Leaderboard

Now I haven't watched the review itself, but aren't we being a bit harsh here? I find this a useful - if basic - demonstration of the DR and a quick and dirty grade. It's an ugly shot, sure. It's not a Hollywood level production, but if I'm being honest this is the kind of shot I end up with in my edits frequently, and the kind of shot you want to know you can salvage something 'usable'. Not spectacular or perfect, but usable, and in that case this is a good demonstration. If you're expecting world-class images from both a technical and artistic standpoint then go see Dune in the cinema or watch any number of big-budget movies. This is a low/no budget camera review. As a content maker myself I can see what he was trying to do, and it was adequate in my view. I don't like this attitude of piling on on somebody for one shot that you personally might have done different. Or perhaps all of our work is beyond reproach with every shot a masterpiece?

The more I use the GX85, the more I like it. I've taken it out with the 12-35/2.8 a couple of times now, including a street festival on the weekend where I got a bunch of shots of a friends kids running around non-stop, and the camera and lens kept up, even at F2.8 the whole time. Some beach visit sample images from the 12-35mm F2.8 (probably wide open).. and the festival outing, also 12-35mm f2.8 wide open, but this includes some shots using the 2X zoom mode too.. and a couple from an outing with the Cosmicar 12.5mm F1.9 wide open (and cropping into the image)... The 12-35mm images are almost SOOC using the Natural profile (I hadn't put Cine-D on yet), just with some slight tweaks in post, but the Cosmicar ones above have been graded under a Kodak 250D / 2393 emulation process, which did surprisingly little to the colour actually. The more I use the 12-35mm the more I appreciate a zoom lens for just getting shot after shot in fast situations, which is pretty much the key to having lots of options in the edit and keeping an edit fresh with lots of different types and compositions of shots. I'd really like a longer lens as I got quite a few shots at 35mm with the 2X engaged, so I'm contemplating the 12-60mm F2.8-4 which seems to be a good match from the reviews I've seen. Curious to hear others thoughts on this. I found the Cosmicar a little challenging to work with as I composed for the screen and was then surprised in post with how much crop I needed to apply, so had a few shots where I was chopping peoples heads off etc. I've ordered a cheap 28mm F2.8 m42 lens to go with my m42 speed booster, which will give a 43mm FOV, which is a little tighter than the 12.5mm Cosmicar which gives about a 35mm FOV once you crop into the image circle. I'll have to see how I go with it. I'll need a 22mm lens on the SB to give a 35mm FOV and those aren't super common in m42 mount! The alternative is my 17.5mm Voigtlander which is 38mm on the GX85 but isn't exactly vintage, so I'd have to look more seriously into filters to get similar flare characteristics (which is the part I love about vintage lenses). The stabilisation is really good, and in combination with the 12-35 is just spectacular, and my regular camera is a GH5 so I'm guessing I'm not easily impressed. It really makes me feel like shooting. Great stuff!

Some really beautiful footage here from the R3. Will be interesting to see how Nikon's own raw files will compare. Thoughts on the camera by the guy who shot the video: No, this camera will not replace any dedicated video camera. The lack of proper video assist tools like built in ND, no false colour, waveform etc means that you do need to carry extra accessories to make it work. I also found the IBIS on this camera to be disappointing. Even inputting the correct focal length in IBIS resulted in shaky footage. You also can't use zebras and focus peaking at the same time which resulted in me missing focus for the last shot :(. This is still a hybrid camera with stills in mind. Quick test in 1080 also show extremely soft images. I would not recommend shooting 1080 in this camera at all unless it's for simple jobs or for fun. That being said, the 6k on this is... beautiful. My computer can't handle the 6k at all but the final file is gorgeous. I do find the shadows to be much noisier than my C70. Dynamic range is very pleasing and it's quite hard to completely blow out highlights unless you make a mistake or are in extreme situations (like the shot in the bus). The Canon FD primes worked wonders softening the digital edge on the sensor giving it a much more organic look. Files are detailed and rich. The raw is also very capable of making drastic white balance changes without destroying the image. Very happy with the results albeit was a pain for storage and editing.

Check out this Music Video i shot on the FX3. The Camera is a massive upgrade to the A7iii. In Postproduction it was pretty easy to improve the lighting due to the 10 bit and it was finally possible to shot nice summer wether with Sony. But then you upload it to Youtube and the compression messes it all up... Check it out! Looking forward to your feedback! Of course it would really help the artist if you would comment or like on youtube.

great write ups, kye. thanks! my dream lens is a zoom lens. just not sayin which one at the moment, just lemme check ebay again:) would love a 2x or 3x s16 lens for my bmmcc cuby. anyone?

I had a C300 II for a while and I think it made a good image in 2k 10 bit. It was always a frustrating limitation that 4k and 2k 4444 are limited to 30 fps. The raw output is over SDI and limited to 4k 30p. You can now do prores raw to a Ninja V Pro (SDI module) but this is pretty bulky solution and still no slow motion recording. I would go for a C200 over either of those cameras though if you're interested in 60p. You get the 4k 60p 10bit Canon Raw Lite which I found had less artifacts than the X-AVC of the C300 II. A quick transcode to prores and you have a really capable camera system. One downside of both the C300 II and 200 was noise in the shadows especially with C-log2. Canon fixed that with the DGO sensor, so it may ultimately be worth just getting a C70. You also get the flexibility of the RF mount which is a huge bonus. I didn't ever use the 1DX II so can't compare. I think the images look decent if you're happy with shooting on a DSLR.

Real world experience is fine but you'll go nowhere without solid theory.

I used the C300 MKII for a feature recently. It's a really nice camera. We didn't use AF so I can't comment on that. An advantage to it is you can shoot BRAW from an external recorder. The internal 2k is nice. My complaint about it is in high contrast situations you can get a sensor artifact which causes vertical lines to appear across the screen. I was disappointed with this as I like to shoot high contrast stuff. You just have to watch out for it. I've only used the 1DX MK2 once. Its a nice camera but I'd be hard pressed to go with a camera that doesn't have LOG. The colors are great though as well as the auto focus. Definitely still a solid option.

The Panasonic GX85 with the 12-60 f/2.8-4 is a wonderful combination, both for photography and video. I've had the combo since they both came out and have yet to be disappointed by the results.

Its not a lens that many people (including myself) have regretted buying. Best to consider it as a constant f4 though, partially for convenience of exposure, but also because it doesn't stay f2.8 for long in the zoom range. Very convenient all rounder but would I have bought it if I had the 12-35mm f2.8 ? Maybe not for me personally as the 24-70mm equivalent range is ideal for me and if I want to go beyond 70mm then I would prefer to go a bit beyond the 120mm equivalent and have a faster option too. So I would be looking at something like the Olympus 75mm f1.8 to supplement the 12-35mm and also benefit from the constant and faster apertue versus the 12-60mm. If you're shooting in a situation where you can't spare the time to change lenses though then, as I say, the 12-60mm is not something you'll regret having in that role.

Now now, he's a camera reviewer who reviews cameras for making camera reviews, you have to keep a hold of your expectations! These are the same people that keep making endless "how to get cinematic images" videos but for some unfathomable reason keep talking about new cameras and higher resolutions when the people who actually make cinema have basically been using the same cameras for a decade.

Looks great, but looks just like Magic Lantern on the 5D, only with a higher resolution / less cinematic image. You could downscale, but it's a small bump for a large price increase. IIRC my new GX85 gives you zebras, focus peaking and waveform at the same time. For $600, which includes two lenses. and it's not a dedicated video camera either. LOL. Canon.

It's Canada in late November. I'm not sure what you're expecting from that shot... I suppose he could've made it look unrealistic? I'd be more critical of his shot choice than his grading of Alberta when everything is gray and muted.

While I'm no fan of the Sigma 18-35, it can be (with careful consideration) the basis for a nice look. I'd suggest: Diffusion filters (as others have suggested) but be aware there are lots of them and all have different looks so that's worth doing some research into - most brands will provide comparisons of their various products so you can narrow down and then look at real-world reviews Some of the characteristics of vintage lenses can be added in post, including: Softening of the edges (use a mask like a vignette but use a blur effect - experiment with different types of blurs here too - radial vs pinch(?) vs "lens" vs directional blurs etc Chromatic aberrations can be added, either to the whole frame or to the edges using a mask Vintage lenses often vignette Vintage lenses often have pincushion distortion - where objects on the edges get curved like a slight fish-eye effect - this can often be introduced with a "lens correction" slider which are common You can even put an oval shape over the front of the lens which will make your bokeh oval-shaped (at least when you have the lens wide-open) but bear in mind it will lower the light coming through the lens and depend DoF slightly With the BM S16 cameras they tend to be on the softer side due to 1080p sensors and lock of sharpening so having a tack-sharp lens isn't a bad thing per-se, it's just on the bland side. It used to make me mad too, but now I realise that it's all a scam. They say the biggest lies are the most successful and I think it's true here too. Have a look at this: and I don't mean "see how large the budget is" - I mean go shot by shot, pause each one, and actually look at the image. If I can take a small liberty for educational purposes, have a look at the frame at 14s, it includes the main star of the whole movie looking like this: and then imagine what DXOMark would say if they tested this lens: This single frame reveals the truth about the cinematic look: The video is uploaded in 2K - because the film is projected in 2K in cinemas The frame has edges that are blurry, even in 2K (see above snippets) The frame has significant pincushion distortion (look at the "straight" lines on the edges of frame) It has quite deep DoF It has spectacular colour Checkmate YouTubers! Of course, I say that sarcastically because the reality is that they've checkmated all of us years ago when they started talking about sharp lenses and 4K and we didn't just laugh and skip the video and watched something remotely sensible instead. I mean, that single frame is so optically poor from a technical perspective that most forum nerds would recommend throwing that lens away, and yet it was used in a key scene in a $250M movie that has grossed $700M+ worldwide. Turns out we didn't need MORE pixels, we needed BETTER pixels. The proof was in the movie theatre the whole time and we never called their bluff. Or even been to a movie theatre in the last 30 years..... Why? The DoF is a function of focal length, so if I take my 12-35/2.8 lens, set it to 12mm f2.8 and focus on an object it will have a different DoF than if I set it to 35mm f2.8 and focus on the same object from the same camera position. DoF is variable, even with constant aperture zoom lenses. In fact, it's probably less variable on a variable aperture zoom. You said you don't really zoom while filming, so constant exposure isn't really an issue from that point of view. If you've zoomed and want to match exposure then just adjust your ND - you've adjusted your composition already so a twist of an ND isn't a big deal. If you're shooting with variable apertures and matching exposure with ISO and wanting to match the noise profile then just get familiar with NR - most cinema cameras have noise (even at their native ISOs) that would make any videographer CRY. Professional colourists know about NR and how to use it, and it will be used on almost every professional movie or TV show you have ever seen. Videographers complain about noise in their images and it just shows they literally don't know the first thing about high-end productions (and I mean first thing, because NR is usually the first node of a professional colourists workflow). Not sure what specific post you're referring to, but most kit lenses are ~24-70, most secondary zooms are 70-200, and most systems have a 16-35 equivalent. The numbers all look different between brands and mounts etc, but they mostly boil down to those ranges. I'd say from just that statement alone you're doing far better than most forum peeps, because: You seem to know what kind of shooter you are You seem to actually shoot (armchair critics aren't a fan of the 12-32mm lens) You seem to understand how the equipment you have relates to what your requirements are ("nice and portable" isn't a think armchair critics who don't shoot say) Sadly, this makes you far ahead of the curve. Most of camera internet discussions are about specs, with people recommending you change what and how you shoot in order to match the latest equipment rather than the other way around, and TBH mostly it's just the blind leading the stupid, or these days the shills leading the gullible to part with their money!

First light, and thought I'd go old-school: I've managed to set it up relatively similarly to my GH5, which is awesome. Two questions: Is there any way to set the shutter button to record video instead of take a still while in C mode? I've set the rear dial to be exposure compensation, which only works while not recording - any way around this? Initial impressions are actually pretty awesome. Obviously it's not a GH5, but it still feels very capable, and the IBIS is quite impressive. A couple of 4K frame grabs from the Cosmicar (wide open): and flaring: Obviously I'll have to crop into the image a bit in post, but totally fine for a 1080p timeline (and would be fine for a 4K timeline too - just add a touch of sharpening). ......and then the Helios with Speedbooster: Screen grabs (also wide open): Flaring:

I like fresnels, they are in my opinion the most flexible type of lighting. However, if you want soft light, an LED panel will usually be more quiet and softer. You can do some nice bounce lighting with fresnels which are impossible with LED panels. Pointing it at a white ceiling or white wall basically produces a light source anywhere, even if it's rather far away. Fresnels are also much better at making hard light. For learning how light properly and to be able to experiment with light, nothing really beats a fresnel light. Conclusion: fresnels are a lot of fun

So I received the Panasonic 45-150 (newer version) and I can say it's better than the Olympus 40-150 f/4-5.6 if you were wondering. It's better built, comes with a lens hood and has IS... for only 10 grams more... also about the same price on the used market. I have a Sears 70-210 FF lens (Cosina crap maybe?)... it's good for Lomography or "who cares" type shots, but well built. I much prefer the more modern results.

Got back from my trip and the GX85 had arrived! (In fact, it was delivered about 45 minutes after I left, but all good). To greet it, all the trendy MFT gear had a welcome party, including: GH5 GF3 OG BMPCC BMMCC 7.5mm F2 12-35mm F2 12.5mm F1.9 14mm F2.5 14-42mm kit zoom (not really trendy, but came as the BMPCCs +1) 15mm F8 (also not really trendy, but came as the BMPCCs +1) 17.5mm F0.95 42.5mm F0.95 Helios 58mm F2 on M42 0.71x Speedbooster An honourable mention that also couldn't attend is the 28mm F2.8 m42 lens I've just ordered as it's still in the UK, but I'm hoping that combined with the M42 SB it will make a great compliment to the Helios. The FD70-210mm F4 got drunk early, fell over and rolled away - lucky it's tough as nails! All audio equipment declined, being too finicky and claiming it didn't want to be seen with any "vintage" equipment. It mumbled something disdainful about poor quality but all I heard was "8-track". So many great combinations here, but the most notable ones are: Standard travel kit: GH5 + 7.5mm + 17.5mm + 42.5mm (FF - 15mm/35mm/85mm) Combined with the 1080p 10-bit 24fps and 60fps modes and the 2x digital zoom function, this setup can work pretty quickly and in almost any environment (two days ago I was shooting wide open in a cave in torchlight) Low-fi pocket setup: GF3 + 14mm (FF - 28mm) The only video mode is "auto everything" and so it features very short shutters (which stabilises wonderfully in post), softer image quality (which looks very cinematic!), nicer colours that it has any right to have, and with AFS it's easy to use and was, at one time, the fastest (mirrorless?) AF available. It's also shooting with a single prime, so comes with all the artistic integrity that that brings. Most anticipated setup: GX85 + 12.5mm + 28mm/SB + 58mm/SB (FF - 28mm/43mm/90mm) Small and not attention-seeking, but a stabilised set of fast vintage primes with nice 4K which can be cropped into in post if required. It's a very appealing thought to be able to look through the viewfinder and be recording gorgeous, dare I say "cinematic" images, but just look like a happy-snapping touristy dorky-dad. I should buy a sling bag to keep the lenses in and to sell the whole tourist thing. Minimalist "nice" setup: GX85 + 7.5mm + 12-35mm (FF - 17mm/26-77mm) Small and not attention-seeking, the 12-35 will be very fast to work with and can get almost every shot, and the 7.5mm can get those grand wides when required. Setup will also be very small, with just GX85 + 12-35mm + wrist-strap, and only 7.5mm lens and a couple of spare batteries in the pockets. Very streamlined! Potentially I could put my Tiffen BPM 1/8 on the end as well and get a bit of flaring in there too! Thinking of camera and lens combos makes me much more excited that it really should 🙂

It depends on your needs or the shot requirements or yet your post processing : ) That is, if resolution plays any role... Otherwise, I'd keep a C300 MKII for motion picture work as preferred option route anyway.

excellent, also looks like more natural skin tones with less saturated look than clog1:

Clog 3 definitely have better highlight, the left was ooc and right is tweak in lumetri (r5 clog3), on clog 1 that highlight is lost forever