Leaderboard

yes, but the discussions here are, way more civil when we disagree on things... (I have yet to receive death threats on this forum)...

The Canon L 20-35 F3.5 should be a hell of a lens by your account. It´s one I have had my eyes on for a while. @kye The 35-105 could have been a dream zoom lens for a full frame video camera. But the plasticy quality but foremost the problem with the bearings keep me from trying another one. Maybe I should keep my sample to start practicing some lens doctoring. But I think I am to nervous for stuff like that.:)

ISO 12,800 gives you the opportunity to shoot at higher f-stops in lowlight, which was traditionally impossible without a lot of artificial light. But anyways the GH6 looks like a solid low light performer and just a good all around performer.

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

not sure if anyone gives a shit, but since there's a new MFT camera out, i thought this could be useful for some people. a little 1 minute field of view comparison test from the same camera position using some of the nicest cine lenses for the money, the meikes, with only available light: excuse my lack of acting abilities and general laziness, but i think they look nice, and they match really well.

It could be a Fairchild sensor.

I guess it's official in Europe. OMDS is no longer accepting pre-orders for the OM-1 due to high demand. It's funny because some people thought it wasn't worth the price tag, but the evidence shows otherwise.

I've had my eyes on this lens as well. Since it's closer in age to my FD 50mm 1.2 L, I thought it could be a good carry around lens to match.

I'm starting to get used to no IBIS, I don't trust the digital stabilization at all, I feel it could burn in some warping or artifacts that I can't get rid of later, so instead I just shoot handheld while trying even harder to keep it steady then I rely on DR's stabilization in post. I do have new respect for DR's stabilization, it is pretty amazing actually and the nice thing about it is you can always just turn it off or try a different type if the one you pick warps the footage.

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! 😆

Low light is always one of those things people complain about even though it's one of the easiest things to work around. I've never had problems with the GH5 even in concert venues and filming pro-wrestling.

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?

Octopus Cinema Camera actually posted yesterday about a side project they're working on using their software with the Raspberry Pi camera. https://www.instagram.com/p/CaaLmwyKNhO/

This was posted already, but this is the Vimeo version, which looks better to me on screens larger than a phone. I really think this thing is a winner. I do wish it either had that home run feature like internal nd's, or near top of class autofocus, but all in all Panasonic has done an amazing job with this camera.

Here's a lovely little piece with vintage cine lenses and some very nice colour:

I think this is closer to a photochemical look.