Leaderboard

I can confirm that with a fully charged single oem LP-E6NH battery I got a little over 80 minutes at 4K 422 10bit 24p XF-AVC (Clog3). Before the update I was getting a little over 60 mins fully charged. Also getting double that with the grip. Words can't express how f*ckin' happy I am right now thanks to this one practical update - and I haven't even started to play around with the other stuff!

For track and field, if you shoot laterally by either tracking eg. gimbal moving in parallel or from a fix point by panning the sense of speed will be very different depending of frame rate and shutter speed. 24fps 1/50 will look like they go much quicker than 60fps 1/120 or look even slower at 60fps 1/500. Even when taking photo only panning laterally you would always want to have some slow shutter speed so 60fps 1/120 will yield good pictures. Now if they run towards you and your camera is not really moving eg. tripod or handheld, it will not matter that much if is 24fps 1/50 or 60fps 1/500 in term of sense of speed. But for photo grabbing 1/250 or above would be required. So instead of sticking with the 180 rule I change the shutter speed based on the position and movements and again if the prio is photo or video or both. Some examples of my video grabs: Slow shutter 180 rule The below one works as the camera is moving (tracking bike) at the same speed as the athlete, if the camera would be fixed it would be impossible to get a picture out High shutter speed 1/500 and above For me 4k would be too low as I crop quite a bit and also take vertical photos out of horizontal video. If you would do it a lot to take pictures out a 6k or above would be better in my opinion.

It should be pointed out that it is not mandatory to have a short shutter speed for photos. Let's review two examples. The first is this guy, who is obviously playing at an extreme level here, with huge energy and drive: It is an incredible photo, there's no doubt. But does it convey the sense that he's pushing himself to the limit? The more I look at it the more it looks like it could be a still life, maybe he was on wires and it's a setup. In a sense, it implies motion but doesn't actually express any. Contrast that feeling to this image: There is no denying this. Not only is it a great photo, and not only does it show that world-class people are pushing themselves to the limit (the three guys on the right definitely are!) but it shows the results of that effort. Now scroll back up to the first image - what is the energy level of the first image now? I would suggest that the obsession with short shutter speeds is part of the same obsession with getting "sharp" images, which is driving lenses to be clinical, sensors to be enormous, megapixels to be endless, computers to be behemoths, and images to be soul-less. To be a bit practical, there are likely limits to how much blur you want in a scene, and it's relative to the amount of motion involved, which often varies quite significantly, even from moment to moment in a lot of sports. Some more examples of varying amounts of blur.. This one is a great image, but if it was important who the defender was then it's too blurry. If not, then maybe not.. Sometimes it's not important to get anything completely sharp.. images without feeling are of limited value, and I find that motion is full of feeling. Here's one that is full of emotion (especially if you knew the subjects): Also worth mentioning is that you don't always have to have the subject still and the background blurred, it can be the other way around, but it changes the subject of the image somewhat. and with video you're taking lots and lots of photos so the creativity is endless... Remember - don't let the technical aspects blind you to the point of capturing things in the first place.

After my close friend decided to upgrade to the Lumix S5 II X he gave me an incredible deal on his Lumix S5 that I couldn't pass up. As a result I just finished packing up my trusty GH5, 12-35mm mk II, 35-100mm mk I, 25mm, and 14mm to ship off to MPB. For the first time in nearly a decade I will no longer have any M43 cameras or lenses. I think my time in the system has finally come to an (unplanned) end. 😞 I'm feeling some kind of way about it right now, honestly. I still believe in the promise of M43, I just don't know that Panasonic will ever realize it or if the market will ever be there to make it viable. It's a damn shame, honestly. I'll be happy with my full frame cameras, and having three of the same bodies will make things a bit easier for me, but I still can't help but wish there was a professional level compact M43 camera that could fit my needs and fit in with my two S5 bodies. I just don't see it happening. I had planned to always have at least one M43 camera in my kit. Eventually I was going to upgrade to the GH6 in a couple years, once they were even more affordable on the used market, but I couldn't pass on another S5 with kit lens for $750, so plans changed. It just didn't make sense to keep the GH5 and follow through with my original plans anymore, as these three S5 bodies will get me through until I can snag some S5 II bodies in a couple years when people upgrade to the latest camera. The GH5 was a total game changer for me and my work. I'm sad to see it go, because in many ways it did things that I never thought a camera would be able to do. It really cannot be overstated how much the IBIS changed things for people like me. I no longer had to set up a cumbersome shoulder rig, I could simply hold it and get steady shots even as I rushed around a wrestling ring and dodged people flying all over the place! Life goes on though, I guess.

Olympus specifically made a feature for 20MP raw stills at 60fps with Pro Capture. Just press the shutter when you think you saw something and you'll get a bunch of RAW stills going back in time. This was available going back to the E-M1 ii (2016). However, it doesn't offer continuous AF.

For Magic Lantern - either EOS M, 650/700D are rock solid with the recent “Crop Mood”’firmware - HDMI out functioning without problems as well if you want to slap on a monitor.

Just saw a new option appear in YT.... Some quick googling revealed that it's only for YouTube Premium (paid) membership, which I am a member. Anyone else seen this? Do we know what is going on under the hood?

The above I posted especially as is a 4k one, so a R8 at 4k 60fps + a used ef 70-200 2.8 you would get a close enough photo out of the video as mine. Unfortunately sports = large lenses…

Mostly R5 and R5c. This one is from 2 days ago: R5c 4k 120fps 1/2000 F2.8 and the AF can keep up. AF tracking is quite good in video even for sport, challenging is the initial acquisition but for track and field it should not be a big issue

I meant I CAN see a future when I will be doing this all the time. Doh! 🤪

That's my opinion also though my experience with this so far is waaaaay less extensive than yours. Some really great stuff I wouldn't know were frame grabs! I can't really see a future when I WILL be doing this all the time. I was going to flip to the Z9 (and a Z8) and do this partially, but have held off, sticking with L Mount, but definitely waiting on that next gen 6k...and I really hope they go for a highly developed 6 and not a limited 8k approach. The photographer in me would be kind of sad to go this route, but at the same time, from a workflow and a whole load of other logistical and creative perspectives, it makes utter sense.

That´s what I´m thinking when I process the Raw files from my GX85, though a few pixels more in the x and y axis, not that many though:) @kye Video is nice on the GX85, but not up to par with the beautiful image coming from the RAW files, though supposely "only" 12bit. Gimme 10bit GH5 like HD and VLog in this body! Back to my acquired og beauties. The 12MP sensor is a tricky beast, I had it in its GF1 alteration and I loved it for flashlight photography but the limited dynamic range gave me problems outside. When I got the G6 some years later it felt like another dimension of image quality. The GF1 had fugly Jpegs btw, so one had to dig into Raw. Mybe I should revise my GF1 Raw files again with a different processing workflow. The second camera has the approved 16MP sensor which supposely works in the G5,G6/7/85, GH3/4, GX1/7, GX85 and some GF cameras from the GF5 on.:)

For me it is very different. I just started doing photographs again and i just love my Tevidons and my GX85 for that. But I had an almost greater pleasure taking pictures with one of two of my newly acquired MFT cameras. No ibis. So small, so direct and simple and loved the ancient pre GH4 menu system. I had just bought a Lumix G1 and G3, both for 25EUR, shipping included. I tested the G3 and cannot wait to test that old 12MPix sensor of the G1 again, which should be the same as in the GF1, a camera which is one of the prettiest ever to me. Btw the G1 is red:) I love MFT. Will get an Oly EM10 III one day. For video, I am thinking about a GH5 II, for the great organic texture it seems to be known for. I don´t enjoy my S1, though it earned me some money. S5II looks appealing, just like Mft does in general and the latter even moreso with my newly acquired OG G cameras.:) The G3 is like brandnew. G1 is sticky. I hope it´s from honey.:)

For our personal lives, we really only need food, clothing and shelter. We got by just fine even before we had language, so I'm pretty sure that there is no minimum number of megapixels in that equation... But, assuming that you're asking if you can print things and enjoy them, then I'd say there's no lower limit except what limits you would have to your own enjoyment. After all, mosaics have been a form of art for thousands of years and no-one has started complaining that they don't look photorealistic, and people aren't complaining about paintings not being photorealistic either. It's controversial, within online photography communities anyway, but here is Ken Rockwells thoughts on the matter: https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm A few highlights include the idea that the larger you print something, the further you tend to stand from it: Today, even the cheapest cameras have at least 5 or 6 MP, which enough for any size print. How? Simple: when you print three-feet (1m) wide, you stand further back. Print a billboard, and you stand 100 feet back. 6MP is plenty. and also practical experience: Even when megapixels mattered, there was little visible difference between cameras with seemingly different ratings. For instance, a 3 MP camera pretty much looks the same as a 6 MP camera, even when blown up to 12 x 18" (30x50cm)! I know because I've done this. Have you? NY Times tech writer David Pogue did this hereand here and saw the same thing — nothing! Joe Holmes' limited-edition 13 x 19" prints of his American Museum of Natural History series sell at Manhattan's Jen Bekman Gallery for $650 each. They're made on a 6MP D70. I would argue that what is visible will depend on the printing technology you use. A canvas print will hide any blurriness or detail that is in the image, but a metal print will accentuate it. I have visited a house with a couple of large metal prints (maybe 3' x 5') of very high resolution shots of a rainforest with deep DoF and dappled light filtering down to the ferns and rocks by a stream. The resolution was palpable, so much so that both myself and the other non-photography people were all impressed by the print. The discussion included 'oohs and aahs' around how much it cost, how difficult it was to hang, how they had to get little custom lights to shine on it like in an art gallery, how impressive it was, etc. What was missing, however, was any discussion or appreciation of the image. All discussion was of the technology. The sharpness was distracting.

It’s something I have played with before using 4k 50p and have had mixed results and as above, it’s been the shutter speeds that have been the biggest variable, especially if using the 180 degree rule. The other thing that I found was that 4k was borderline OK and of course 6k or 8k would be better (stills resolution/detail/ability to crop etc). One of my next projects (when I have some time) is to shoot some typical scenarios at 4k 60p and 6k 30p (my two current settings) and pull some stills. The 6k is going to be the trickier one with a shutter speed of only 1/50th (shooting NTSC in a PAL region) but I will try some 1/100, 1/200, 1/400, 1/800 etc to see just how much the video blur is compromised. I used to shoot 4k 50p with VND and just crank the shutter into the thousands and thought the result was fine, but then all my productions shot that way were at 50% slo mo. Ultimately, my personal interest as a hybrid wedding shooter is could I go to just shooting video and pulling stills for the entire event? With 4k no. Well I could, but would not as the stills would be too compromised. With 8k I think yes and that was my interest in the Z9. However, I think with Lumix, they may just go 6k 100/120p full frame zero crop with the next gen S1 and that for me could be a sweet spot. Internal ND would then be the icing on the cake 🎂

12MP is 4K in 4:3... with a good enough codec, that's 1.5K more than most people need!! The OG Alexa was 2.5K and most cameras these days still can't create an image as good....

In terms of assessing the maximum size for printing, that's another whole debate, but a way to test it is to pull the image up on a 4K display, and then zoom in to the image until you start seeing the video compression artefacts, then reduce the size down a bit, and then measure how large the image would be if you printed it that large. Remember also that the larger you print an image the further back you will tend to view it from. A friend of mine won a certificate and got one of those canvas prints about 2' x 2' across. She sent in an early iPhone photo that was a close-up of one of her kids faces (it was a lovely photo) and the printing place said it wasn't "high enough quality" (read: not enough megapixels) and she had to insist they print it. She hung it high up on their photo wall and due to how the furniture was arranged you could see it throughout their open-plan living/dining/kitchen area, but you wouldn't have looked at it from closer than about 5' away, and even then you'd be looking up at it significantly. It looked great. Had it been taken with a high megapixel camera would it have been sharper? Sure. Would she have ever been able to afford a high megapixel camera? No. Would you ever take that kind of photo with a "real" camera? Unlikely.

It should be noted that shutter speed and shutter angle are different. A higher shutter angle would increase blur. A higher shutter speed would decrease blur. If you're filming on a Sony you'll want to focus on shutter degree since it doesn't have shutter angle.

You really can't. For me, I never cared about the sensor size, it was the compact set ups that really appealed to me. I never felt like I was compromising much at all shooting with M43 and with Lumix cameras. I could work around their limitations (and continue to do so with my S5s) because what I was getting out of them was so good, especially for the time. My favorite combo of all time might genuinely be the GX85 and 35-100mm. So small, and the footage you'd get out of it was soooo good. I was given an exit ramp that made too much sense.

It can certainly replace a tripod for certain shots with IS boost, but that's been true of Panasonic cameras for a while now. With some added post stabilisation you can get a perfectly locked off shot, and I have made use of this from time to time when I have some B roll that was shot handheld but would look better static.

Greetings Creative Souls, This week's new free music track is on my (relatively) new Rock page: "CHILLIN’ WITH MY FRIENDS " https://soundimage.org/rock/ As always, it's 100% free to use with attribution, just like my 2500+ other tracks. VIDEO EDITING Need help editing your trailers (or other things?) I love video editing and can help. Give me a shout! 🙂

Ha ha! Nobody knows yet. Colours are the same. The red clipping problem is different, but not gone. Shadow banding remains. Interestingly, that shot was with a Canon 70-200 f4 with Sigma Mc21. So with the new firmware maybe the camera can now do chromatic aberration correction with other lenses. It would have been a bit easier if they just told us what they did 😂

The only major image quality improvement I can spot is a removal of a weird chromatic aberration that I'd never noticed before. before after

A 3d pop effect starts to show together with defocus characteristics of a real anamorphic lens. I can see a number of 2x anamorphic purists jumping on this and saying that there is not enough oval defocus. The scope used is a custom 1.5x compression ratio . Flares to my eyes look much more natural than those artificial over coated lens on the market such as Ulanzi, moment and the like.