Leaderboard

Just search for the camera/brands that you're interested in and see what pops up... I will warn you though - the GH5+metabones+18-35+gimbal stereotype is real!!

I love me my GX85 stuff. I enjoy great stuff shot with this little gem and other cameras of the past like the G6 - 85 series, the older GH cameras and so on. What group(s) would you recommend for stuff like this? Pro work with 8bit oldtimers, love that! @kye I had my GX85 with me for a large family gathering. I accidently shot some clips at 720 25p with 10Mbps. But then I figured, does not look too bad. 🙂 Good thing was I could shoot at 200 ISO withoout a sweat with plenty light available. Gruesome LED practicals mixed into the ambient light though. Still all looking good. A GX85 with GH5(2:) inside would be perfect for me, even in HD only. Would love to see a lowlight test between FX3 and a S1 or S1H or S5 at 12800. The S series is known to provide a lowlight image like the FX6 in regards of grain, whereas the FX3 still inherited mush from the A7S3 afaik.

@IronFilm I have a Zoom F4, Zoom F3 and an Atomos Ninja V+. As a OMB hobbyist I don't usually need timecode but ran into a scenario recently where I was passing footage off to a friend and it would've been useful to have in that case. With all that in mind, what in your opinion would be the most prudent timecode system I should invest in? As always thanks for being so gracious with your knowledge over the years!

Marty is a hell of a filmmaker! :- )

Thank you:) @kye It was pretty interesting to finally grab that battery monster. But I enjoyed using this beauty so much I gotta say. Four batteries feel all right for a bit of careful roaming around. Btw, I have used the Bmmcc at 400 Iso and I had big troubles to do get a satifying image for outdoor shots. I got it to a point which is okay but nothing to write home about. Good thing, I had used it at 800Iso before with great results, capturing the delicate beauty of natural light. It even looked good in odd grading variantes. So native Iso only! I reuploaded the video with a beautiful semi legendary song and stabilized most shots. cheers 🙂

I disagree. Creativity is about creating, plain and simple. While we can debate if making videos or films is "art" or not, and we can debate what is and isn't "art" forever (because that debate has been going for the entire history of mankind practically), I don't see that the level of creativity of a final edited video/film relies solely (or even that substantially) about if you hand-hold the camera and grab 10s clips or if you put it on a tripod and record 20 minute clips. I don't know you, and I don't know what work you have or haven't done, but you're not speaking like someone who understands the entirety of the creative process. Camera YouTube and the online camera ecosystem of forums and blogs gives a completely fictitious impression that the camera is the main item when it comes to creating moving images (moving in an emotional as well as literal way). I have come to understand that the following things are so much more important to the creative process that they eclipse the camera entirely: Whatever preparation you do prior to filming anything (writing, scripting, concept designing, location scouting, etc) What you put in front of the camera (casting, production design, lighting, directing, acting, etc) What you do with the footage you have captured (editing, vfx, story structure, music and sound design, etc) What you do with the final edit (audience selection, distribution, promotion, etc) If you can't understand how recording footage from a tripod could be used in a deeply creative way, then you don't understand film-making that well. A large proportion of TV/streaming content is made from long recordings of fixed cameras - reality TV, documentaries (that typically have hundreds or thousands of hours of interview footage), game shows, most talking-head YouTube content filmed in a fixed location, music videos, etc. Is there lots of content where the camera is taking short clips, preferably from a moving camera? Sure, but it's not the only type of content. Take this recent comment from the Godfather of vlogging: It's not until you really study how professional content is made that you start to understand what goes into things. Are you familiar with shooting ratios? Feature films can vary wildly: and documentaries are often a lot larger (as you may not know what the story is going to be until after it happens, so you tend to just shoot everything): Source: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2014/06/07/how-much-data-do-you-need-like-documentary-film-making-research-requires-far-greater-coverage-than-the-final-cut/ So, you may think that capturing 30 minute clips from a static location makes for boring footage, and you're likely right, but that's literally what editing is for. This is one of the (many) reasons that film-making is hard work. Going back to our friend Casey Neistat for a second, during the time he did a daily vlog for something like 800 days in a row, he mentioned that most of his vlogs took between 5-9 hours to edit. That's somewhere between 15-60 minutes of editing time per minute of final footage. I don't know how much footage he actually shot, but when he's interviewing people he's often severely chopping the footage down. He recently mentioned one example where he cut down 25 minutes of interview (during which the camera was rolling the whole time) to 60-75 seconds in the final edit of the video he made. If Casey Neistat, who revolutionised vlogging, needs a camera that can roll for 25 minutes reliably, then making the claim that long locked-off shots aren't "creative" then you've eliminated vast vast sections of the content created. I understand why it overheats, and why Sony would make a camera that overheats. The thing I find bizarre is that customers have somehow come to accept that cameras overheating is somehow normal, and not a sign of an inferior product. It's pretty clear that professional environments require equipment that has rock-solid reliability, and so the high-end / professional cameras are built for reliability. Where I think there is a lack of understanding is when it comes to lower-budget environments. If you have a lower budget then you're probably shooting in situations where you are less in control of the environment. So not only does this mean that you're less able to control the situation that the camera is in (and ensure it's not exposed to adverse temperatures / conditions) but you're also likely to require longer record times because the likelihood of getting the shot you want is lower.

In my opinion, camera companies should be giving their $2,000+ uncompressed internal RAW recording in a simple manner. The Canon 5D II can do this but the $2000 Panasonic S5 II cannot.

One thing that is essentially invisible on these forums is relative cost of these devices. When I joined a bunch of Facebook groups related to MFT and GH5 etc a few years ago I realised a few very interesting things: There were pros shooting music videos on MFT cameras like the GX85 and G9 - fully booked working professionals There were people who didn't know anything technical at all doing real paid work... posts like "I've just bought a GH4 and a vintage 50mm lens, my first real camera setup. I've got 8 paid gigs scheduled starting in 5 days time - what does the mode knob do? and is 50mm a good lens to use?" There were people who were incredibly excited to get (what we would dismiss as being) old has-been cameras.. I saw many posts of people saying that they'd saved up enough money to buy a GH4 or GH5 as it was "their dream camera". These were often people in poorer countries / areas. Adding to this other factors such as: There are countries that still broadcast in SD, or 720p People do work for community media channels (which have no money) People do work for not-for-profits (which have less than no money) What this means is that working with cameras that are sub-optimal or lower budget is very much a consideration and reality for many or even most people out there. When you add to the situation that to shoot events with a multi-cam setup you have to spread your budget across multiple cameras, all this becomes amplified and there are people literally sleeping on the floor of their friends and family to be able to buy equipment. So, to you and me this $2K camera might seem like a "low-end" option, and for more "serious" work people should spend double or more for a better model, this is to many a completely ridiculous price for a camera (maybe more than a years salary) and so if this is a way to get into FF Sony then why not add fans and all manner of jerry-rigging to it. All of the above applies even more-so to people trying to film their first (or tenth) feature film, or filming documentaries (where long takes are required for interviews etc). The more I get exposed to the wider world, the more I realise that my home videos are often shot, edited, graded and delivered better than a lot of stuff that appears on commercial TV. So, is this camera the right choice for such works? Probably not. Will some people try to use it for these things by adding fans and all manner of other things? Absolutely. But let's ignore that and just assume that no-one would ever try to do anything that this camera isn't capable of doing. Should we just discuss cameras in a non-critical way? Should we just thank the manufacturers for giving us whatever half-crippled products they decide will keep their bottom line as rosy as possible? No. We should push against the manufacturers at all times to do better. We should explore the options provided by the manufacturers from whatever angles we think of, so that not only will the less wealthy lurkers who read the forums but don't post have ideas about what is and isn't possible with each camera but also so that the manufacturers can see what improvements make sense in the context of each model. Panasonic was greatly admired over the time when it released the GH1-GH5 line because.... *drum roll please* .... they improved each model from the last by basically doing what people requested. The reviews had consistent themes of "in our review of the last model we made a wish list and this new model ticks all those boxes".

No the edges are still quite soft. Depends a heck of a lot on the shot whether you are going to notice though.

Yet another reason to worship at the House of Nikon! ;-) Long may our Nikkor Overlords Rule. Maybe because the D850 is secretly a small medium format camera? :-P