is the access to a wonderful range of glass, especially the ability to use wider angle legacy and manual focus glass without crop factor. I recently picked up the Voigtlander 40/1.2 and am really enjoying that lens. I think the Oly 25/1.2 Pro is one of the best 50mm equiv lenses I've ever used, for any platform (it really is all about the glass), but that is still like a 50/2.4 from DoF perspective, so somewhat limited in what you can do.

If you guys are throwing away your Canon lenses please DM me and I'll send you the address to my garbage can. I'll pay shipping.

BMPCC + Carl Zeiss 25mm lens. Stylised color grade based on my BozBMDFilm to Rec709 LUT. Download Page: https://goo.gl/B9Ns51

Oh I won't argue with any of your comments. If you can only have or afford one camera you are not going to buy a GH2. A G7 puts one to shame overall. These new cameras make every ones life easier, but I just think beautiful 1080p output is, well just beautiful. We just seem to be loosing that in these new cameras.

I've certainly seen some nice shots on a hacked GH2. Having never owned one, one always needs to imagine how good it looks without the compression. It's funny because the GH5S is bringing back the multi-aspect sensor- something the GH2 already had and we lost with the GH3, GH4, and GH5. To my eyes, the GX80 has a slightly different color algorithm than the GH4 and I'm satisfied. The GX80's size, colors, 4k, and IBIS trumps the hacked GH2's 1080p, but right now the GH2 is half the cost- not bad. Personally, the GX80's still a value option that's hard-to-beat. It gets the job done for me. I still haven't seen any features in any of those new Panasonic cameras that would merit the price jump. Secondly, the GX80's successor is going to have to be pretty damn good to convert me.

I would argue the a hacked GH2 has a better look to it than the GX80 by a mile. Way more BMPCC looking than anything out now, maybe other than a few clips I have seen form the new GH5s. Sure the GX80 was a more refined camera, but better looks wise, nah. I think Panasonic had went backwards until just now for a Cine output look. I always thought a GH4 looked like shit to be honest in my mind. My Af100A had the look also, basically a GH2 sensor. Sometimes progress is really not progress. It's like the Sony FS5. No way it has a better 1080p output than the PMW F3. But yeah on paper it is a better camera than the F3, but not for Color Science, Cine output. But it can do 4k and I can see why people use them , not counting it is a Lot smaller, and the Variable ND thingy is almost worth that feature alone. But better output wise, Nah again. The original Arri Alexa is the same way. I really doubt any new 4k Arri will look better, I am sure they hope it can at least look as good. Kind of crazy to me to think all these company's got it right 5,6 years ago, and have in a sense gotten worse?? Maybe you can't bet a good look with a 4k sensor, I don't know?

I understand that it is disappointing to see a giant price tag on the new cameras, but I don't think Panasonic is actually moving backwards. I was one of the few people who really liked the gh3. The battery life is incredible and it marked Panasonic's move to actually providing high bit rate support rather than having to rely on a hack. I've also never had any moire issues with it. Additionally I want to say that I shoot on a budget and don't do enough serious work to justify buying the most expensive cameras. Hell, I started out with an Olympus e-pl2 which provided barely useable 720p. I bought the gh3 after the gh4 came out and planned to buy the gh4 when the gh5 came out. But the gx85 was so good I thought that I could really serve my needs better with a gx85 than with the gh4. I have no idea what Panasonic will follow up the g85/gx85 with, but if it's a huge disappointment for some reason, you can at least bet that the gh5/gh5s won't still be selling for >$2000. Can't you already get a gh5 for $1400? If we can get 4k 422 output on the gx85, then I think it's going to be difficult for Panasonic to really mess things up. As long as they keep the features they already have they can only move forward.

Nice. About the same discount that BH was giving out for the P4A a day before the announcement.

I meant a hacked GH2 would be an option for someone who had nothing. Yes, the gx80 produces an excellent image... so does the hacked GH2 for the money ($200).

Great link! I would absolutely love a 1” Mavic, like a lot of people, but I’m not going to be waiting on Autel to be the one to deliver it. I ordered an open-box P4Pro yesterday and I’ll be happy to use it until DJI figure out something better

I make commercial tracks from time to time. The music from this Comet Color video is one I made within a day.

The new Mavic has a pro video which shows part of it at night: Of course it won't be as good as a better drone, but if it works with the budget and works with what you need then no harm trying.

LOL But hey... if he is offering to do it for free, take it! If shot at early dusk and graded with care, you might be able to pull it off.

But still I reckon if you want to go cheaper and save your pennies. You can. Does your DoP have a drone? You might even get lucky and he'd throw it in for free. Or find a keen young P4P owner.

You could try here: http://osgfilms.com/hack-the-panasonic-gh2/

I think you are looking at this problem upside down. DJI have just put the Mavic Pro's camera in a smaller drone - the Mavic Air. So if they put a 1 inch sensor in a Mavic Pro 2 (which is a bit bigger than the Mavic Pro) you should look at it as putting the Phantom 4 camera in a much smaller body. With the Mavic Air now out, DJI have a good excuse for making a slightly larger Mavic Pro 2 to accommodate a inch sensor.

Adding oval discs to anywhere other than at a lens at aperture location will introduce considerable light loss and added vignette. Solution is to locate oval aperture directly - or at the closest point to aperture level (as mentioned by whoisjsd). Easiest and cheapest is to modify a Helios 44 lens this way, and to use that as your taking lens. See diagram below to see highlighted area for proper oval aperture placement in Helios 44 (or any similar Double-Gauss lens design): With an oval aperture correctly installed and orientated, the effect is increased oval bokeh on a 1.33x anamorphot, and a sharpening effect due to the taking lens effectively being stopped down on the horizontal axis (yet maintaining near full height aperture). Here is a crappy sample of my 1.33x Century with Helios 44 with oval aperture installed...ignore the softness of the image, the proximity of the subjects was too close for sharp focus...but you can clearly see the improvement in bokeh definition:

My feeling is that as DJI have just effectively upgraded the Sparks camera to the Mavic Pro with the Mavic Air, we are not far away from seeing the Mavic Pro camera upgraded to a 1 inch sensor (plus fixed lens) with the Mavic Pro 2. And then the Phantom 5 will probably be upgraded to interchangeable lenses (and built in ND) with the same 1 inch sensor.

??? The camera on the P4P has an one inch sensor and isn't that much bigger (both the camera and the drone)... May be the Air is too small for that camera, but the regular Mavic Pro... should be able to carry the camera thats on the P4P. Look, if Autel Robotics is about to release one... I don't see why DJI can't do one???? If you don't know what I am talking about check this thread out:

Well I am not too sure how much this applies to the average shooter, but I would imagine to the Big Boys in the industry this might help solve a few problems. https://techcrunch.com/2018/01/22/facebook-invented-a-new-time-unit-called-the-flick-and-its-truly-amazing/

Just to clarify, there are two things here, the rights of the composition and the rights of the recording. Both has to be as old (exact age varies from country to country though) to be free.

https://www.audioblocks.com/ Royalty Free stock music. Not best quality, but very nice and very affordable. Most safe are tracks of composers who died over 70 years ago which automatically release some of their family right. They have free 7 day trial (download 20 tracks per day for free and keep forever) and many discounts (~ 100$ per year of access). When I published something on Youtube and automatically got claim for music right - I presented License from Audioblocks and direct link to audio file - claim was released.

I don't know the exact shot details, but flying a drone at twilight, without running lights, in a crowded urban environment, wit all sorts of electrical interference, and the possibility of losing signal if the drone gets out of line of sight, by someone who has never flown a drone (and I assume you don't study FAA sectional charts for fun) is literally BEGGING for disaster. I think if you bought insurance through verifly to try and mitigate damages, they would probably roll on you once they realized what you were doing, too. The FAA doesn't seem to catch a LOT of people flying drones illegally, but they do throw some hefty fines at the people they do catch. Fortunately for those who are fined, the FAA has been known to settle out of court for about 10%, so if one were to be caught, they would be looking at fines of about $1,000 to about $5,000.* https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/xyga8a/faa-drone-fines *That article mentions the SkyPan case, where the FAA originally proposed a fine of $1.8 Million. The FAA and SkyPan apparently settled on a fine of $200,000 https://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=21374

110% chance guaranteed to crash $650 is a very reasonable half day rate for a guy with an Inspire

Is the $650 to “get you the shot(s) you want” or to “hire me and my drone for (period)”? There is a difference...

I'm talking about FF mirroless, not white EOS-M camera aimed at the Japanese market.

Well Canon already beat Sony on Mirrorless sales with lame arse attempt, why would they need to move their arse this time?

Yes but in that mirror space, they could include a hefty ibis system or internal NDs... who am I kidding... Canon won’t do either.

The hole of glory for Canon?

Sub forums kills forums.

Hey John, AVCHD has 50i to 25p and 24mpbs, MP4 has 25p and 20mpbs. So first one has higher bitrate and second one higher resolution, if I figured that right. I would go with the true 1080p and MP4, as it has 20mpbs for twice the resolution in the y axis than the AVCHD 1080i is providing.

You generally need some type of ND when shooting outdoors at wide aperture. For scripted shooting, a matte box and drop-in fixed filters may work, but for documentary, news, run-and-gun, etc. a variable ND is handy. This is why upper-end camcorders have long had built-in selectable ND filters. However with the move to large sensors, the entire optical path gets larger. It becomes much harder both mechanically and optically to fit multiple precision fixed ND filters inside. The surface area of an optical element increases as the square of the radius, so it becomes much harder (and more expensive) to make a perfectly flat multicoated filter. The Sony FS5 has an electronic variable ND, showing how important this is for video. It doesn't make sense to put a $20 filter on a $2500 lens. However filter price and quality are not necessarily directly related. In documentary video I've used many different variable ND filters, and here are a few things to look for: (1) If at all possible get one that fits inside a lens hood. This is the most difficult requirement since there are no specs or standards for this. You use a variable ND outside under bright (often sunny) conditions -- the very conditions where you need a lens hood. However most variable ND filters and most lenses are incompatible. The ideal case would be certain Sony A or E-mount lenses with a cutout in the lens hood which allows turning the variable ND filter without removing the hood. However it's very difficult to find one which fits. (2) Get one with hard stops at the end of each range. Otherwise it's difficult to tell where you are on the attenuation scale, and this adds a few seconds which can make you miss a shot. (3) Get one which does not exhibit "X" patterns or other artifacts at high attenuation. This typically happens with filters having more than 6 stops attenuation. (4) Get one which has the least attenuation on the low end, ideally 1 stop or less. This reduces the times you have to remove the filter when shooting inside. A filter which goes from 1-6 stops is likely more useful and less likely to have artifacts at high attenuation than one which goes from 2-8 stops.

I've had LX100, GM1/5, X100T, RX100 over the years and decided I wanted a truly pocketable stills camera so went with the GRII. Incredible stills, malleable RAW files, top notch fixed 28mm equivalent lens, APS-C sensor so decent low light and dynamic range is excellent, out of camera black and white JPEGs are some of the best I've seen. Ergonomically it is incredible - you can operate with one hand, which makes more of a difference than I expected for the kind of casual or experimental off the cuff shooting you'd do with a smartphone. The level of customization and your "workflow" with the camera is great, it just gets out of the way - other camera manufacturers could learn a lot from this camera. It was clearly designed by photographers and has been refined over the years. The LX100 is a great hybrid camera, but I was never happy with the stills quality. But really great camera. The RX100 packs a lot in, but was ergonomically a mess - got used to it, but no enjoyment, always fighting the camera. GM1/5 are great, excellent stills image quality (I thought much better than LX100 when paired with good glass like the 20/1.7 or 15/1.7 or 45/1.8). X100T is great, but that's getting kind of big, and I'd rather shoot with my A7s/FE 35 2.8.