Leaderboard

Depends on what you prefer, zooms or primes? If you're looking to get the best stabilization you'll probably want to stick with Panasonic lenses, though I prefer Olympus lenses myself (even though I only own 1.) The 12-35mm f2.8 and the 35-100mm f2.8 are both decent. Their Olympus counterparts are better, but you lose dual IS with them. They're not that different, they just feel better built, are a bit sharper, and have the manual focus clutch. I own the 7-14mm f2.8 since the Panasonic equivalent is only an f4. It is such a nice, premium feeling lens. But I own 2 of the 12-35mm and 1 of the 35-100mm Panasonic and I'm happy with them. For primes the 25mm f1.7 is a great value, the 42.5mm f1.7 is an excellent portrait/interview lens, and the 15mm f1.7 is also excellent. I have almost all the primes myself, but those are arguably the best bang for your buck as far as Panny is concerned. They have some really nice f1.2 and 1.4 but they're quite pricey. I've heard great things about the Sigma primes too.

I wonder how many of these ProRes commentators work in a professional environment? Although it is better for grading than more compressed H2 or Long GOP codecs, ProRes isn’t really about image quality. It’s down to workflow. It’s substantially much, much smoother to work with compared to other codecs. Especially in FCP. This is invaluable when there’s a business to run as efficiently as possible. If you can shoot ProRes and you’re running a business - you should. Because it’s “old”, doesn’t make it worse. Look at the Arri Alexa. I’ve found XAVC-I and other infra-frame codecs to be close in performance and also great for professional workflows. Just not quite as smooth as ProRes, but very close. H2’s and Long GOP’s are quite smooth on M1 Macs, but not perfect. Fine for a lot of smaller projects and saving space.

The kind folks at CineD report (from their testing) that the two base ISOs for the GH6 are 250 and 2000. The difference between those values is, conveniently (i.e. no fractions), 3-stops (250>500>1000>2000). So I would think the easiest field practice would be to dial in one's exposure settings at ISO 250, slap on a 3-stop ND, and up the ISO to 2000 to put the camera in wide dynamic range mode. No math worries there. 🙂 Of course, a camera using Panasonic's own organic sensor with its reported built-in voltage-controlled variable-ND that maybe-will automatically-compensate the internal-ND for ISO-changes to maintain-EV-settings would be super...but >cough< they decided not to put that sensor in this camera. 😉 Maybe they're planning something "truly big" for the Lumix 30th anniversary in 2031?! Ha!

Hi, Just wanted to share my latest work which I produced and directed; a music video for Kygo ft. DNCE (Joe Jonas). It’s shot on Arri Mini + Arri Mini LF with Kowa anamorphic glass. I’ve been on this forum since I bought my (now retired) GH4 8 years ago. Thought some of you might find it interesting ☺️

What about the 4K120fps that everyone needs so badly lately for “cinematic“ b-roll? And the 5.7K so you can too be a real YouTuber and influencer as well as be able to be lazy with your composition? I kid, I kid! 😁

In the daytime, outdoors you really don't need to change ND settings very often unless you are in a forest coming to the beach! And with high end Cine cameras and ENG cameras you have had to Always fuss with NDs. They are the best thing that ever happened. You Have to have them to maintain a constant shutter speed, ergo shutter angle. Changing aperture all over the place is not very desirable in video.

Canon have great image processing imo. Among the best h26x compression. The image always remains organic, not over sharpened or denoised. The 10-bit h26x files from R3/R5/R6 are really nice and the chunky 410mbps XF-AVC on R5C/C70 even better. Of course they also do internal RAW which is fantastic. ProRes is really that intermediate codec between RAW & h26x. Other than being a pro standard with consistent flavours, its true that historical benefit was always the low-compression intraframe encoding allowing excellent scrubbing for editing. 10-bit h265 for example is a complete no-go on intel Macs. Not really an issue with +M1 silicon anymore. But still, it's nice to know that ProRes will run perfectly smooth on any editing machine, even quite dated ones. But on pure IQ level, nothing beats RAW and now with internal 12-bit compressed RAW like BRAW or Canon Raw Light, which have very efficient bitrates it's the way to go in-cam if you want max flexibility and IQ. Getting back to GH6, Cined best describes the difference: So, you actually have a nice choice here: ProRes HQ preserves the “raw” sensor image in a better way leaving all options for postprocessing but is a tad noisier, whereas H265 is very efficient in storage space and gives good DR values out of the box without the need for much postprocessing. But looking at the noise floor in the waveform plot it seems that it also has a lot more noise processing going on internally which cannot be turned “OFF”.

It's all about the quality of the isolation. it can be tough to get, say, a clean skintone isolation even with a really strong codec at times. If the colour data is thin you either end up with areas of skin that just won't key, or parts of the background that just wont separate. I've had to just abandon secondaries at times. Totally agree about Canon. They seem to have some compression fairy dust. The C200 8-bit was remarkable.

I think what people miss out here is secondary grading isolation, which also benefits from a rich data environment. I don't consider this specialised at all. Its a part of a well-rounded grading workflow. I don't end up using it for every single project, but if anybody is not using secondaries at all, well... they probably should be in my opinion.

Yeah ENG lens servos are pretty unbelievable to use and you can set the speed to slow or fast on them so the harder you push the faster they go and vice versa. Super smooth operation once you get used to using them. I usually used a 12x or 15x, but we had up to 20x ones for the sports guys. I meant to say Power IOS lenses versus the older Mega IOS lenses. I used the later 14-140mm Power IOS and the 12-60mm Power IOS on my GH5. You could try and shake the camera and it would still seem to be locked on the subject, it was just amazing how well they worked together, and the GH6 is supposed to be even better!

Yes, that was the one. I don't think I would notice ANY difference between the all-i internal codecs and prores external unless I was keying, which i freaking HATE to do (I mean, I hate even trying to light a green screen so you can imagine what I am like at 4:00am trying to key around hair, but then again, I am using the 150Mbps 10-bit 4:2:2 Long GOP from the S1 or S5).

DO NOT EVER THROW AWAY A WELL REGARDED LENS WITH GOOD GLASS IN IT!!! Seriously, I'm on the VLFV Facebook group and there are people constantly on the lookout for vintage lenses to re-house, and if it's a classic zoom then that may include those models too. Even if the front element is scrap there's probably another copy somewhere else where the rear element is scrap and together they'd made a great finished lens. These things aren't being made any more and are only going to get rarer. As the price of Leica R and CZ sets go through the roof people are talking about other lens lines more and more, eventually they'll get around to EF and zooms I'd imagine. Cool test - thanks for posting. If acting ability was critical for lens tests then I'd be sitting at my desk looking worried and compulsively drinking coffee too!! Especially considering that it looked like espresso shots with every sip being a bottoms-up situation!

The GH5 is relatively unique in that it offers a good selection of ALL-I codecs, which I use and are just wonderful in post. I guess other cameras would benefit from this though, as not many other models/manufacturers seem to have this included. Interestingly, I thought for the test I would encode and re-encode each codec over and over again until one of them started breaking down, but I setup ffmpeg to do that on a 1080p version (to save processing time) and after 8 generations on h264 IPB at the same bitrate as Prores HQ I had to pause because the file looked the same. At first I thought that ffmpeg was being too clever for me and just copying the stream instead of re-encoding it, but when I zoomed in crazily (something like 800%) there were subtle differences. So really, all else being equal and when given enough bitrate, they all do a great job, so it's really the other factors that I highlighted in my post that are the deciding factors. I suspect you are talking about this video? This is probably the part you're referring to? I found it hard to tell TBH, even with it moving, but that is a comparison between Prores on the Shogun, which is either HQ at 700Mbps or Prores 422 at 471Mbps vs the GH5 codec which is 400Mbps, so there's not much difference in the bitrate there. The 400Mbps is on the high side compared to most cameras bitrates, and with the GH6 in 5.7K they'd be looking at 1500Mbps or 1000Mbps, which are significantly more again, so the bitrates really are pretty serious. TBH, there's a point in diminishing returns with bitrate, not just because of accuracy vs bitrate, but also that if you multiply the resolution and bitrate by 9x (1920 x 3 is 5.7K) you're not increasing the size of the screen that the viewer will view the image on, so actually, once there is sufficient bitrate to render the screen to a certain optical quality it doesn't really require much more if you increase the resolution on the same display, or at least, it doesn't need to increase by a factor of 9. Of course, if you're doing green-screen or other hard-edged keying, cropping in post, stabilising significantly, compositing and other VFX operations then that's a different story, but those are specialist applications and not general ones.

I don't have any experience with those power zoom lenses, but one feature that I think would be of huge benefit from them is the ability to hold down the zoom rocker just a bit and do a smooth zoom during a shot. The more serious MFT lenses are nice, but I'm not sure that the manual zoom ring is damped and smooth enough to really pull off a flawless zoom during a shot, certainly my second-hand 12-35mm and kit 14-42mm zooms aren't. That was a thing that those ENG lenses were really good at weren't they? Definitely agree there. In terms of firmware updates, do we even know when the camera will be shipping? I haven't seen anything about it so am curious. No point having firmware updates if no-one has the camera!! I'll be curious to see what the math is like for shooting at, say, f0.95 in bright sun, at ISO2000 for high DR mode, and what that equates to in an exposure time. I did note that they improved the shortest shutter time of the camera, so maybe that is why. Not much good having a camera that can't expose properly in aperture priority mode while wide open at noon - that would be seriously embarrassing I'd imagine! In terms of ISO2000 compared to 800 (wasn't 800 the native ISO for Vlog on the GH5?) isn't it only slightly more than a stop more exposed? If so, you only need to add a single-stop of ND to your setup and it's the same. Or am I missing something?

I will be the first to admit that it does seem to be just about everything other than really reliable AF everything a person really needs. With all the super-fast cheaper lenses out now even the DOF low light thing is off the table. I still wish they would set in stone what and when the firmware updates are coming. They did a good job on it no doubt, but I think they had to do it to be honest. If you can't shoot decent video with this camera you need to give it up.

Just what I DIDN'T need to hear: another reason to buy a GH6 😬 Hopefully, Panasonic NEVER makes the continuous AF reliable 🤞

Something I forgot to add was the latest Power Zoom lenses are just killer on OIS with the GH5 and I am sure for the GH6. You really don't even need a Monopod to get great stuff, it works that good handheld. It is the best on the market. Scary steady.

Good point. Also, good on Panasonic for allowing the ability to punch in while recording. Really wish my S1 and S5 had that ability.

The main advantages of ProRes over H.264 and H.265 are smoother playback and better facility for bouncing down to further generations. Its designed to work really well in a post production environment, which it does superbly in my experience. Its no surprise at all that the codecs look similar at the same data rates, in fact it is H.265 that you would expect to look the best as it is the most efficient encoder. Of course H.264 looks good at reasonable data rates. If it didn't it wouldn't have been utilised as an acquisition codec by just about every manufacturer under the sun at some point. The point is that IPB codecs are horrendous in a post environment. People are excited by ProRes 422HQ in the GH6 because, unlike the other two codecs, it is *guaranteed* to have high data rates (1.9 Gbps is what they are saying), and it will fit straight into our post workflows.

I think it was the combination of the screen and the fan. I'm super happy with it as it's not too much larger and it's not larger from the front, which is what matters from the perspective of shooting in public and not gathering too much attention. By the time you put a lens on a camera, then depth of it is huge so a few extra mm isn't a big deal. My suggestion is to start with how and where you shoot and work backwards. For events you'll probably be valuing flexibility over other performance, so you're probably talking about zooms. Then the question comes of how much you care about having a long zoom range vs having a faster aperture. At one extreme you've got the 12-35mm F2.8 which is the fastest but shortest zoom, then things like the 12-60mm F2.8-4, then all the way to 12-100mm F4 and even the 12-200mm F3.5-6.3. I don't shoot events but my understanding is that mostly there is decent light, and many here have commented that the longer zooms work best because you're always just a zoom adjustment away from the shot. Especially with the improved low-light from the GH6.

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.

I think with the prices of the FD 20-35 3.5 L for about the same or maybe less, can get the later EF 20-35 2.8 L and while I am a fan of FD L lenses in particular, and I am not a huge fan of zooms, there is just something about the old EF 20-35 2.8 L that i hang onto mine (the alternative is throw it in the trash since it is very battered and the MF/AF switch cover is gone and I use a piece of coloured electrical tape in its place).

Obviously this conversation was born from the GH6 release and its inclusion of ProRes. Well, I think it's quite simple. If you have no plans to use ProRes, there is no real need to upgrade from a GH5.

This. The main concrete benefit of ProRes is that it's standard. There are a couple defined flavors, and everyone from the camera manufacturers, to the producers, to the software engineers, know exactly what they are working with. Standards are almost always not the best way to do something, but they are the best way to make sure it works. "My custom Linux machine boots in 0.64 seconds, so much faster than Windows! Unfortunately it doesn't have USB drivers so it can only be used with a custom keyboard and mouse I built in my garage" is fairly analogous to the ProRes vs. H.265 debate. As has been pointed out, on a technical level 10 bit 422 H.264 All-I is essentially interchangeable with ProRes. Both are DCT compression methods, and H.264 can be tuned with as many custom options as you like, including setting a custom transform matrix. H.265 expands it by allowing different size blocks, but that's something you can turn off in encoder settings. However, given a camera or piece of software, you have no idea what settings they are actually choosing. Compounding that, many manufacturers use higher NR and more sharpening for H.264 than ProRes, not for a technical reason, but based on consumer convention. Obviously once you add IPB, it's a completely different comparison, no longer about comparing codecs so much as comparing philosophies. Speed vs. size. As far as decode speed, it's largely down to hardware choices and, VERY importantly, software implementation. Good luck editing H.264 in Premiere no matter your hardware. Resolve is much better, if you have the right GPU. But if you are transcoding with ffmpeg, H.265 is considering faster to decode than ProRes with nVidia hardware acceleration. But this goes back to the first paragraph--when we talk about differences in software implementation, it is better to just know the exact details from one word: "ProRes"

But I will add with the advent of Run N Gun, or in layman's terms just walking around for a long time filming changing NDs would look pretty goofy compared to changing aperture. Using variable NDs sort of only works when you are setting up a shot and then you stop to set up another when conditions change. It looks pretty lame to see a filter wheel turning during a shot! 😬 I still usually shoot in very short bursts then relocate. Lots of editing that way lol.

I did consider that but didn't think that you'd be doing anything as radical as a green screen or background replacement etc. What kinds of secondary adjustments would you really notice a poor quality codec? Genuinely curious. It all depends on what you're doing and the application of the format. Really this thread is relevant for people who aren't really sure of why Prores is a good feature, and often they're satisfied with h264 or h265 because they're "better", but if you're going to be doing work where you're really seeing the differences between these codecs then you're not the one who needs convincing! Sadly, lots of people start with the position that 'newer is better' and 'more is better' without actually applying those statements to the entire pipeline, to the implications on set or in post. I'd say that the quality of the encoder is probably more relevant in this case. As an example, the C100 provided an image that compared favourably to other cameras with double the bitrate, so obviously Canon had really made the encoder work hard and really get a good result. Cheap cameras can produce horrific results with heaps of bitrate. The difference that 8-generations of compression made was far far smaller than the difference between a C100 image and most other cameras, even those downsampling 1080p from a 4K sensor, so that's why I didn't consider it to be particularly relevant. I'm super happy the GH6 has prores and think it's one of the (many) great upgrades over the GH5, so I'm definitely with you on this one!

That's not good enough for me. An 8-bit file from the same camera will generally 'look the same' (absent any banding) as a 10-bit file from the same source. That doesn't mean its going to perform as well in post.

I'm not sure what it is on the GH5. On the S1 / S5, V-LOG native ISO is 640. But your point is well made. It is technically only a stop and 1/3rd (or 2/3rds) more. Normally I shoot with a three-stop ND filter on the S5 during the daytime, but I am usually shooting at around f/8 to f/11. So I think mostly for my shooting I would end up around f/4 on m43. So maybe around five or six stops of ND would be what I am used to.

True. I have been thinking about selling all my Sony aps-c gear and my Panasonic S1 and getting the GH6 (and use my S5 on a gimbal for real estate because I am often shooting at ISO 4,000). I have an Oly E-M1 MK II for fun, so it would be nice to have lenses that could work well on the GH6 and the E-M1 MK II. The DR of the GH6 in DR Boost mode is going to be more or less the same as the S5 / S1 when shooting 4K 60p (since it shoots it in a crop at 4K 60p) Just the thought of shooting at ISO 2,000 and all the ND filters is kind of an annoyance. Wishing they had internal NDs

Yeah that was a misread on my part. I'm looking for the EF L version. Samples on Flickr look really nice and seem to have a similarity to my FD 50mm 1.2 L.

I saw a video a while back comparing the all-i codecs on the GH5 with prores recorded on a Ninja and it seemed like the prores was better at avoiding macroblocking in motion. So I guess in theory it allows better keying in post. I thought the video was by Andy Dax, but apparently it was by another group of filmmakers (in Norway)? I can't seem to find it on the Andy Dax channel.

I was always amazed that Blackmagic was able to make money on their early cameras having to pay Apple for ProRes and Adobe for CinemaDNG. Now That is a Codec I Really like.

You did great considering how many cups of Coffee you drank! Thanks for the work you put in.

I must admit, I'm not that surprised that a bunch of folks on a forum don't understand the market as much as they think they do! Still, it bodes well for both OM and also the MFT system in general, which by extension is good for all consumers as it encourages competition. As much as FF enthusiasts are quick to point out that FF is now a serious competitor to MFT in specs, I wonder if it wasn't for the MFT manufacturers pushing things forward if FF would be nearly as advanced now as it is.

Well they have to be pretty fast for better low light and DOF, and pretty wide to be of much use on a M4/3. Some people like Primes, some Zooms. Doesn't sound like you might need pure Cine lenses so that may eliminate one category. It pretty much always breaks down to the more expensive the lens the better the output. But if you are a first time M4/3 user not sure I would go for the best. I like the ones that have the Manual Focus clutch in them as the GH line is not the best at AF.

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.

Sorry if I often post my tests but honestly I've never seen anything like it, and for a month I also paid 15 euros for runwayml which in comparison is unwatchable .. We are not yet at professional levels probably, but by retouching the mask with fusion a little bit in my opinion we are almost there ... I am really amazed by what you can do...

My two cents about all this. Rumour sites: like them, because sometimes it could help you with purchase decisions. But all of them, without exception, should be name "fansites". Never anything could be said there except praise to the brand in question, even if you like the brand, even if you want to give constructive feedback to make the brand you like even better. Brand worship is everywhere - even here.My take is that people invest a lot in a brand / mount and just want a confirmation bias and want to justify their purchase - it is a thing not exclusive to the photo industry, smartphone industry is the same. These people forget some basic things: 1) The brand X could be REALLY better for you, even if everyone say the contrary. Don't get offended by bad things said to "your" brand - no brand is perfect. Filter it, see if it its a legitamte flaw, see if it is really a flaw FOR YOU, and if it is a thing, if you can circunvent it. A problem is only a problem if it affects you. Case in point: AF for video. For some people, it is a very important issue for some people - gimbal people, action people, some wedding cases (@MrSMW gave a very good example of it). It is non issue for other people - all of the movie industry which have amazing focus pullers, people in controlled enviroments, interview shots (amaze me people testing af in static shots videos - why?). It is a issue for you or not? In each case, don't dismiss the other camp, just look if it a issue FOR YOU. 2) ALL BRANDS have good and bad points - and all these point follows the 1 rule, all bad points and good / bad FOR YOU. I was a m43 user. Still love the portability of the lenses, still have a soft point for the format - but it have bad / good points. Moved to Fuji, liking it too. FOR ME, it is working better than m43 - but I will never say that m43 is crap IN ALL INSTANCES. And yes, even liking Fuji, there were some point that m43 is better (could changing ISO with a huge overlay screen without histogram to choose the right ISO is my number one point). No brand is perfect. NOTHING is perfect in this life. Is just a brand, for fuck sake. Don't worship it. ============================================= About internet trollism: in the past, information was spread by media outlets. Interests aside, at least, in most cases, it was vetted for somewhat reasonable people, in both "sides" - and I live in a country with media dictated by interests for the last 50 years; even then, there was more reason than the current times. People still don know how easy is to "make" trending news nowadays - a little bit of money invested in specialized companies with dedicated teams with robots could make anything relevant. And I'm a TI guy, REALLY know how easy is to do it. For 95% of the people, if "everyone" (in your bubble) is talking about it, it is true. Because it is kinda was in the past - lies where spread because of interests, but insanity was more or less filtered. Bad for our dreams of free speech and liberty, but now we were seeing that freedom without knowledge is troublesome. And no, I don't see a solution for it in the shor term. For my part, I hear everything - even from some disgusting sources. Register it in the head, in 95% of the cases is bullshit, but even now and them you could get something good. Case in camera industry: Ken Rockwell. 95% of what he says is VERY bad, but I've got some good tips from him. Never will spread his word, but for my personal filter, is useful. These are very dark times - sometimes I wonder if it was a good idea to bring a 3 yeas old girl to this world. But it is too late, and I just wish I can help her to live in this sea of hate. Hope I can.