Leaderboard

There isn't any 25MP MFT sensor leak or Information of any kind. Usually there is some kind of Sony product paper out there. So my guess was it could be manufactured by Canon. Why? It's most probably BSI and it has a form of DGO of some derivative. Unless Canon isn't manufacturing their own BSI sensors? Is the sensor in the R3 a Canon manufactured sensor or Sony (there were rumors they were perhaps having Sony do the fab)? On Semi doesn't have any 4/3 sensors listed on their product page. I doubt they are the provider. That leaves Samsung as a possibility. I feel like the A7SIII was hyped to the max but it honestly performs pretty badly between its native ISOs. Kinda weak codec mushy stuff as well. Side by side against the GH6 it looks like crap as far as useable detail. GH6 has the detail without being over-sharp looking. Honestly, the image looks pretty damn good. I wish it had better AF because it would be on my shortlist.

S1 (so S5 and S1H) gives me incredible low light quality. Never had FPN but never underexpose by 5 stops in lowlight. 🙂 I underexposed a good deal and recovery from the Long Gop codec was spectacular to me. Still, the GH6 looks extremely tempting to me. What I also love is to have the mode dial at the right hand where the shutter button / record button is located. Whereas for my S1 I have to reacht left for the mode dial. My little GX85 has it on the right side and it just feels right there for a hybrid. 4K 50p 10bit 422 Long Gop and All-I on the GH6 with juicy bitrates are very tempting indeed. ISO 6400 give more detail than the GH5s as shown in Jordands comparison with the SH1. If I was in the position to buy a system camera for video I would go for the GH6. Actually I would wait a bit to see the footage coming out of it. If the digital edgy sharpness of the GH5 is gone it would be a no brainer for me if buying a new camera. I just don´t buy new cameras usually though.:) Kye in a BTS shot is quiet a sight.:) @kye

Cameras are starting to get Prores, and opinions range from "prores is irrelevant" and "prores is old" to "this is the best thing ever!". So which is right? Actually, both. Why Prores is irrelevant... Prores isn't better quality than h264 or h265. Here's a test I did. I took an 8K RAW clip from RED Helium and put it on a 4K timeline and exported it as uncompressed from Resolve, then took that 4K uncompressed and using FFmpeg (which is much better than Resolves export quality) and created 4K versions of the clip in Prores HQ, 10-bit h264 IPB, 10-bit h264 ALL-I, 10-bit h265 IPB, 10-bit h265 ALL-I, all matching the same bitrates. The results were that all the h264/5 files and the ProresHQ looked basically identical to the original - even at 300% magnification. Here's the original 8K RAW on 4K timeline (at 300%): and here's one of the h26x files (remember they all look the same): So, 10-bit h26x is as good as Prores HQ - case closed right? No. To be technically correct, the statement is "10-bit h26x is as good a codec as Prores HQ at the same bitrate". Why Prores is spectacular... The bitrate of Prores HQ in 4K is just over 700Mbps. Not a lot of cameras with that bitrate option!! Most are more like 100Mbps. Well, here's what that looks like: Ummm.... where did the detail go? Prores benefit number one... guaranteed high bitrates. But that's using FFmpeg to take as much processing time as it likes, what about when it's being done in-camera? Well, using FFmpeg to convert a 1080p uncompressed reference file to Prores HQ happened at 53fps and 10-bit h264 IPB was at 7.2fps. That's over 7x more computation to create a file of equivalent bitrate. Do cameras differ in h264 quality? Absolutely. I suspect that computation load is a factor here. If a manufacturer is compromising on quality for lowering processing requirements in-camera then the results will be worse than the 100Mbps result above. Prores benefit number two... lower processing power required, potentially meaning less temptation to compromise quality. But the codec / bitrate isn't the only thing that impacts the image - processing also matters. Specifically, NR and sharpening. This is where things get difficult to compare because not many cameras have both - typically cameras are either RAW/Prores or h264/5. However, when you choose a codec you are also choosing the processing, because cameras mostly don't give full control for sharpening and NR on all profiles. It will be interesting to see the GH6 profiles and how they compare, but mostly Prores are aware that the huge file sizes aren't for consumers and so will configure Prores to have less processing. Prores potential benefit number one... lower sharpening and NR applied in-camera. What about RAW? RAW is great. The semi-compressed RAW formats make shooting RAW wonderfully flexible, giving the benefits of RAW without being forced to spend more on media than on your camera, but once-again, RAW isn't directly comparable. ProresRAW and B-RAW mostly require an external recorder, making your camera larger, requiring extra cables and rigging, requiring additional batteries and chargers, and introducing more points of failure in your setup. Some cameras have internal RAW, some even offer compressed internal RAW, but what if those cameras don't suit your requirements or shooting style? Prores potential benefit number two... in-camera with no extra equipment or hassles. RAW is typically a 1:1 pixel readout. This means that you either shoot using the full sensor resolution or shoot with a crop. Shooting with the full sensor resolution means that you'll need compressed RAW or you'll have large file sizes (like the Sigma FP), and also that your computer may have to bear the burden of decompressing / debayering / downscaling a file with higher resolution than your timeline, which is something worth considering as I know a number of people who put all their money into cameras and lenses and are struggling with older computers to edit their work on. This will become more and more significant as sensor resolutions gradually creep up past 6K, 8K and beyond. Why not crop? Well, goodbye wide-angle lenses, and hello to an extra step on set where you have to apply the sensor crop factor and your resolution crop factor to the lens focal length every time you want to change lenses on set. If you have time on set and good systems and lots of support then that's fine, but mistakes are inevitable and the less complicated things are the less likely they are to be made. Prores potential benefit number three... in-camera downsampling. So there we are. Prores is an old irrelevant codec superceded by h264 and then by h265, but when its implemented in a camera the implications are potentially quite significant for many people, depending on what and how you shoot.

I do... but I'm not about to jump around saying that it's a critical feature for everyone. I think it's about shooting in available-light. I currently own a GH5 and have f0.95 primes to get as much light into the camera as possible, but it's a stretch. I shoot auto-ISO so I don't know the exact values, but I can tell you that I've pulled the camera up to my eye in a low-light situation and as I've adjusted the aperture from F2.8 (which it might have been during the day) to f095 I see the image go from looking like the worst colour science in the world to looking lovely with rich colours and a nice contrast. Here's a few previously posted frame grabs that show the lighting conditions. This was maybe 50m or more from the banks of the river and the only lighting was the lighting from the shore: and a BTS of that shot, taken with a smartphone camera: Another: I find that essentially the GH5 sees slightly better in low-light than I do when paired with an f0.95 lens, so it is an equivalence to human vision. Unfortunately, getting lenses that are still sharp at f0.95 is very rare, and also you have no head-room for seeing anything that is hard to see with the naked eye. There's still heaps of noise in those images though: IIRC this was shot with the 4K 150Mbps LongGOP codec on the GH5 in HLG, so there's already likely to be NR applied in-camera and also some detail loss from the 150Mbps codec too, so in reality it was noisier than this. I might have even applied my own NR in post on this image already, I can't recall. So, it's unlikely to be at baseISO here, which means that the image could have been better with better low-light. Once again, I'm not claiming that everyone needs amazing low-light, but I certainly use it and will benefit from the improvements in the GH6 over the GH5.

A key point that I feel is worth mentioning here is that you can't expect a LUT to grade your film for you. What I mean by this is that you should be adjusting the image before putting it through the LUT (grading "under" the LUT) and potentially adjusting the overall levels after the LUT too, for more overall adjustments. Grading under the LUT is simply adjusting the images exposure, WB, contrast, and other attributes, which is the same as adjusting the lighting ratios on set, the exposure of the camera and WB of the scene while shooting on film. If you don't like the amount of contrast in a LUT, lower the contrast after you apply the LUT and adjust to taste prior to the LUT. If you want a stronger look then increase the contrast before the LUT and lower it afterwards and you'll get a more pronounced look, or do the opposite. These are creative tools, not one-click grading machines 🙂

Yeah, and if you lift them 5 stops you get green lines for free! Sorry, couldn’t resist! 😆

The f/4 was a nice lens, although I haven't used it in a long time. Sadly, a lot of these lenses are becoming more and more disposable with every passing year, and other than a few gems, from the golden days, a lot are often interchangeable, or indistinguishable, on a modern camera... especially on video at higher resolutions. I understand why people consistently build Zeiss or Leica sets. If I knew then what I know now, I would probably build a small set of Contax Zeiss or Nikkors and be done with it. With that said, there really are some gems from every manufacturer and I find myself using single primes more than building sets of lenses because I'm rarely straying from a specific focal range.

Thanks for taking the time to post your edit. However, what I'm trying to achieved here is based on empirical research, rather than memory or imagination. What I mean by that is that instead of creating a look based on how I feel, imagine or remember film should look, I am creating a look by generating data on how film does look under specific circumstances. For this specific LUT the circumstances are: Portra 400 exposed at +1 (for cleaner shadows) Scanned on a Noritsu minilab scanner (which introduces its own colour magic) However, contrast can be variable as there isn't a contrast level that can be considered inherent to a negative, without regard concerns about how it's reproduced (printed on photographic paper of varying contrast levels, or digitised at varying contrast levels) Let me show how this looks in practice: My question, for now, in this thread is something like "what specific contrast level is appropriate or desirable in a video editing workflow". I've mentioned how the Noritsu's default contrast level looks OK for photos but seems far too contrasty for video. My first version of the LUT is at contrast level -4 in the scanner's settings. Here's a version that's at -7. Have a go on any V-Log footage and let me know what you think. I think this might be it. Highlight and shadow info is retained but it still has a usably contrasty look. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1eL65p0Frx5MZFqbVLi41N5S7fXDqN-xU/view?usp=sharing Firstly this is what we're aiming to emulate. A colour target shot at +1 on Portra 400 and scanned so that middle grey = middle grey: Next, here's the same chart normally exposed on a GH5 in V-Log: Let's add Panasonic's colour conversion and match the contrast. It's way off: Now let's use the colour from my LUT. A very close match: It's hard to judge these sequentially. But if you open them in new tabs and switch back and forth it's like night and day. And on real footage the colours from the Portra emulation are so much prettier, as you might expect the colour of one of the most highly regarded colour negative films to be, in comparison to Panasonic's default colour conversion (which admittedly is a bit botched on the GH5). So I have the colour part down, I feel, and I can use the same technique to emulate any film that I can get my hands on, and at various exposure levels. But I'm still in the process of figuring out how much contrast is "correct" for video while still staying true to the characteristics of the film stock. What do you guys think about this lower contrast version? I think it might be almost there 🙂

The audio is very clean and easy to use. The way it records 4 tracks is perfect for the way I set up. For my last shoot I set my on camera shotgun mic to XLR input one, my wireless lav receiver to input 2, set track 1 and track 3 to manual control, and track 2 and track 4 to automatic level control. The auto control was about 6dB lower than I would have liked and my manual tracks never clipped so I used them instead.

Cannot wait to try mine! C-mount adapter still traveling across the world though. Thinking about getting the 22mm pancake for shuttertherapy. Reminds me of the good old days when I read with exitement about the GF1 on Steve Huffs blog, which was my internet leisure time spot No 1 back then. I can feel some of that old exitement with the outlook on using this little beauty soon! Fujinon 12.5mm and here we go. EOS M and Angie 75mm on a light photo tripod (baddie even covers S35 with soft vignettes) and we are set for ultimate nerdom camera pleasures! Gotta get a kewl hat like Zeek🙂

Just released my short film Felix' Summer Box. Please enjoy, and let me know your thoughts.

@PannySVHS I read somewhere that early on Canon were much pickier about which lenses got the 'L' designation and there are a number of non-L lenses that would have been given the L status if released decades later. In that sense it's really down to reading the reviews and looking at sample images.

I watched the gaffer and gear review a few times. Normally with a projection mount he says if it's any good for product and fine detail work or not. There's currently a promotion running but it ends soon. So my question, is it also good for fine detail work? Is there a difference quality wise when paired with 60 or 150? Other thoughts? Has anybody had there hands on the Jinbei EF-ZF3? How does it compare to others?

Thanks @PannySVHS, I'm looking forward to it 🙂 As mentioned, the colour hues won't be as accurate (skintones may be too green perhaps?) but the contrast level will be the same. And with this lower contrast version I think that the extra highlight detail in the S cameras should be preserved and not clipped. In the meantime, and for those on mobile where it's hard to open tabs, here's a GIF that shows the colour conversion involved from Panasonic's V709 colour to a Kodak colour palette. It's dithered but the colour remains: A few things to note here are how the hue and luminance of various colours are altered in comparison to the default colour: - Skin becomes lighter and less magenta - Skies become more azure and darker - Some foliage becomes darker and less "electric" (Fuji 400H is the king of green foliage, IMO) - Reds are brighter and warmer - Yellows are bright and clear

I can relate to that pretty well, Glenn. In six and a half years I have not built a set nor have I really thought about it. 🙂 Lenses are a hobby and recreational pleasures as well to me as being tools for my short films and corporate videos. So I am buying and trying them (ideally) and selling them if not satisfied (ideally:). I still have an used set of Tevidons of 10, 16, 25, 35, 50, 18- 90, 15- 150 which is as good as brandnew. Also have some doubles and roughed up 70ies. I was only able to rig the 35mm to my S1 in S35 mode. So trying out lenses to me is not as profane sometimes as it should be. I just bought a Carl Zeiss Jena 135mm Sonnar F3.5, which is supposed to be a beautiful image taker, as many 135s are indeed. My sample has a spot of fungus in it. So that cools the passion to test it down a bigger deal. The 35- 105 I put on ebay the same day I received because of the faulty focus. Still it is very relaxing to play with cameras and lenses it is a great pleasure. It gives me so much joy and good spirits. But my "collection" of lenses is pretty chaotic. 🙂

I can somewhat relate that people burn out in their field, or get extremely tired of some personalities that basically live of making or breaking products and false advertising because they get paid by x or y brand. Social media has become extremely toxic, Youtube included. People are literally living to insult/diss/make other people feel bad. I work in a segment where there are not too many Youtubers (compared to camera gear) but there are millions of instagram accounts. Sometimes people ask us for insider info (which we contractually cannot share), and they start harassing us, telling all their followers to unfollow and insult us etc... but you can be sure, if that guy would be in front of me, he wouldn't even dare to open his mouth, but being online gives people a sense of being untouchable

Thank you very much, just by comparing the two charts one can recognize so much! Great work! @hyalinejim Will try it out on my S1 footage.

I can make a jpeg look identical to 14 bit raw, but "visual" quality is not the point of raw. Lift shadows 3 or 4 stops and then compare again.

Mechanically it is rather unthrilling. I also have the beautiful Canon FD 35-70 F4 because off your advice. It has a rattling lens element but still manages to focus and perform flawlessly. The 35-105 feels even more plasticy than the 35-70. Both have the classy classic FD look, creamy but with nice resolving power for motion picture images, nice contrast and great colour. Ergonomically and size wise they are both perfect in handy. Focus through on the 35- 105 is very long though. Unfortunately not only the 35- 70 but also the 35- 105 suffer from dissolved rubber material of the bearings after a period of time. Handling wise it would be much more comfortable than the impressive mechanical marvel which the Konica 35- 100 F2.8 is. The Konica is as varifocal as it was constructed to be. The focus plane changes by a huge amount when focal length changes. So a slight change in focal lenght has a much more effect on the focus plan than on the Canon. The Konica does not seem like a run and gun lens. Testing the handling before a filmshoot is highly recommended.

The korg nanoKontrol2 has turned up, had it for a few days now. i have watched a few youtube vids, got it working in resolve watched a few more youtube vids now have it integrated with windows. I now have the korg nanokontrol sliders setting the levels of the master volume and inside of windows media player and edge youtube volume levels. Initially i was using a little midi tray thing called ntTray which i quite liked. The file size was a whole 370kb. A tiny little thing, not sure if it was me and how i installed it or something else as it fell over pretty easy. Next program i found was called midi mixer a larger 84 meg. Still it seems more stable so far. I'm only scratching the surface controlling three sliders at the moment. still the korg has been a pretty handy addition towards an increased user experience. Another nice feature in midi mixer is on screen display, so the moment i touch a slider the program that has that slider as its focus and its level is momentarily displayed in the top left corner of the moniter, very cool. I do like having a proper fader for the volume rather than grabbing a mouse and having to click on something, So far a nice user experience improvement.

In my experience it doesn’t, I’ve shot a lot of low light shots with 2 stops under, never saw anything like that. But I don’t want to argue, if you can see it, maybe it’s there, if I can’t see it, I’m a happy S5 user….

That's a great lens. It's rumored that Canon was so impressed by it that it had been considered to receive the L moniker.

I did shoot some cityscape video over the last couple of christmas seasons on the S1 and the 12,800 footage looked surprisingly good. Of course, I haven't had time to edit any of it in to anything coherent. But I get your point. It's a lot less common to shoot at ISO 6400 or above.

Awesome! I was obsessed with the Andromeda hack a few years ago. I member offered me one with PM iirc, but never answered my questions who it was from oringinally. 720p 3ccd 10bit uncompressed 10bit to a mac with a stabilized pana-leica zoom lens. Yeah, DPing shorts and longer pieces even on a no budget level is a rough thing to do artistically.:)

Here is another free GUI app to view Y Cb Cr: https://www.gimp.org/ Use the drop down menu COLORS / COMPONENT / EXTRACT COMPONENT, and then there is another drop down menu to select the type of component to view, including Y, Cb, Cr. Alternately there is also COLORS / COMPONENT / DECOMPOSE. Must admit I am finding it difficult to see any loss of red details or color blurring comparing my X-T3 to my Canon T2i. But so far I've shot indoor subjects only. No wonder it took 4 years to notice!

Sorry guys, I really don't get you. Where are all these problems on low light? I'm not an influencer nor an ambassador so I can only watch other people's GH6 reviews but I shot with Lumix camera underwater in though conditions since GH1. Among the countless GH6 reviews I've been watching, this has real world examples and compares GH6 directly with Sony A7SIII. So ATM it's the only review I found which shows different camera clips side by side. BTW this guy tests and uses a bunch of gear but basically he is a Sony A7 guys. Well, by his own admission, GH6 images are way better under most conditions. While images sucks for both cameras at 6400 already, GH6 surrenders to A7SIII at ISO 12800. Repeat with me: I - S - O 1 - 2 - 8 - 0 - 0 my question is: who shoot at ISO 12800? Hereafter some bookmarks for GH6 Vs A7SIII: 9:05 onwards GH6 resolution is better. 15:20 onwards ISO test. GH6 wins hands down up to ISO 6400. 27:00 onwards DR test. Again GH6 is better. Other facts: AF sucks but it's usable under some conditions. IBIS is the best out there. probably the best cheap anamorphic camera of all time. Tons of terrific ergonomic features for video users (as all the other GH camera) So when I read so many rants about it, what I'm missing?

The user manual for the OM-1 is available now - https://cs.olympus-imaging.jp/en/support/imsg/digicamera/download/manual/om/man_om1_e.pdf

I found a couple of black & white projects that I shot awhile back. Here is a noir trailer that was made to raise funds for a feature (sorry it's tiny SD): Here are some random (and highly compressed) clips from a black and white short cut to music:

I don't know if this has been posted before, but this review is very important from a user's perspective (IMHO). Also, he tests a lot of things, especially in comparison to many previous M43 cameras, and also the A1 (for autofocus).

Yeah, I haven't tested out a lot, but in general I have found at higher ISOs with VLOG (above the 4,000 second gain stage) it is just better to crank the ISO then underexpose and try to push it in post.

Why invest in poor people which is always risky? Invest in their picture 😂

Thank you so much, mercer / Glenn! It's an honour that you follow my work, and thanks a lot for the nice words! 🙂 Yes, I agree, the 5D is very special. Both for film as for photos, very filmic! As for the feature, it will indeed have a bit the vibes of the hitman film. It's quite ambigious, also including detailed 3D scenes, so hopefully all will work out 🙂 If you use Instagram, you can follow me on zerolandscape. I haven't updated the feature stuff yet, but will probably do so in the future. Thanks for the positivity and talk to you soon, Glenn!

Thank you for sharing it! Well, you're obviously very talented, so using an Alexa is the natural progression in my opinion. On this site, we often discuss the 4K+ world we live in, but after shooting on my 5D3 for the past 5 years, I don't know a camera, other than an Alexa or a Red that could quench my thirst for pure image quality. Good luck with your feature. If your Hitman film is any indication, I'm sure it will be excellent. Please keep us updated on the progress of your feature! glenn

FD 35mm f/2 concave, with a Fujifilm X-S10, full pic and center crop. I guess I could call it a sharp lens (and looks like that Fuji peaking works very well)

That's beautiful.

Thank you so much, mercer! That is really great to hear! 🙂 Actually, I purchased a Alexa XT for a feature I am going to make. I still love the 5D and its capabilities. The ease of changing iso, low light, very light camera. It's wonderful, also for macro. The Alexa is way more heavier, and needs a lot of light. Beautiful image, but so is the 5D. Most likely, I will use them both in the future 🙂 Cheers

Beautiful film. I still shoot with my 5Diii and Magic Lantern Raw and I'm so happy to see I am not the only one! I'm a big fan of your work.

Darn. Bought a Canon FD 35 to 105m F3.5. Lens is very light and tiny compared to the Konica 35-100 2.8, even compared to my Soligor 35-70 f2.5-3.5 it is tiny. It feels and is very plasticy. My sample unfortunately does not focus beyond 9feet when at 35mm. At 105mm it misses infinty and focuses up to around 30m, 100feet when at f11. My adapter is top notch but lens is not alligned. So i will resell it.