Leaderboard

Holy s***! First let's just say my BMPCC Speed Boosters were, erm, disassembled and rattling around in a box. Had completely abandoned them - since I stopped using the Pocket Cinema Camera - then, Metabones updated the firmware to kill the BMPCC 0.58x on the GH4 (the only camera it fits). They did this for a very good reason - it could damage the shutter, goes very deep. My EF version does not fit the GH5S at all. You can screw the glass out away from the sensor and it will mount but then no infinity and after 1 second the screen goes blank and camera says 'lens not connected'. Boo. The NIKON version on the other hand... It's pant wetting good. Not only does it fit... FULL FRAME field of view in Cinema 4K. It clears the sensor housing. Infinity focus. Actually, allows you to fine tune to infinity as it even goes past infinity!! By the way, with this camera, the GH5S 4096 x 2160 mode is wider than 3840 x 2160 - uses more width on the sensor (mutli-aspect sensor) - full 19mm of sensor BEFORE speed booster applied!! Apply the BMPCC 0.58x Speed Booster factor to that and you get... 1.07x crop on full frame - i.e., basically nothing. Naaathing. It's full frame.. LOL. Here's the calculations just for fun: 1.86 * 0.58 focal reducer = 1.07x crop Or you can do the 1.86x crop diagonal, that is 1.07x Even more fun are the pictures. Oh my god. Inky blacks in 10bit F0.75 Clean ISO 12,800 in hybrid LOG gamma At least 13 stops dynamic range like raw Blackmagic No IBIS, so no shifting vignette (Although don't expect corner sharpness to be all that) Sharp image wide open at F1.4 on my Nikon 58mm AF-S Will shoot some footage with it and put it on the blog. So we can finally say... out loud... Panasonic GH5S, full frame 10bit camera GH5S owners... Get those Nikon Metabones SB 0.58x out immediately!!

I like you I just think you're wrong. JK ; ) - Seriously though I just disagree about benefits outweighing the costs. I believe you that there are certainly drawbacks to trying to cram so much info into a small container; as I mentioned I don't shoot SLog nearly as much now, after reading some of your posts. But I know, having compared the HDR and SDR masters of a huge-budget feature, that ultimately HDR is more pleasing to me. I do appreciate all your posts though! They're educational and make me think. And your posts back in June are actually the reason I even signed up for a forum account... I signed up to argue with you about S Log

Absolutely the best image you can get in 2018 on a pure 4K quality basis (if you don't mind 1.3x crop) and an absolute monster of a full frame stills camera. It depends how you are going to use it though. Manual focus only in video mode, stick it on a tripod and hit record. Ok. Handheld with IS lenses...hmm... ok-ish I suppose. Anything more elaborate than that and the ergonomics will hurt you. The lack of articulated screen, EVF, audio functionality and HUGE file sizes are the complete opposite of your C100. Long recordings on this baby are a no-no unless you love buying MANY large CF cards, MANY batteries and transcoding to ProRes LT before editing. Absolutely the bigger brother in terms of image quality but the smaller sister in terms of literally everything else haha. 2500 euros with 1 year support is a superb deal At least if you don't get on with the handling, you could sell it on eBay for more and buy something else. The ones to consider are: D850 A7R3 GH5/GH5S with Canon EF Speed Booster XL

Well when I read what Max posts as of late I can't tell if it is Confusing to me or Max is Confused LoL. Time will tell I guess. It is probably me Confused.

So, as much as I love my Canon lenses, I am having a lot of fun messing around with vintage lenses and ML Raw. I still cannot believe how amazing the Minolta 35mm 1.8 is on the 5D3. Here are a few more shots... My next big goal is to convert a 58mm 1.2. But in the meantime, I think I’m going to buy a Helios... it is one vintage lens that has eluded me for the past 5 years. I found one that is listed as New Other in EF Mount? Did the Soviets make a Helios in the EF Mount? I believe it’s the 44-M 7... maybe? Also has anyone used any of the new Zenit Helios lenses? I saw a 50mm 1.2 that looks intriguing. And here’s one more from the Minolta. Also I want to add so there isn’t any confusion to some users that are unaware... Minolta lenses will not adapt to Canon EF without having the lens modified. There are adapters but they have a corrective glass inside that is not of good quality.

Talking pure 4K quality alone, the picture seems to have an edge on the D850. Shooting a comparison now, including the GH5S and it's clear. The D850 has less moire and aliasing, more solid and convincing detail, which doesn't have as much false detail on fine patterns. It's a small but significant difference. Codec and colour seem to have an advantage on the D850 as well. I'm surprised. It's like a 'Nikon' 1D C. I wonder why Sony put all their latest tech into Nikon's 46MP sensor and stuck with the slightly less capable 42MP sensor themselves? There are other differences though... A7R3 has proper LOG modes not just a flat profile. I've yet to test dynamic range, will do soon. In low light, I realised I made a mistake in the last test that focussed on the GH5S. The D850 had noise reduction completely off. It really does seem to turn it off and give you a fine noise grain. Need to retest the ISO 12,800 vs A7R3 and see the impact of noise reduction on both cameras, and whether it turns off completely on the Sony (or not) and which has the most capable system of reduction. We all know the A7R3 noise reduction in full frame 4K is pretty much magic. Does the Nikon do a similar job? If we're talking video features and form factor it's a non-contest... A7R3 cleans up across the board especially with it's superb video AF and stabilisation.

from another site Crop values 3680 pixel long in 4/3 = 2x crop factor in 4/3 still mode 3840 pixel long in 3/2 = 1,91x crop factor in 3/2 still mode 4016 pixel long in 16/9 = 1,832x crop factor in 16/9 still mode 4096 pixel long in 17/9 = 1.796x crop factor in 17/9 (DCI 4K) video mode 3840 pixel long in 3/2 = 1,91x crop factor in 16/9 4K UHD video mode. Speed Booster Ultra + GH5s + DCI 4K = crop factor of 1,275x with 35mm lenses. Speed Booster XL + GH5s + DCI 4K = crop factor of 1,149x with 35mm lenses.

I'm not going to go that far, Mark. What I said about the limitations of HDR I still believe true. If you believe I have given incorrect information please post it right here. Please quote me verbatim and give technical proof of any technical inaccuracy I have given. I have given technical data above, to show the difficulties inherent in providing increased dynamic range. I am the closest person here to a real engineer as I have worked with RAW data on a very low level. For example, when you tell me you can understand this then let's talk https://bitbucket.org/maxotics/focuspixelfixer/src/016f599a8c708fd0762bfac5cd13a15bbe3ef7ff/Program.cs?at=master&fileviewer=file-view-default "Those people who know more than you on HDR" is who? Sorry, but just because you can go out and buy a $5,000 camera and TV doesn't mean you know anything about how it is built, how it works, or what it can do when measured SCIENTIFICALLY against other TVs. Unlike you, I don't just post clips from expensive cameras of walking around in parks and train stations. I build software and experiments to test what cameras do. That IS my thing. I build gadgets to help with technology. I've designed and built cameras that take 1+ gigapixel images. http://maxotics.com/service/ though a single optic. If you don't value what I've learned fine, but I don't see why you need to leave the nastiest comment I've ever read here on EOSHD.

No, sorry, but your problem was that you were ranting in ignorance of what the benefits of HDR are. If you provided actual correct information (or were more careful in what you said, if you did actually know something) then there would be no reason to apologize. What you said about HDR wasn't appropriate because it was incorrect, not because people are trying out HDR and their feelings might be hurt. Those people who knew more than you on HDR just called you on what you said, appropriately.

You can use any 1080p HDMI recorder for that. Yes Ninja 2 would work. Ninja Star as well (to keep small form factor).

It's pretty good, better than 5D3 internally, benefits from Canon LOG too. In 1.3x 4K mode it does the best 1080p you've ever seen out of the HDMI to recorder. It's just... stunning. More cinematic than C100. One of best stills camera available today. 1D X basically. 1D X Mark II image is practically identical, just adds Dual Pixel AF. I had a hunch that the 1D C image is less plastic looking than 1D X Mark II, because of off-board A/D conversion rather than moving to on-chip (in-line A/D) on the 1D X 2. Not sure if I am right or not as not gone too deep into testing it, because they are so similar. It's definitely got mojo, that's for sure.

I currently use a Sony a7s ii with native Sony glass ( Loxia 50/2 and Sony 28/2). I am considering switching systems on the GH5. I have a few questions about the system. 1) Lenses? which to go for... Native or speedbooster. how well does the IBIS work with adapted lenses, do you have to dial in the focal length each time you change lens? 2) Lowlight - I often shoot upto 1600, sometimes at 3200.. is the footage usable at these ISOs 3) Dynamic Range - If I switch I plan to use VLOG.. how much difference in DR is there between the a7sii's Slog and the Gh5s VLog. Has anyone else made the switch and do they miss it? 4) Colour - I have been using EOSHD on the Sony cameras with really nice skintones. How are the skintones on VLOG? Thanks in advance.. if anyone else has made the switch from the Sonys to the GH5 any advice would be appretiated! and is there anything ill miss from the sonys?

Yeah sometimes you loose the handheld feel

I never said it wouldn't be more pleasing to me. I said I was doubtful it would solve the DR problem inherent in 8-bit equipment. It can be better for a lot of other reasons having nothing to do with DR! I've said this a lot but feel my statements have been taken out of context. If I could do it all over again I wouldn't have said or speculated about anything HDR since it just wasn't appropriate because some people are just getting into HDR and it dilutes the worth of what they're doing (which is the last thing I want to do). For that, I am sorry.

@Stab my personally preferred method of working with cinema 4k files is on a 1920x817 timeline for 2.35:1, that way I can take advantage of the extra width and downscale the footage by a little bit extra, 48% instead of the 50% downscale of regular UHD. Its not a huge difference of course, but does give me just a little extra room for recomposition when necessary.

You guys are killing me! You know, I want to be as liked as the next guy. When I first started this stuff years ago I got into a huge fight with someone on the Magic Lantern forum. I insisted each pixel captures a full color. I went on and on and on. Much like you guys are doing to me. I feel shame just thinking about it. In the end, I learned 2 things 1) What a CFA is and what de-mosaicing does and 2) Always consider the possibility I might be not just wrong, but horrendously, embarrassingly wrong. It's what we do after learning our errors that define us (hint, hint @IronFilm). Anyway, after the MF thing I try to be like the guy who educated me. He didn't give up on me and I'm glad he didn't....but it's hard.

Completely different cameras. Size and ergonomics completely different. I would go Canon C100mkII for sure. My favorite workhorse of a camera, low price, extremely capable in high ISO, incredible Dual Pixel AF - the only worthy of pro use, best size per performance codec ever (Canon voodoo here, for sure), deliverable picture almost immediately. Best size and weight for such a camera. If you care more for the extras @IronFilm mentioned, then C300, but then there are better options out there in that category (he named few, definitely more research to find out the best option as they vary in era, features, weight, ergonomics, ets), and with C300 you need a full rig for it, it isn't "plug n play" such as the C100. If you want more options for a dead low price, the aforementioned JVC LS300 is an extremely and unexpectedly capable camera. With all the modern bells and whistles (no worthy slow motion though, worst ergonomics than Canon, worst low light capabilities, C100mkII is a low light monster - do not forget), some innovation (prime zoom function, native m43 - S35 sensor!) and in the dead low price (new) was an Atomos recorder (I do not know if the offer still stands) capable of recording 4K/60f, so a camera still relevant for the near future. JVC does cameras since forever by the way, in 1978 (yep, when Super 8 film was still king) they did the first ever portable video system, and in 1984 they did the first all-in-one video camera ever (camera and recorder in one box)!

I've done further analysis and figured I would round the conversation out by sharing it. Here's some shots from the ARRI reel. His skin is very uniform in hue basically centred on the line in the vector scope, with the exception of his lips, which appear in the overall pic as being of a very limited saturation, but when isolated seem to show more range. Note that the skin tones are evenly distributed in saturation up to a certain point, beyond which they don't seem to go, however the red in the lips goes further into saturation than the skin tones. It's the same story for this lady, except that her skin tone has the majority of it on the pink side of the indicator line, and her lip colour is almost pointing directly at the Red calibration box. It's the same story for this gentleman, even including the hair in his moustache, with the exception that his lip colour isn't more saturated than his skin colour. Now, if we turn to Canon and their demo reel From Dock to Dish, which I thought was a reasonable comparison considering that it was the promo for the C200 camera, we get these graphs. These two fishermen both have skin-tones that are not only all on the red side of the indicator line, but there's even a healthy gap. It does look cold conditions so it makes sense they're a little flushed. This guy also has tiny gap between his skin-tones and the indicator line, and his lips were pointing at the Red calibration box. This lady is also all on the red side of the indicator line. So, it appears that ARRI tends to place their skin-tones either next to the line with some of the information on the yellow-side of the indicator line, or they go as far as centring the skin colours on that line (as in the case of the top example), and they're not afraid of going over the line assuming it's balanced (as in the case of the lady in the second example). Canon, however, placed the skin-tones so that all the information is to the red side of the indicator line, even including a small gap in examples where the hue distribution was less. So, ARRI are around and over the line, Canon are next to and perhaps a little distance from the line. In terms of hue variation, both ARRI and Canon show examples of a moderate a amount of hue variation, but ARRI also has examples of lower amounts of hue variation, and Canon showed examples of a greater range of hue variation than ARRI did. Both aimed their lip colour either at, or nearly at, the Red calibration box.

I give up. This thread started with two very long and nuanced articles about colour reproduction in demo reels. It's transitioned to a conversation that can be summed up by me saying "the ARRI skin tones all appear to be on the yellow-side of the acceptable range of skin tones" which you summarised as me saying "calling the Arri shots yellow" and they looked "off". Bonus points for managing to infer I'd never heard of a colourist, or insulting me based on the camera I own. Best of luck in your future endeavours - if you're like this to everyone new that you meet, you're going to need it.

Well I can tell you from living in the United States I know no one that looks like the bottom Canon grabs, unless they have a sunburn, and I know more than half of people that I know look like the people in the Arri shots, well at least in the winter time LoL. Maybe they are all from England, and that might be true. To be honest neither one of the screen grabs look right to me. Ergo Canon is not that bad, and Arri sure as hell is not that bad in real life shots..

Can still stop the lens down though

Got that lens. Will give it a go. Remember this stuff has limits... corners not sharp on certain shots for instance, but I'm just glad it works, gives full frame image in 10bit and rest is history. F0.75 with GH5S is some serious low light potential.

Maybe this ought to apply on this thread? https://nypost.com/video/fistfight-on-a-train-ends-in-a-man-hug/

Here is why you Don't want to shoot in HDR!! You will look like this. Just kidding Jon.

Honestly, I was trying my best to give you an open mind and not disagree with you, but if this is what you think, without even experiencing it in person, then I disagree with everything you've been saying. It's frustrating that you've already come to a conclusion without actually experiencing it. HDR is more nuanced. It's more detailed. It's more pleasing in every single regard, including color. If you can't see that in the iPhone photos, fine, but take my word for it - in person, the kind of saturation in the 2K BD is gross. As is the contrast. I'm sorry again, but you're just not speaking from a credible position here. If by saturation you mean there are fewer variations in color (IE the computer technical definition), sure, but it makes the image look like it was shot on an iPhone 4. I could easily make the HDR look just as sh*tty as the SDR version if I cranked up the saturation and fake contrast controls on the TV. Maybe I'll do that later to show you. This is literally the statement where you lost me completely. This is absolutely 100% unequivocally incorrect. SDR colors look like Crayola colors in comparison to the HDR version. I guess I disagree with your definition of "rich colors," entirely. Please, PLEASE stop any further disbelief in HDR until you do this kind of true comparison in person. Until then, I don't think you have credibility speaking on this subject.

We want to see pictures of Hot Women, not out of focus Weeds!

It's a superb grading format and similar to Canon LOG, with a wide colour gamut. Definitely good for more than just TV compatibility.

I think maybe you have been on Too many excursions LoL. Your focal is well, out of focus. There is no real definition, meaning of "focal excursion". As for a zoom you need a 70-200mm equivalent lens. Maybe a 70-300mm, but they don't make really good ones of those. Anything above a 300mm equivalent I don't recommend a Zoom, just a Prime, But there is a 100-400mm that people use. Hard to do handheld. But you get into haze, heat wave problems, too much compression with a lens that long. Now if you Really want a zoom lens I have had several Fujinon lenses like it. Not a 99, but couple of 70's. Now that 99 will end up being 1700mm, and with the 2x factor on a m4/3 it will be 3400mm, that ought to do it. https://www.ebay.com/itm/NEW-Fujinon-XA99X8-4BESM-T-8-4-832mm-f-1-7-4-2-2-3-EFP-Box-Lens-Finance-w-AC/281561037688?hash=item418e587b78:g:nk8AAOSwk5FUtCSy

Different experience here with PC, everything is smooth on my custom built computer. But again, as long as you are happy with your Mac, that's good. Yeah, nothing to do with "fan boy", I'm genuinely interested to understand why you prefer Mac. You made some valid points.

Everyone has different experiences. I really disliked the Mac interface when I tried it years ago. Windows gives me no problems.

For every blogger like you Andrew, there're 10 sponsored by Canon. Who's going to be louder? As I've said before (and you know too) Canon only works with those who're positive about them as much as possible. Here's a new example: In a completely unrelated site, someone was saying that the best camera for vlogging is a Canon 6D because some YouTuber recommended it. Turns out Canon has been sending 6Ds to high-profile YouTube vloggers to push the camera for that purpose. You can't deny marketing like that is effective.

Yes, that was one of the problems that put people off the camera, and the lower base ISO (and therefore NR) of the standard profile guided the conversation to modifying the standard profile to get further away. I've shot a bunch of things, but I'm not good enough at grading yet to be confident that any differences would be a result of the profiles and not me stuffing things up in post. I'm planning on watching a bunch of tutorials on how to grade C-Log over the weekend. My plan is to get good enough at grading C-Log so that I can duplicate the C-Log to Rec.709 preset, and also be able to duplicate various nice grades I find online. Then I can grade my C-Log footage with confidence, then grade my modified EOS Standard profile to match, and then I can compare the profiles.

Hello I am photographer for 30 years and have been working with a lot of cameras and lenses but why is everyone only looking at sharpness? Its like driving daily in a 400 pk horsepower Porsche on at your daily destination; but a Porsche has no comfort at all ! The Sigma Art lenses are flat and have no character ! And I know it because I worked with a lot of lenses; they are only sharp;' is that all where it is going about? having a 400 horsepower car at your daily traject ??

No need to be nasty..........