Leaderboard

There was no change in "highlights" to our log curves or otherwise. The previous manual dynamic range chart was incorrect, and was corrected. There is also no inherent "highlight rolloff" in digital cameras from the sensor. They are all (mostly) linear capture devices. Same with Alexa, Red, etc. When they all clip in linear, they all clip suddenly/harshly. All of them. "Highlight rolloff" is really about total dynamic range, how you expose, and curves (which you can manipulate yourself). Our log curves are optimized to store data in 10bit SDI and video files so the highlight roll off in our existing log curves is merely a function of optimising the dynamic range to fit in this data range with relation to the "native sensitivity" and desired ISO. The more dynamic range the sensor has the more highlights will roll off in the log curves, the same with Alexa/Red/etc. You want to use your own curves after in grading to create the roll off you want. Expose the sensor so middle grey is lower and leave more dynamic range in the highlights, and you can create a very nice gradual highlight rolloff in grading - with mostly any modern digital camera. But it's pretty much all down to total dynamic range, exposure, and curves.

Haha, I would say your more of an "internet celebrity" than I am I've been following your site for a very long time. Thanks for the great content. I did join to reply to some of the posts on this thread and answer some questions as they come up. I usually try to do this if I see my videos shared on sites. I might post a bit from time to time but I can't spend too much time on forums/groups since I already work way too much. Unlike a lot of photography/video YouTubers I still make a majority of my income from actual video work and I don't intent on become a "full-time YouTube" since I find it weird to teach about cameras when the only time you use them is to make a youtube video. I actually just hired another employee to take the load off of editing so I can get to shoot more and work a little less. Yea Youtube is horrible lately. They keep tweaking the algorithms and forcing channels to change or die. You may have noticed may channels that are around the million mark who used to consistently get hundreds of thousands of view per video and now they are getting less than I am. Google is pushing creators to have to clickbait and make dumb choices or find a new career. Thats especially tough for those that have employees that rely on the income to feed their families. A single tweak of the algorithm and a lot of your old great content is no longer suggested or you're clickthrough rate is low in the first hour you post and then the video is basically shadow banned.. I'm doing my very best to create thumbnails and titles that are "clickable" but not clickbait.. The original thumbnail for this video was the two cameras and I thought it was sweet but I guess it didn't get enough views and the video started dying out so I had to change it up, and the side by side shot was just too similar to stand out when in the suggested section so I had to boost it up. This video didn't take too long, but I've had some that were a full week of 8+ hour days to make and in those cases it really sucks when you make a really good helpful video and almost no one sees it, even though you know that it would be helpful for so many people. Now that YouTube filters out videos even in your subscriber feed you can put out a few videos and they won't even show up to most of your subscribers... Thanks for being Kind Kye! I wen't back and fourth on the best way to do this, and settled on somewhere in the middle (using factory presets) using proper custom white balance would be the best but I know a lot of shooters don't do this because they are beginners or they don't want to (or they are shooting run n gun, like I am when shooting weddings) If someone isn't willing to tweak colors in post they will likely not want to custom WB. It's funny I was actually criticized by multiple people on using WB presets and was told the proper way to do it was to use auto white balance. This forums is full of much more advanced shooters and whereas Youtube has a very wide audience so I often have to choose a middle ground. I'm sorry you feel this way. My tests, comparisons, and reviews are definitely not perfect but I do try hard to keep them accurate while being reasonable in time and target audience. I have my preferences but try to keep my biases out and let people know when its my opinion and why. What tests did you not like and what is Toxic? I'd love to get specific feedback. A lot of my complaints and harsh judgements about cameras have often matched to with Andrews. Actually I did share Pro Color with quite a few people and mentioned your site in multiple vids, I've just stayed way too busy the last few years growing my business and my family (3 kids now) so I haven't been able to spend as much time visiting sites or even watching as much other content creators videos as I used to. I'm also a bit anti-social like many people who are driven to start sites online of Youtube channels, and I'm terrible at reaching out and collaborating with other creators since I feel like I'll just be a nuisance or I'll be asking for favors which I hate doing. Anyways, I'll keep doing what I enjoy doing and will keep improving my skills and YT videos whilst trying to provide the most value I can to a large audience of all kinds of video shooters.

People are being way to harsh on you IMHO. I find a lot of your videos interesting and helpful. Make a youtube video takes a lot of work especially anything with thought behind it.

If you set the VSM to 100% then its just like putting a FF lens on any other APS-C sensor via a Speebooster so like an EF lens on an EOS-M etc.

Must of JVC's existing market is people buying 1" or much smaller camcorders, simply keeping on having S35 is already a big big leap forward for them. HOLY BLOODY CRAPPY-O ROONEY!!! Did Newsshooter of all places in the world just say that JVC never made a S35 4K camera??????????? Wow. Wow. Just WOW! If even Newsshooter (a site I highly respect, right up there with EOSHD.com!) is utterly clueless, then no wonder the great unwashed masses is up a shit creek without a paddle when it comes to being informed about JVC.

it's not my video, but I wanted to show, The GH5 is great after three years of launch , and basically has no direct competition! (usable colors, good dynamic range, great battery, excellent stabilization, 180fps, 4K 10bit internally, unlimited recording, no overheating , dual slot SD, articulating screen, great sound internal mic or DMW-XLR1E, and much more) no other run & shoot machine will give you that!

You're welcome! Video is tricky and colour and colour science is especially tricky because it's a very very deep subject. The main levels I see in colour are: Use camera on full-auto in standard colour profile, don't adjust in post Dial in a profile to get the results you want in-camera, maybe using a grey-card and maybe not Shoot log using a grey-card and grade in post using LUTs and basic adjustments Grade manually without relying on LUTs to do the work Professional colourists I also hang out on liftgammagain.com which is aimed at professional colourists and in many ways the gap in skill level and knowledge between 3 and 5 (or even 4 and 5) is larger than the gap between 1 and 3. If you're curious to have a tiny taste of what a professional colourist skill level might be like, check out Juan Melara on YT. It's a fundamentally different kind of skill level. Here's a couple of videos to get you started: In talking to the professional colourists I've come to understand that the world of Hollywood and the real pros has basically no overlap with the YT world - if all you know is YT then you've never seen a glimpse of how that other world works, with the only exception I know of being Juan Melara. I'm happy to point you to other resources where pros hang out if you're curious. In this sense I appreciate that you're torn between people that haven't got a clue how little they know and probably complain about anything resembling work, and those with more knowledge criticising you for not catering to a more informed audience.

It's a bit of a tough choice as the IBIS on XH1 is really practical for handheld 4K when shooting primes but XT3 just has so much more specs. I'd still probably go with XT3 as it doesn't crop in 4K, has much better RS.. and of course 10-bit, 4K60p etc..

I used to use Zoom H1's with Rode lav mics and had 3 and mic'd each speaker and if more than 3 people, swapped them around...and then synced/synched (how do you say spell that?) the audio to the video...but it was all a pain in the backside. I moved to the Rode Wireless Go system this year and that works well, except only one transmitter per receiver a pain. My current set up is: Sony 1 inch camcorder with WG and Rode lav mic in a central lectern for the celebrant/readers etc, set moderately wide taking in the scene for the full duration of ceremony and speeches/toasts. Fuji XT3 for tighter head shots of those speaking and with another WG system this time with Rode lav mic to groom. Splice and dice as required for the production. Ideally, I'd like to link up a mic to the WG on that central lectern that is not the WG transmitter itself (with it's tiny dead kitty) or a vertical/angle pointed small shotgun (Rode Micro Pro) but 'something else' that captures not only the person speaking at the lectern, but also the vows assuming the B&G/B&B/G&G are not standing behind it and maybe 8-10 feet away. I tried both of the above and as soon as anyone speaking is more than 4-6 feet away, outside especially, it's not great as you'd expect. Or I'm maybe overthinking it... I just like the idea of some vintage style static thing like the Shure Super 55 or similar to 'force' them to stand where ideally I'd like any/all speakers to remain that captures a bigger distance. Plus, I get quite a few multi-bestman speeches where I can't mic them both to the same WG as they are both speaking repeatedly in turn so forcing them into speaking into one single system would be great. The only issue with this is that so many venues like to set up a PA type system and I never like to record off that as anything but a backup as most folks don't know how to speak into a mic and sometimes do and sometimes don't so the audio is all over the place. Thought I'd ask as audio is not my strongest suite! Cheers in advance.

maybe it will fit the new JVC! A local shop that I have spend a dozen thousands of € the last few years have 2 P4K waiting at the moment..I do not need anything the P4K does, but it is so cheap..and I have the glass..and the NPF batteries..and the T5s...

Yes..... The problem with the LS300 is the ND filter wheel gets in the way when attaching anything with a tripod foot. With normal Speedboosters you have take to take it off to fit it which is no big deal but with the LensRegain there are electronics in theirs so you have to move them and tape them up. I did it and it works but I wouldn't recommend it. It'll be fine on the GH5 though. I would imagine you'd have no problem re-selling it for what you paid for it though.

Multiple options are our friend in this. I always use at least 2 and up to 4. Last job I had 2x OSMO pockets on stands with Rode Micros covering the sides. Both audio was awful however as I discovered the 3.5mm non-DJI adapters that had arrived the day prior but not had time to test, we're not actually compatible as the manufacturer claimed! Official DJI part still out of stock in my part of Europe.. I am currently trying to find...and not having much success, a list of non-lav mics that are compatible with the WG.

I hope they do keep the MFT mount as one aspect that seldom gets mentioned about the LS300 (although I'm going to do it again verbatim here ) is that if you want you can actually use an APS-C lens on a Speedbooster to make it faster and then use the VSM to crop back into it to counteract the vignetting. So, for example, I have a Tamron 16-300mm all purpose travel zoom that is a bit slow at f3.5-f5.6 but on a Speedbooster it becomes a far healthier f2.8-f4 and I set the VSM to 85% to take out the vignetting. Ditto for the Sigma ART 18-35mm f1.8 it becomes f1.2 and the VSM at 85% maintains its field of view as though it were on an APS-C camera.

I don't have a Naim Muso to compare to but I had a go at the Resolve keyboard at Broadcast Asia and the jog dial was smooth!

To take a step back, what the MFT proponents here want is an APS-C sensor they can adapt or speed boost. MFT and Sony E were the only two real mirrorless mounts up until recently, and Sony E was out because of patents. I don't think many people genuinely want MFT over, say, RF, L, or Z mounts if the legalities worked out and the corresponding adapters and speed boosters existed, which they don't--yet. I would personally love to see more companies join in with the L mount alliance. A standard mount across different brands would benefit consumers. Another option is if JVC made it EF mount, but had an optional focal reducer fitted inside the mount, like what Luca does for Blackmagic cameras. There would be a couple disappointed people who really wanted to use FD or other short flange vintage glass, but overall that's a good solution, since EF is still widely popular. JVC already makes fixed lens cameras, so they have the capability/partners to make their own focal reducer. And of course a FF sensor with EF is an option as well, if it doesn't balloon the cost. But hey, if Z Cam can make a $5k FF cinema camera, maybe JVC can? Just brainstorming any viable solutions that don't include MFT. But none of them are likely to happen, so MFT really is the most likely mount that JVC would choose to allow speed boosting an APS-C sensor.

The difference that you are looking at there is between a camera with a lens attached (top) and one without a lens attached (bottom). As per this product shot of the X1D .

I feel like this kind of flew under the radar, but BRAW is now Premiere compatible on Mac and Windows with the Autokroma plug-in. Shame Adobe haven't supported it natively for their subscribers and we have to pay extra for it. Booo Adobe, boo! https://autokroma.com/

It reconstructs data in clipped channels from non-clipped channels. i.e Will do nothing if all channels are clipped. And the reconstructed data is generally absent of colour information since it's not known what was missing in the clipped data, and just heads to the white point. I'm not sure what's available with the C200 rawlite files as I'm not in the Resolve team so my "inside" knowledge only surrounds our cameras and what we provide to the Resolve team (Blackmagic RAW is developed in the camera team). I do know for instance though the C300 mk2 raw output over SDI has white balance information "baked in", which means all 3 channels are clipped (to avoid non-white highlights) so highlight recovery would not be possible on such data.

Always good info from Captain Hook. An asset to this forum.

The Sigma has no OIS and also has less range 18-35 vs 18-55, its also a lot heavier and like twice the price, (not including an adapter).

Its 2.8 at 18mm and f4 at 55mm, compared to 18mm 1.8 and 35mm 1.8 on the sigma lens.

Thanks a lot for sharing the survey link. This is a great opportunity. I own a JVC LS-300 and I love it. A better quality camera of that type with a better screen and (very important) a simpler and more logical menu would be a great and unique C4K camera with XLR, BNC, internal ND filter... The association of a S35 sensor with M43 mount is an amazing feature, as I discovered that many M43 lenses are able (or almost able) to cover the S35 sensor size, widening everything... Voigtlander 17.5 mm, 25 mm and Panasonic 42.5 mm f/1.2 are among them And with a speedbooster and FX lenses, you get that "Full Frame" look on demand. No camera on the market are offering such a flexibility from S16 crop view at 120 fps ( I am using my vintage Cine Nikkor tiny lenses), M43 convenient compactness to FF look.

Yeah depends on what you need it for. RED's don't have great rolling shutter but are being used everywhere. The newer full frame cameras like the Z6 or A7III seem pretty decent. Faster processors should help though like you said. The G2 rolling shutter is super minimal, Alexa territory almost.

For me if it delivers RAW, S35, ND's, prores, 4K 60P in a more professional form factor its a win. Anything more like full frame or 4k 120fps or 300fps is all icing on the cake, not a requirement though. If the price goes about $4000 than my interest starts to be lost, especially when you are competing against say the URSA G2 and BRAW or even the Pocket 4k at $1300. You could have two pocket 4k's for $2600, thats hard to beat.

Max doesn’t even come close to Tony and Fro. While I agree perhaps the tests were flawed and not scientific enough for this audience I wouldn’t use that same brush on all of Max’s videos. I find his hardware tests focused around video editing helpful and a timesaver. I would also say the system is horribly broken if Max has to alter facts to get clicks. I also share Andrew’s distaste for YouTubes influencer bullshit that goes on, like claiming impartiality when they receive free gear for “good words” (see Matti Haapojas “Most Underated camera of 2019” video; hint the answer is in the title. We aren’t even half way through 2019 yet) But they are just riding the wave before it comes crashing down and they are out a job when YouTube cancels their channel or people get tired of navigating the bullshit.

You're probably right, but there's no harm in being welcoming. If we can influence any of them to do tests with a grey-card then instead of lamenting the decline of industry journalism we can enjoy videos that are useful and informative, but that's probably not going to happen if all we do is unconstructive hyperbolic criticisms.

I'd agree with that. A7 III ripped a hole in the full frame market pricing and we see a race to the bottom, but Fuji is doing something far more interesting with insane value for money APS-C cameras that simulate the look of film. The 18-55mm OIS works incredibly well, it's as good at run & gun (great AF, par focal) as it is at cinema.

Hi Max, welcome to the forums! Things here can be harsh, but it's more that people are passionate about their perspectives rather than just being nasty, so I hope you can get past the initial impressions and stick around. You'll never question if people are being honest with you, and people do spend a lot of time agreeing and helping each other too, and nasty people are invited to leave, so it's not toxic like most other forums, IMHO. I've really enjoyed your videos and you're definitely one of the most thorough reviewers with tech performance and the like, so thanks for your work, it's been both entertaining and informative. In terms of how you did the camera tests, I agree with a straight-out-of-the-box test. It's useful to see what the manufacturer has suggested and what many people will use. I think the second most worthwhile test is to set exposure and WB with a grey-card. In a way the out-of-the-box test is for people that don't know or care, and the grey card is for people that do. The third (and most difficult) test is to try and tweak profiles to get a good result, and that's the one fraught with peril, because it's going to come down to taste unless you get objective about it, perhaps placing skintones at a given IRE, etc, but if done well it's probably a 40 minute video exploring all combinations across many scenarios with a comprehensive analysis and recommendations component. This audience would have preferred a grey-card style test, as perhaps the majority of people that post here are either professional film-makers of some kind and the rest of us are ultra-serious amateurs (like myself). This forum also has a bit of an issue with what the YT algorithm does to creatives - heavily pushing you guys into low-quality disposable first-to-publish click-bait industry-shill type content designed to help brands sell cameras to bros who need to be told they need a "FF sensor" "fast glass" for awesome "bokeh" great "colour science" awesome "codec" and "ND filters" and a gimbal and "buy my LUT the link is in the description" to make "cinematic" videos, and insert more meaningless buzzwords here. (and never mind that cinema was glorious for decades without any of these...). I realise that you have resisted these pressures more than many others, which is to your credit and why I'm still a subscriber. [Edit: I think your hardware performance videos are excellent and have been well received on here in the past, it's just that this video was a bit subjective and click-bait-ey so that's why it got the negative reaction. Talking about colour science is a difficult topic and one that this forum is pretty sensitive to because the vast majority of YTers don't know anything about colour science beyond buying a LUT and the results they produce are so terrible that the only conclusions that we can draw is that that particular person didn't bring out the best of that camera, and we have to wait for someone who knows what they're doing to show the potential of the equipment. So you hit a nerve basically...] Keep up the good work and I hope you stick around

I have to say Jon came off as very aggressive. Not that he didn't often have goods points and I don't think was a bad guy. After all we are just talking about cameras here, I don't think anyone really needs to be labeled a good or bad person, this isn't war! I think people have a tendency to just go with the flow. So when someone like Andrew goes against the tide and starts calling people out he might be perceived as a jerk rather than someone simply saying what he actually thinks.

I find this test to be very poor ! Testing skin tones in a forest with green reflexion everywhere, or in backlit situations... Nevertheless I think Max is being honest. I’m puzzled by the permanent suspicion toward people. Regarding his supposed Sony bias, he used to shoot with two gh5. He made a very positive review about the X-T3 and the blackmagic pocket 4K as well. And he’s in his own right to shoot with Sony like many pros do. He won’t be switching cameras between every video and the workflow that comes with it. He settled on Sonys (which I’m not even sure). Caleb shoots on the GH5s, Matti on Canon... Everytime you say something nice about a camera, you are biased. I have every camera brand, I just did a review (mostly positive but fair) of the bmpcc4k and it didn’t miss. You always get the « he works for blackmagic » comment... If only. It’s ridiculous. Max tests are always questionned. But I always come to the same conclusion with his sharpness, low light and autofocus tests. Sometimes his tests lack details but it’s almost impossible to cover it all. I remember all the suspicion his gh5 vs a6500 AF test raised. It wad insane. People couldn’t accept the simple fact that the GH5 has a terrible autofocus and Sony PDAF is way ahead. Canon being the best. Give the guy a break, his last video is not his best but his tests have been very useful for a lot of people and take a lot of time to do. There are way worst youtubers out there !

Wow really harsh words... The test is not perfect, but I'm not sure what test would be. When planning for this video I had a lot of thought on how to do it, but settled on this method since it has the least user input. As you know, both the Fuji and Sony can be tweaked like crazy inside of camera, and of course in post but I chose to mess with the cameras the least. I'm not sure why you say the results are unstated or unknown. I explained the profiles, settings, and why I used them at the start. Of course the with a few presses the results would change, that why I tried not to do customize things so we can see the cameras colors instead of my tweaks. This is not a perfect test, but I did try to make it a fair one. I shot different exposures to get them to best match up since you can't just get the same exposure by matching settings. The first 4 tests are right out of the camera just like you would grab and shoot (other than setting the correct WB preset). The next 6 where using a flatter subdued profile. Sony is terrible with their profiles but PP6 is fairly popular and is what I use most often. It also reminds me a bit of Eterna which is also popular. With both I usually add contrast and saturation (for my taste) but for this test I wanted to keep Eterna at the default and only boosted PP6 to match up with Eterna or else the Sony would be really really flat. I think the contrast and saturation was matched up quite well, some colors pop more on the Sony and others on Fuji but the point is to compare colors and each camera has its own profiles. I could have used more profiles or added LOG, but then I don't think the results would be as accurate since LOG really depends on how you grade and the video would be really long and most people would end up not doing the test for themselves which is the point. Yes the thumbnail was exaggerated. Unfortunately unlike having your own site on YT we are at the Marits of the algorithm and if the thumbnail is flat then your videos dies with 5K views instead of 50-100K. None of the tests were touched. If they would you would think I being so called "Sony biased" would make the Sony look better LOL, but I'm not in that game. Like I said at the end I prefer the fuji colors and they are definitely ahead if you're not going to do color correction/grading in post. Surprisingly a majority of people preferred the Sony look. I am not a Fuji hater, I have reviewed them really highly. Saying things like "If the fuji is too green... You know what to do" makes it seem like you're Fuji biased. The Sony's can be tweaked too and you have guides for that (which I purchased) thank you btw. Whats funny is if you see my comparisons where I say Fuji is better I am called a Fuji loved and biased. Same thing goes for the Sony videos, the Panasonic videos, and back in the day when I was praising the NX1 (which I still own 3 of btw) I was told that I'm really biased against Canon, Sony, and Panasonic for praising the AF and Colors of the NX1. Sure I have my biases as we all do (to not admit it means your a liar) but typically they are preferences and I try to point those out and why I have them, and if you watch my comparison i'll often point out the flaws of Sony and areas where other brands really excel. Anyways, if you would be willing to do a similar color science test I would absolutely love to see it, and if you have constructive criticism on how I could improve in future versions of this video (say a Sony vs Canon video) I would love to hear and implement it.

They both look terrible - more indicative of the users failure to expose, WB and grade + poor profile choice than the inherent 'colour science' of Sony vs Fuji

It is a completely different look, am sure is not at all what the director wanted the mood of the film to feel like.

I was looking at that thread with a lot of interest, as I do cut our show on a Mac with FCPX. However, to test I stuck the card back in the GFX 100, and the footage played back with the crushed blacks in camera, and on an external monitor. I'm not too concerned, it's very common for pre-production cameras to have issues like these. I'll update when I get a production unit shortly.

First proper video I've shot on the GFX 100: Didn't have much to knock this together, but the camera did a pretty respectable job, especially as the last two shots are at 2000 ISO. The whole video was shot in Eterna. Unfortunately, the DR+ profile did not seem to be functioning properly, so blacks were quite crushed in the captured footage, unlike what I was seeing in my histogram and external monitor. I'm optimistic that this will be fixed when we get production cameras.

Even that depends.. If you're shooting a long-form without access to huge HDD space then 1080p acquisition might be the best way to go, with some of the smart upscaling algorithms to get it to 4K delivery. Slow-motion is normally forced at 1080p on affordable cameras, but even if it wasn't the file sizes might be prohibitive for some. Then in terms of delivery, YouTube compresses the absolute life out of video so you're better off "delivering" in 4K even if you didn't shoot in 4K. However, if you're delivering straight to the client then a higher quality 1080p might be preferable to a lower quality 4K, for macro-blocking in shadows or other compression artefacts. Shooting 4K for 1080 delivery has many benefits, but it's not a one-size-fits-all option.

Yes but most of the video centric versions ditch IBIS.. GH5S(No IBIS) S1H(No IBIS) etc... Certainly no professional cinema cameras have IBIS. For me I see IBIS as great for stills... horrible for video; it can sometimes warp the image and ruin the shot. This is understandable as the sensor is also correcting for yaw and pitch. If IBIS only corrected for X Y axises. I believe this would not be such a problem. I feel ultimately, EIS, as seen on the Osmo Action and GoPro... but with better quality, will be the future for cinema. And with large sensors like this, it would be very feasible.

I would hate to cage this beast. For me this camera would be mainly for stills. Even though from what I've seen it can produce a lovely image for video also. It would be great to see more footage from this camera. This is, imo, one of the most tempting cameras of late. It's more of a "nice to have" than a "must have" for me... though I am very tempted.

Despite what I'm going to say below, if I had to choose between the two cameras here I'd go for X-T3 and put it on some kind of mount to lock it onto my body for stabilisation. Blanket statements like that annoy me. It 100% depends on how you make your money. There are people with more money than I will ever have making YouTube videos and they sure as hell love IBIS and AF. I work in TV and the few shots I've used that have been shot with IBIS (GX80 as a C cam) have had a lot of praise from 'Knowledgeable people scrutinising it'. Even when matching it to an FS5/LS300 on sticks. Would I use it as an A-cam? No way, but the IBIS allowed me to get a shot I would have struggled with if I tried to use the other cameras. It's a very valuable tool, just like the microphones, lenses and lights you pack.

The floaty image-stabilized look has come to define this level of filmmaking. I would like to build out a proper shoulder rig with some weight to get a higher-production value look with unstabilized primes and the x-t3.

Still people find a reason to complain Unbelievable.