Leaderboard

I've been playing half-heartedly with ML on my EOS-M for a while but in general lost interest due to annoyances such as the focus pixels, low resolution and workflow. However, inspired by recently released footage from Kodak's new Super-8 camera and fond memories of playing with real Super-8 footage in art school, I decided to mess around with the EOS-M again to see how close I could get to the Super-8 aesthetic. Turns out I surprised myself! I've only shot a few early tests so far but the following video is, I think, very usable as a digital Super-8 stand-in. The basic specs are as follows: 4:3 ratio (like Super-8) 1440 x 1078 resolution (plenty for Super-8) 18fps (same as consumer Super-8) 12-bit Lossless RAW (continuous!) 5x zoom (haven't accurately calculated crop factor/sensor size in relation to Super-8 yet - would appreciate help with this) 3X3 Crop mode (Experimental build: magiclantern-crop_rec_4k.2017Dec19.EOSM202) Also- no focus pixels! (I have no idea why this is. They reappear if you go up to 14bit lossless or use any of the standard 10/12/14-bit modes). Below are two versions of my initial tests - the first is with FilmConvert film emulation applied, the second is without FilmConvert, just some basic contrast and saturation tweaks. Sorry the grade isn't very good I'm getting used to both the EOSM DNG's and FCPX's new grading tools. FilmConvert: https://vimeo.com/253014693/badd381eb4 No FilmConvert: https://vimeo.com/253014620 My post workflow is very simple: convert .MLV files to DNG's with MlRawViewer and then drop them straight into FCPX. Do a bit of colour correction with an adjustment layer if needed, then export clip as ProRes 4444 XQ. Bring it back into FCPX and conform the 18fps to the fps of the timeline (I always use a 25p timeline and *think* this requires slowing the 18fps clip to 72% but I'm not confident my maths are accurate - it certainly looks close to normal speed to me though). I'm not very technical so you won't find much explanation of why it's working from me. I'd appreciate contributions to what's going on here so I understand it better and other can replicate if they want to. In particular I'd like to figure out the effective sensor size I'm using, and also why there are no pink dots. The things that excite me about it as a viable Digital Super-8 camera are: 1. The shutter speed - only Magic Lantern allows that really, and it really helps give that authentic Super-8 feel. 2. The 12bit colour space and RAW grain makes the footage film-like and organic. 3. The fact you can adapt C-mount lenses to the EOS-M. The lens I used for these tests is just the 15-45mm EF-M kit lens in manual focus mode. However I have a Cosmicar 6mm f/1.2 on its way to me as we speak and if I can get it to infinity focus I think I'll have a 'normal' lens (again, I need to figure out the imaging area I'm working with). 4. Shooting 4:3 and 18fps, like Super-8, allows continuous shooting. Things I don't like: 1. Live view is not perfect but using the info button you can jump between Canon's 5x zoom to focus and ML's rather choppy live view for framing. 2. I'm not seeing horrible rolling shutter but it's no Digital Bolex so that does give it away as digital footage somewhat. I hope some others start playing around with these settings. With the 16mm Digital Bolex discontinued and Kodak's new Super-8 camera all the rage, there's a space for a small sensor digital cinema camera to get some love.

The Canon 35mm f1.8 LTM can get some (imo lovely) swirl even with a m4/3 camera (the old gm1). I wasn't blown away on the FF A7. It was decent on the APS-H Leica. But definitely cool on MFT. Will have to try it on APS-C this week.

Speaking of the XC10... I noticed BH just lowered the price from $1999 to $1799 with the card and card reader and $1599 for just the camera. In fact, it’s a special order only now, so I am thinking maybe the rumored, interchangeable lens version, may be true.

I'm actually using a slightly newer build called "crop_rec_4k.2018Jan25.EOSM202" from magic lantern forum member dfort, available here: https://bitbucket.org/daniel_fort/magic-lantern/downloads/ However the "magiclantern-crop_rec_4k.2017Dec19.EOSM202" build which is in the experimental builds page you've linked to also works absolutely fine from what I remember - and probably wiser to use that one. I am using the mlv_lite module yes, which means that I can't record sound unfortunately. The mlv_rec module completely fails to load on the camera when using this experimental build - I don't know if that will be fixed in future. Once the mlv_lite module is turned on - I'm just activating "Movie crop mode", and in the raw video options I select 12-bit lossless or 10 bit lossless at max 1800x1024 resolution. The length of time you can record in 12-bit depends on how much contrast and light there is in the scene, it can vary a lot. Lowering the resolution slightly will help increase record time in 12 bit lossless.

Most impressive.

Honestly, you can’t go wrong with a lot of the Canon lenses... even the slower “L” zoom lenses are amazing. I shot these with the 5D Mark iii and ML Raw using the 24-70mm f/4 lens... Of course with the smaller, Super 35mm sensor of the Ursa, the faster zooms will be better.

I literally could get better color out of the XC10 than my FS700/7Q. I'm not saying the FS700 can't do more and look better, but the Canon compression is really really nice. The main problem with the XC10 is the lens - not really the 8 bit codec. I would imagine if you know the limits of the 8bit/c200 codec, you can do really really nice work. You just need to stress test it like any camera.

The BMCC is a mirrorless camera. Granted, it is not a hybrid camera, but rather a dedicated video camera. I guess my point is there are larger bodies out there with smaller sensor if we are talking "video". For me the GH5 is a good size... not too small, not too large. The NX1 was also a good size. Would I cry if it was slightly larger? Probably not, but then again I have gotten use to lugging around the 1DXMk2, so I might be jaded.

Thank you kindly, @Stathman! No, didn't use any filters. I find that moire generally appears in brickwork, patterned/striped material and metal edges. Shallower depth of usually helps with these kind of issues

I have both versions of the 16-50 and they're great. The PZ has really fast AF and the stabilizer is great. It's really, really sharp. I can probably grab some footage for you, but I'm sure it's much sharper than the 18-200. Although not stabilized, the samsung 12-24 is actually an awesome lens too. I've been loving mine this past year. Not insanely rugged, but It's image and versatility are both very nice.

Its a beast no matter what imo.

I will eventually, but they just got the cams a few days before this particular volunteer project --and for talking head stuff it was fine as is. I mean, that's a $90 camera getting that shot. Not bad.

@Robert Collins The ones that we have a moving image background, having IBIS is something that happened a year or two ago. The best IBIS in industry (Olympus) was a photographic affair. People were earning huge amounts of money stabilizing cameras on set, that was, and still is, their only job. A photographer is a guy (or girl) having a camera, a couple of lenses and a flash gun, and that's it. With that setup you can do a great amount of photo work. Controlling motion and emotion through continuous -or not- time is something different and usually takes more than 1 person (the bare minimum is a camera person, and a sound person). The same goes for AF too, until Canon Dual Pixel, especially on C300mkII/C200 cameras, AF was something completely exotic to moving images. Best lenses in industry, that having a few of those, probably cost more than your house, do not have any auto focusing mechanisms. Best cameras in industry do not have IBIS too.

@jonpaisIt is a bit pointless to be honest, GH5 is not even 1 year old. If people want a new camera every 6 months, then there is something going wrong in this world (get the big picture, having new products every few months will impact working hours, the environment, depreciation of prices, etc etc, it is not as simple as putting a couple of features and call it a new camera, especially on multinational corporation level). I disagree with the "class leading battery" though, the GH5 is nothing like the GH4 or NX1, for that matter. We tend to carry 4-6 batteries per GH5 per working day, while I only have 4 batteries among 2 NX1 cameras I usually use. I believe it is slightly better than Sony cameras, but not much really, at least that is my impression, as GH4 are rather rare these days. @DBounce sorry, I didn't get your point. I compared "mirrorless cameras". GH5 is 139x98x87mm/725g NX1 is 139x102x66mm/550g while the first has a 13x17.30mm sensor and the other 15.7x23.5mm. Sony and Canon APS-C cameras are even smaller and lighter (that is the other extreme though, in terms of ergonomics), X-T2 133x92x49mm/507g (I would like a little bigger grip here), and A7Riii is 127x96x74mm/657g with an even larger sensor (24x35.9mm), and older mkII versions are even smaller and lighter (which is a disadvantage of the older generation, as full frame lenses need more grip). The point was that GH5 is already as big and heavy as it should, a little bit more on both, would become a disadvantage (for me already is a bit heavier and has more depth than it should).

The omission of IBIS is not a 1-to-1 tradeoff. The numerous additional features of the GH5s plus its target market made IBIS impossible.

It is the Kinefinity Terra 4K that he has. A chicken and egg problem.

Yeah marketing is one aspect of it, but support is the main issue. I do not want to buy a camera overseas, and if there is a problem need to send it back to China. I actually really like the image. But I will not buy it, because I am afraid it will break and I need to send it back to China. + When I am tired of that camera and I want to sell it. There is not a big usergroup looking for the kinefinity camera's, so thats also something I always consider.

Not if your shot is static, you should get away with it ok. If you're panning in your shot the motion cadence may show up.

The point of a gear expectations thread on a gear centered forum? Isn't that obvious?

And a Sony F3 going for half that sometimes!!! :-o Wow Was a little shocked to see today a Sony PMW-F5 sell for US$5.7K: https://www.ebay.com/itm/Version-UP-Sony-PMW-F5-Camcorder-4K-format-OK/122925420188 Pity I didn't have the money for it :-( Laugh given! :-P I don't have to look under many rocks to find something: no TC on the C200

i finally got a hold of a minolta 100-500 and compared directly it to my tokina 0.4. setup was a gh4/contax zeiss 50mm @ f2.8/iscorama 36. tokina focus range: 3.8' to 8.9' (measured to the diopter) minolta focus range: 4' to 10.5' (measured to the diopter) field of view (at the same distance): minolta was about 1-2 degrees wider than the tokina. sharpness/overall image quality: identical i was surpised that the tokina was able to focus that far out (seems like mine is closer to .37 than .40). i was also surprised the minolta was able to stay sharp all the way down to 4'. so the minolta gives you another 1.5' of range at the far end, a slightly wider FOV (which is always handy), and you only lose a couple inches on the close end. all things considered, i think i might be selling my tokina at some point.

I watched the entirety of it and only after JJ said to watch it.... And, to be honest, I was highly doubtful in the beginning especially when the artist said something along the lines of hoping/believing what's there less than what could be there.... Made me think that the artist planted the whole thing... It was a back and forth battle thinking that it's real or not real.... "How can there be coral on the statue if it's fake?".. "How can that huge statue be transported on ship?" I figured some of the dates being presented were fake.... To be honest, I totally missed the Mickey statue... Don't watch this if you have kids running around. Only till you guys told me that I had to go back and rewatch it. I found it weird that there was a statue of a rat at the end... But never put 2 and 2 together... Again don't watch it with kids running around. In my opinion, they could have taken this another route... A pirate ship stole most of the items... Some items really show up on eBay. After the credits- Easter egg that it was faked.

True, and to be honest, nobody will notice ether, I have never seen someone watching a scene and notice if it was shoot in 8-bit or 10-bit, you can see the difference in your 4k OLED TV putting both files next to each other, but thats all, I agree with @mercer and @jhnkng, if you are shooting with Canon 8-bit and screw up during the shooting and you are not able to push the footage enough to save the take, there is no way 10-bit is going to do it for you, but RAW, yes RAW could do it, so the C200 is perfect imo, 4k 8-bit for 90% of docs, and 4k RAW for movies and 10% of docs where the light is just crap....

I didnt had one. Maybe I will give it a spin

The light is the same, but the intensity (concentration) is different. You do not see any difference in DOF. Think of it this way, normal sunlight will not catch a newspaper on fire, but concentrate it with a magnifying glass and that same normal sunlight will cause the paper to burn. For the camera sensor it is getting more light than it normally would, because the concentration is higher. End result is you can work at lower ISOs, but you gain no DOF advantage. This is not theory... I see this whenever I use my SpeedBoosters.

You act like everyone here lives in Ohio LoL. I bet half the people on here are from oversee's. Lot in England. BBC does make a shit to them. It still doesn't matter. This is 2017, 2018, 10 bit is IT. If they were ballsy enough to put Raw in this thing whey the hell not a 10 bit 1080p, why? You know the processor is robust enough. Grading 8 bit stuff doesn't cut it on a 7 thousand dollar camera in 2018. If they even had a 8 bit 50Mbps middle codec it would work. They would sell the shit out of them. God damn, Canon is just stupid as hell on some stuff. They ought to just go out of business. They do the least they can get by with as of late, not the best they can do. The 5D mk IV, 6D mk II is a great example of that.

This is from Newshooter. Review of the C200. "The Cinema RAW Light files can only be recorded in 4KDCI and not in UHD, 2KDCI or HD resolutions. A 128GB CFast2.0 card which costs around $350 US will only allow you to record 15 minutes of material. If you want to do extended takes or record all of your material in RAW then you are going to need a lot of CFast2.0 cards– that’s going to cost you a significant amount of money. You also need to take into account the data storage you will need and how long it will take to process and deal with the RAW files." Two problems I see. First: There is Only one CFast slot. That means every 15 minutes, or if you can afford a 256gb one, every half hour you HAVE to stop and change a card. They needed 2 CFast slots on it. Second: The BBC has their minimum requirement of 50Mbps for content with them. The lower Codec is 35 Mbps (1920 x 1080). On paper you can't even shoot a Documentary with this camera and satisfy the BBC. So if you are a run and gun guy, Doc shooter, a Interview person you are either stopping every damn 15 minutes, or shooting in a Codec that you can't use at a broadcast standard. That is the Damn problem with no Middle Codec.

I am surprised to find that I like the image out of the EVA1 the most out of that comparison

People love their precious hardcoreDNA's so good luck ;-) But sometimes there is one for sale, usually at a premium above retail price. Ask around in the Anamorphic Shooters group on FB. Good people mostly, and both the developer and EU reseller of hardcoreDNA are active there as well.

The need for a middle 10 bit codec is true. There are clients that ask for a relatively fast turn around and 10 bit files. Canon Raw is good for video clips or specific small-ish projects, and the lighter codec good for most, but there is a valid need in the market for 10 bit files - latest TV shows I worked for were shot in GH5 for that specific reason. That is why Panasonic has sold a lot of cameras in the industry. Cheapest 10 bit camera around. I am not sure if GH5 created that need, or the need for more robust workflows created the GH5, but the lack of that middle codec is making me NOT to buy a C200. I would rather prefere that "middle" codec than RAW, to be honest, or a much cheaper C100mkIII with the touch screen and touch AF and the basic codecs, and some kind of slow mo, that would be my workhorse for the next decade. Canon C100mkII is one of my favorite cameras ever made, I did so many things with it, but it is getting old.

Prices are really bananas these days. For example, I can buy a C300i with PDAF for less than a used GH5. Travel back and tell me that three years ago and give me a good laugh

No stills camera does 15 stops, asking the GH6 to do that is a bit much. Book your clients for you. If you're referencing photo stills, the benchmark really is Nikon for sports AF. I haven't tried a D5, but the D500 is really amazing.

Beautiful! Did you use any filter to reduce moire?

Just got a Voigtlander 40mm 1.2. Haven't had a chance to test in video yet. But DAMN

Got myself some new glass for Christmas. I do prefer native lenses but the Sigma Speedbooster combo works really well! Screengrabs from GH5 + Speedbooxter XL + Sigma 35/1.4 + Black Pro Mist 1/4. Edit. Oh yeah, thanks to @jase and @kidzrevil for introducing me to Black Pro Mist, and other, filters.

I think you should get both. Spend a month playing with them. Then sell one. I think 5D is slightly better for short films and GH5 is significantly better for bread and butter jobs.

Shadows on GH5 have grain-like luma noise. 5D has lots of chroma noise and blotchy low frequency ugliness in underexposed areas.

I haven't used a GH5, but from the samples that were out, at the time, I chose the 5D3 because of this video. I have yet to see anything from the GH5 that looks as cinematic as this... Or this... However, I have seen some fine videos since and I am sure good narratives could be made with a GH5.

The answer is... it depends! 5D3 ultimately has better image quality (stands up to fierce grading) so for a short film I would choose that. However preview in high res modes is hard to use, so if focus pulling is important you might be better off sticking to 1080. For promos, GH5 all the way. It kicks the 5Ds ass here. I have used ML for corporate work with great success, but I prefer the GH5 for its usability.

The fact few people if any can tell the difference lets us know all we have too....... Both cameras look great and if most people here cannot tell the difference, 99.9% of the audience will not be able too either...... Go and create the project you've always wanted, the camera is no longer an excuse /

So your telling me if your daughter is getting married, you are going on a trip of a lifetime, you are going to meet the Pope, you are going to use a 5D3 over a GH5? Hmm. Now if you have all day to make a short well I can see using a 5D3, or using my AF100. I just can't see the average person on here gaining enough to to have a 5D3 over a GH5? Sure it is like a BMPCC, A nice output, but at what price for convenience do you pay? Is it really worth the Hassle, I guess that is what i am saying? Sure it has a beautiful output, the GH5 can have it also with knowledge, hyalinejim just showed that , and can do LOTS of cool tricks built in on top of that. I would argue a Sony F3 has a better output with the 444 thingy than both these cameras. Cost about the same money in reality. But would I buy it over a GH5, hmm for output yes, for a overall experience hell no! And this is what Andrew wrote on DPR, about the 5D3. Now I know we are talking about ML Raw here but... https://***URL removed***/reviews/canon-eos-5d-mark-iii/25

But converting the files to something your NLE can read takes some extra time, as well as factoring in the extra storage costs of RAW files. A horse apiece in my opinion, and the GH5 offers a lot ergonomically/feature set-wise (IBIS, HFR, 4K, uncompressed HDMI out, XLR-capable, no playback issues, etc) that makes it a more practical option for many shooters. The GH5 10-bit files offer enough latitude for color correction that there's no reason you couldn't get great results with a minute in Resolve and/or some of the excellent LUTs available, imo. Plus 4K is nice to have in the tool belt when clients want it. YMMV

I like the second set on all of them better. If that is the GH5 you guys need to re think the 5D mkIII. Even if its not, who the heck, other than side by side, is going to see any difference in this. I do see more DR in the second set, so that helps, but who wants to give up all the benefits of the GH5 for what little you gain with Raw on the 5D. Just send all those 5Ds to me, and I will give them to the "Little Sisters of the Poor". And no, I have no sisters, only brothers. And you did one hell of a great job on this comparison hyalinejim. 2 Thumbs UP! When you send me your 5D3 I will use your return address to send you a Cookie!

So first you select "gamma normal" in the video menu. After that close the menu. Press navigation button gown, picture wizard opens. Then you can move left and right with navigation button. When you see something like "Custom setting" there is small arrow in top of that. Then press navigation button UP and menu opens where you can set values. Finally press OK and settings are saved.

Navigation button (Custom wheel) down and Picture wizard opens. You can customize your own settings too there. Kisaha: I have noticed that some are complaining about "exposure drifting". I don't have this problem, but if I set this smart range on there will be this annoying changing in exposure sometimes.