Leaderboard

And this is why ProRes 10bit 422 is plenty for even quite "high budget" productions to shoot in, and they don't "need" raw at all.

"I've said it many times but its worth repeating - the amateurs who shoot the real world need the best specs but are given the worst, and the professionals who shoot on sets with dozens or hundreds of people to massage every aspect of the scene to look good to the camera need the least specs but are given the best." yes.

To be fair, it seems like you specifically want Panasonic to continue making these cameras? Sony has the RX0 and ZV line that are pretty impressive. Although, recently discontinued, the Canon M200 is as tiny of an ILC that you can get. Then you have the Osmo Pocket, Insta360, GoPro, etc... there are tons of options. For some reason, every other company, except for Panasonic and BM, get a ton of crap on this forum with comments like Cripple Hammer, or whatever, but Panasonic gets a pass because they offer waveforms or something... but I feel like Panasonic is the worst of them all. In the past 3 years Canon has been the biggest innovator and are still making small DSLM cameras... look at the R50 or R100... they're pretty small. An R8 full frame camera with 10bit and cLog3 costs $1299. You can get a Sigma FP for $1000 used and not much more new... There are options... just not from Panasonic because they only care about full frame now, or they think any worthwhile m4/3 camera should be priced at $2000.

Absolutely, if you can shoot 10-bit Vlog and are happy to grade it in post then there's no reason not to. The main motivation for me is really in dealing with the older or smaller cameras that don't have a log profile built in, and being able to realise as much of their potential as possible. The GX85 is my main camera now, simply because of size and form-factor, but as we have been reminded by @John Matthews in the "World's smallest DSLM that shoots 4k?" thread, there is still a lot of love for these small cameras.

8-bit rec709 profiles are much more flexible in post than you might think. I'm not saying they're as good as an Alexa or whatever, but they're a million miles better than people give them credit for. Here's a latitude and WB torture test of the GX85, in the standard profile (8-bit rec709) customised to have reduced contrast but normal saturation. For each of the below, the left image is the properly exposed reference image, the middle one is the graded image, and the one on the right is the image SOOC. Exposure latitude test - +3 stops: Exposure latitude test - +2 stops: Exposure latitude test - +1 stops: Exposure latitude test - -1 stops: Exposure latitude test - -2 stops: Exposure latitude test - -3 stops: Exposure latitude test - -4 stops: Exposure latitude test - warm: Exposure latitude test - cool: Exposure latitude test - magenta: Exposure latitude test - green (as far as it would go!): Notes on the testing method: GX85 shot in manual mode on cloudy day Exposure varied by changing lens aperture WB varied by changing colour temp and tint Tools used in Resolve were mostly Lift/Gamma/Gain, saturation, and some had a bit of Shadows/Mids/Highlights Notes on the results: If it's clipped then it's clipped, there's no getting around that If you've shot a whole sequence in the wrong WB then shoot a test chart replicating the error, spend some time on the correction, then apply to all the shots... a bit of work but worth it to rescue a days shooting If you've shot on auto-exposure / auto-WB and want to correct the small errors then this is easily possible - it won't have gotten it nearly as wrong as what I have shown above Most cameras shooting in rec709 will do funky stuff to colours depending on their luma value as part of the look of the profile, so when you over/under expose and then pull things back the hues and saturation levels will have shifted around in odd ways compared to a normal exposure, but if it's a real shoot then you most likely won't have many dominant hues in the image and you only have to correct the ones that are in the frame and distracting, so the above is far more work than normal shooting would be The days of needing RAW or even LOG to change exposure or WB in post are gone, and although the rec709 profiles often have lower DR than log profiles, they're much better than you think. If anyone wants me to post full-sized versions with titles so you can flick back and forth then just let me know. Happy shooting!

Thanks. I'm very happy with them. I see them as little slices of life. The pink sky thing started as a way to tie that footage with the later shots where the sky really was pink. Kind of spooky and science fictiony. The Digital Bolex is great. When I first got it I wondered if I would regret the purchase and that some other camera would be better for me (I was also looking at the BM Ursa Mini 4K) but now every time I see the results I'm so glad I got the D16. (Look at the gold leaf on the harp when the sun hits it in Practise in the Park.) A few years ago when I got it Digital Bolexes were coming up on eBay (and even craigslist) every few months but now nobody seems to be selling theirs anymore. After trying all the settings I now leave it set at 200 ISO with 180 shutter angle. I use Bolex Gamma profile so in post I really just need to conform the highs and lows to REC709 and the shot looks great. (It took some experimenting to figure this out.) I use Color Finale Encoder to import into Final Cut. It's 2K but scales up to 4K really nicely. I wish they had made their proposed c-mount lens turret. It came with some very high quality prime lenses but it's time consuming to switch them. After using a bag I had I realized how awkward it was to work with it and didn't find any case I liked so ended up learning how to make a case and designing one. It works very well. I can be up and rolling in less than a minute. I have a 16-75mm zoom on the camera, with pockets that hold a 10mm and a 135mm. That's enough for most things. It's a depressing time in the world and it can seem like there's no reason to bother making art but then one only has to look at history and see what world conditions much worse than now that people lived in and yet they still made art. I would say for me it gives me hope and feels good to be creating a bit of beauty in a world that keeps throwing more things at us to deal with. There's much more competition at festivals now so it's harder to get your film selected than it was before. I used to have several screenings a year but now very few. (I started to wonder if I was becoming irrelevant then realized I always was irrelevant.) Just last night I got word that my new film has another screening coming up, so yay!

May I politely suggest you retest on a face? Big difference between 24 color patches and the continuous range in skin.

Interesting all of this: noise covering flaws, the role of a camera downsampling or not, 8-bit camera profiles vs 8-bit log, etc. Lots of singular details I've been aware of but this thread helps me think of them in combination with one another. Thankful of that. I too was assuming 10-bit as a reference to log and 8-bit as a REC709 profile. (My C100 days feel so long ago now...) Wary of noise, I've been mindful to keep ISO's at or only one stop-ish over panny's 640/4000 base and I have never really had much noise concern. I feel like I savor log's roll-off character but perhaps I've been telling myself that now for so long that it deserves doing another round of testing to interrogate. And I am thinking of a shoot this summer at a singing retreat in which I had no lighting control under a 20'x40' tent with buildings to one side, a lake to the other, a ceiling that reflected the green of the surrounding grass, and a huge range of skin tones... I think the 10-bit paid its dues during that edit, but this is the kind of extreme for which it's suited, not the point of this thread, which I appreciate.

After my little deep dive into the tiniest camera I could find, it does occur to me that the cameras that killed this market segment might soon be good enough to satisfy our requirements in this space: Action cameras and phones have had manual controls for several product generations now, and things like the BM iPhone app has better features than many MILCs (waveforms, zebras, view LUTs, false colour, etc etc etc) The limitation on action cameras has always been the fixed wide lens, however with the Insta360 Ace Pro and its 8K sensor on 16mm FOV lens, it now has the resolution to do 4K at 32mm, 3K at 43mm, 2K at 64mm Even if you ignored the crop modes on these cameras, a 100Mbps 16mm FOV cropped in post would still be 66Mbps at 24mm FOV which is better than some of the lesser cameras in this segment, and you can reframe and stabilise in post with that approach! The Insta360 RS had an interchangeable lens module, so future models might have more normal lenses or even a module with interchangeable mounts The trend for action cameras and phones is towards larger sensors, so it's not inconceivable that we'll get an MFT action camera / smartphone down the line iPhone 15 had a professional codec and professional colour space, way ahead of most cameras discussed in this thread, with better low-light and DR than some too In a sense these will be good outcomes for us, because with the death of this market segment we have been stuck with 8-bit cameras with relatively poor codecs, limited manual controls in video, and small sensors, but I think the gap is probably about to be filled. My vision of making super-8 style vignette videos just for fun is almost possible with the latest GoPro, because I could crop in post, grading the image to be soft and having the right colour / grain / jitter / etc, and the fixed focus lens means that my in-post lens emulation has perfect-AF and is parfocal!

10 bit vs 8 bit. to make 10 bit really better than 8 bit, the camera has to be very quiet. when the codec is thick and the camera is at high iso, noise cancels the limited advantage of 10 bit over 8 bit. and most modern cameras shoot log at native iso of 800 to 2000, at which starting to show noise, even though the latest cams have good low light capabilities. for log shooting, in order to protect high light, it is typically to expose at about 60%-70% ire, and this is typically darker or underexposed, or ettl on the histogram. for most digital sensors, ettr when shooting and then push half a stop to one stop down in post to reduce noise makes the image looking darn good. shooting log ettl then pull up half a stop or a stop, you will see heavy noise in the shade frequently. personally, i think 12 -16 bit raw shooting is the best if wanting to do post cg. 10 bit log does not have much more benefit over 8 bit rec 709 if you shoot 8 bit rec 709 sooc. the reason why 10 bit log is useful is to match the color of different cameras in post. nowadays, 10 bit log is used as a quick leeway to 12 bit raw, which is not the right approach in most of the cases, imho.

This is interesting, @kye, thanks for putting 8-bit back out there. Nice to be reminded that there is more latitude than I've perhaps remembered. I've shot log almost exclusively for the past five years or so except for under-lit situations. I found 10bit vlog so easy to work with that I came not to question the extra bit of workflow vs the headache of getting anything in 8bit wrong.

Primarily because of the grip so if you add one to the Fp (and most people do) then it narrows the gap. If you add the EVF into the mix then the optional one for the Fp (which I love by the way) makes the a6700 the winner. But has IBIS, internal 10 bit, s-cinetone, AF that is on another level to it, tilt screen, gyro data for post stabilisation etc. And maybe even AF of M mount lenses 😀 Again, its not an either or situation so for some people the Fp will be a better pick because it is smaller, has RAW versus compressed, has a bigger sensor and they might not care about AF or stabilisation at all. I am that someone a lot of the time with the Fp but, on balance, I think I'd be taking the a6700 as an all rounder in a lot of situations over it if I had one. As @MrSMW mentions, the A7Cii is then also in the mix if you want the option of both FF but also APS-C for compactness.

Its not compulsory 😄 Or even either or. I was just making the point that M mount is a route for keeping lens sizes compact and in proportion for both small bodies but also in general for those occasions where you want to remain discrete. For everything else or all other times or somewhere in between you can use the E mount with native lenses. With the a6700 being APS-C then this gives you access to smaller AF lenses than FF. If you use the Sigma ones then they are exactly the same size as the MFT ones so you gain the bigger sensor and the better balance as the camera has a bit more heft and of course the step change in AF and internal 10 bit. Admittedly, it might go on fire but for those first ten minutes it will be a dream. Well, here is interesting and an object lesson in not taking everything says on the internet at face value ! This is the Nikon version and as the Sony version also has a mark 2 version then I had presumed that this would be included on that one too. However, it doesn't explicitly state that it does or it doesn't so it would have to be confirmed by someone who has the new version and if it didn't at launch has it been addressed with firmware. So, unless someone chimes in who actually owns a v2, I'd take it that the Sony version likely doesn't have continuous AF-C in video mode. It certainly does in stills mode but thats moot for most people (I use the original version with an A7Rii purely for stills as a (very) poor mans Leica M10 with AF).

I agree, I always shot 4K 8 bits on my GH4/G80/NX1/GH5/GX9/S5 and I never had serious issues. I'm forced to use 4K 10 bits on the S5II everytime though, because V-log (while not as good as the first S5) has nicer details rendering than the standard profiles.

Yeah, I still have it but don't use it. I should have used the absolutely excellent standard profile that was 709-like but had an extended highlight rolloff that contained the full dynamic range of the camera. The downside was that it wasn't a professional colour space and wasn't supported by colour management etc, so I would have needed to know how to grade the image manually, which isn't a problem now but certainly was then.

Panasonic showed their hand with the G9ii about how they view the new generation of MFT cameras really. Depending on your point of view its either an S5ii with a tiny sensor or a G7 in a massive overcoat but the net result is the same in that its just not size appropriate to where everyone wants to see MFT. So the "new" GX85 will not be coming from Panasonic. But it is there in cameras like the a6700 or even the Nikon Z30 both of which have excellent fast primes from Sigma to balance the body size with the lens size but more importantly can shrink that further by deploying the secret weapon of the TechArt adapters to open up the M mount lenses. Even on the Fp, using M mounts like the 35mm f2 7Artisans I have here produce very comparable total package sizes than if you were using MFT lenses with similar speed. The huge difference with using E or Z mount cameras is that with the TechArt you get full AF of these MF M mount lenses as well as being able to do the same trick with an intermediate adapter for other compact lenses such as the Nikon Series E stuff. With the e mount you can also use the wafer thin MFT to E mount adapter to mount any existing MF MFT lenses on to it like Meike cine primes etc. If I was looking for an upgrade to a GX85 then I'd be giving the a6700 with M mount a serious look.

If you can find one for a good price, I recommend it. I paid less than $100 for mine with the box and less than 1000 shots on it. The colors are amazing.

Well, if you're yet to see issues then let us delay no more! This is a post I made about the endless issues I had with the XC10 and its 300bps 4K 8-bit C-log files: While it's not banding, it's definitely problems related to 8-bit on decent bitrate 4K footage. In reality, the combination of 8-bit and log is the reason, but the blame is mine for not using the camera differently, or for buying it for this kind of work in the first place.

My first real camera was a Pentax K1000. My first digital camera was the Olympus E-420 DSLR (at the time, it was the world's smallest DSLR). I especially like DSLR's for the ability to compose without turning on the camera. With mirrorless, I always seem to have a battery counter in the back of my mind. Sure, I could bring more batteries, but I still cannot get rid of the counter. That is the whole point for why I started this thread- a small phone and a small camera is better than a big phone that is also a camera.

I don't really have a camera with me at all times. I have my phone, but I only use it to take photos for work or if I need to make sure I'm buying the right thing. If I could go back to a flip phone, I would in a heartbeat.

That's a nice selection. I've thought about getting the K10D before. My question was more about what camera you have with you at all times, not for everyday shooting. The reason I ask is that I personally find smart phones way too big for one-handed operation now and I'd rather have a small, cheap smart phone with a camera in the pocket than just a large smart phone.

I have 3 that I enjoy for everyday shooting... a Minolta X-7a, a Pentax P3, and a Yashica FX3 Super 2000. If I'm going digital, I have a Pentax K10D with a 12mp CCD sensor and ibis that suits my needs. Although I prefer video, I don't get out enough to shoot anything worthwhile for day trips. One day soon, I am hoping to shoot a short film or something and I'll probably use my 5D3. I will say that I do miss shooting video with a small camera but even the GX85 I found to be fairly uncomfortable to shoot with and prefer a bigger camera. My dream camera would be a Nikon D5500 with DPAF, ibis and internal raw video (or ProRes)

I have yet to see any examples of banding of a 4k 4:2:0 100mbps file when put on a 1080p timeline. I can't remember banding on a 4k timeline either. Mathematically, you are correct that 1080p 4:2:2 10bit has more information than 4k 4:2:0 8bit, but I haven't found any examples that prove it objectively- most of the 4k 8bit files that I see end up looking slightly more detailed; punch in and the difference is even bigger. There is definitely something to be said for down-sampled footage though.

It's close, but the Sigma with one of the smallest lenses is 637g! Yes, you get FF, but the GX850 with the 20mm is only 356g and much smaller. Also, the Sigma can't even do flash photography. I can sell all my M43 gear and have sold most of it. I'm only left with the small (and less expensive) stuff. The fact is that I enjoy shooting my GX850 and I want a more modern replacement. Concerning Canon, I just don't trust them (R5) and I'd certainly never buy anything RF- too expensive, too closed. It's a company that will only change if there's a scandal by pushing the cripple hammer too far (R5). I wouldn't not buy the G100D. I had the G100 and shot a ton with it for a year. If the G100D actually has a significantly better EVF, I might buy it. Unfortunately, I think that was a seriously lazy update to a camera that has really sold well. What camera do you take with you everywhere?

Interesting. I suspect that the two key aspects that make this even remotely possible to get a professional result with 8-bit at that low bitrate are: The DSP in the F3 The complete control on set - being able to change what is in-front of the camera to suit the camera makes an enormous difference to how well something will look in the final version Mostly now, the cameras people are shooting on that are limited to 8-bit will be consumer cameras that have completely rubbish DSP (certainly compared to the flagship cinema cameras of yesteryear) and the people that use them will be pointing them at mostly / completely uncontrolled scenes, perhaps with mixed temperature lighting, and many elements in the frame that do not look pleasing in the footage that is captured. Also, many of these cameras will be used to capture scenes with a lot of movement - either of movement of objects in the frame or movement of the whole camera due to being hand-held, which puts an incredible strain on a limited bitrate codec. I've said it many times but its worth repeating - the amateurs who shoot the real world need the best specs but are given the worst, and the professionals who shoot on sets with dozens or hundreds of people to massage every aspect of the scene to look good to the camera need the least specs but are given the best. I suspect that the missing piece in the above is the oversampling. 4k 8bit 4:2:0 should be inferior to 1080p 10bit 4:2:2 when put into a 1080p timeline because the potential banding and quantisation error of 8-bit aren't always overcome by the extra resolution, however making the statement that "shooting in 4k 8bit 4:2:0 > shooting in 1080p 10bit 4:2:2" is perhaps more accurate due to the lack of downsampling in most cameras. The 1080p from the GH5 is stunning, for example, and I think the downsampling is the main reason.

Without looking at the actual specs, but having owned both cameras, I am pretty sure the FP is around the same size or smaller than the GX85. With lens options, you may have a point although the Sigma primes are fairly small. To be honest, this move to mirrorless seems kinda pointless... you're trading body size for lens size. It's kinda mind boggling really. I guess I've been out of the loop... I know the R5 had overheating issues... but it was my understanding they fixed it? Did I miss something? I'm also pretty sure that the RF mount has plenty of smaller primes. With that said, I understand you're already invested in m4/3 but it may be time to start thinking about a different company because Panasonic isn't going back to smaller cameras unless you want a G100. Which I may be in the minority but I actually think it looks like a cool camera.

Just put a 20MP sensor in the GX850, give it slightly better thermals (15 minute 4k record time), PDAF, decent microphones or mic jack, electronic stabalization, and I'll buy it. I won't be the only one buying that camera for $900-$1000.

The question is, what is the size of that market? To play devils advocate, let's say it's 10,000 units per annum but based on their research, they would need to sell 100k units PA to make it worthwhile, they are not going to do it are they. There's lot's of stuff I'd like to see in the marketplace, but if it's too niche, I can understand why it does not exist, even if I do not like it! I think phones have simply killed the market. Not completely as in of course folks exist who wish to be served by it, but in such small numbers, it's not viable. Or the projections aren't. Or 'stuff' just doesn't fit their brand/profile anymore. There seemed to be a time when stuff was getting smaller, but I think that time is mostly over. Mostly. Other stuff is filling certain niches such as phones and action cam type stuff. Personally, I'd like to see big (FF and MF) sensors in tiny bodies with lenses to match, but either the physics of it does not (yet) exist, or the cost to design and build is too high. I had high hopes for instance for the Sigma FP, but it has not hit the mark for my needs. Something like the L model with the optional grip and the Sigma 28-70mm f2.8 with decent cropping ability due to being 61mp, makes for an extremely compelling unit to me. On paper. And it falls down at that point due to banding issues, no IBIS and no 4K 50/60p and no tilt screen. The latter can actually be fixed with an aftermarket solution, but the rest still kills it for me. Maybe the digital stabilisation might just be enough, I don't know, but it still falls short in 2 other key areas for my needs so a sad "no". OK, it's not super super tiny, but had it ticked more or all of the boxes, what a stunningly capable, sub 1kg unit that would have been...

Those cameras certainly have their place, but I'm not giving up. I'm going to go to every single Lumix live stream to ask more questions about small DSLM cameras. Fortunately, I'm not the only one either. I won't let it go. All those other cameras you mention don't have proper ergonomics. That style of camera has been around forever and they still don't have nice-looking images IMO. The industry also knows this because when they often hire out someone to make promotional videos that look like their shot on a phone, the final video is shot on a GH6 or something. The only reason for me to use one is to hide the fact I'm shooting video. I realize they're making some progress on the computational side of video, but there must be a market. Look at all the X100V's that have been sold. It would seem most of the manufacturers are spooked by the market. Did they lose massive money on the GX, GM and LX series? There must be a middle ground between releasing a GM5, LX10, LX100, GX850, GX85 and all the ZS/TZ series of cameras and releasing ONLY a G100 at 355g in the past few years? I only ask for ONE decently-sized and modern DSLM. Is that too much to ask? Everyone that wants to go to a phone has done it already- there's a market for the ones that are left. Something's up.

because noise can overcast banding. banding is worse than noise.

help the image keep from falling apart too, like adding noise true.

" We did the color correction for "Key & Peele" on a Davinci Resolve. Of note is the fact that our recording medium for the season (after a horrific trial with one of the external 10-bit 4:2:2 recorders) was 50 Mbs XDCAM disc. We never lost a frame and we have hard masters of all of our footage, but I didn't learn until we were in post that that is an 8 bit standard. However we were able to do a tremendous amount of push/pull and the 8 bit never seemed to create problems. There is, of course, a notable difference between 35 and 50 Mbs. The shots we did in non s-log (60fps material) were far more problematic. __________________ Charles Papert" i think he did the whole season 1 on key and peele with f3 s log to 8 bit nano flash 50 mbits mpeg2 long gop. cg is really good. something to consider though, f3 has a nice sensor and good dsp; he had good budget on lighting, maybe he used one stop lower than the native iso to reduce noise; most of the scenes were staged so he could control dr. but the final results are amazing for 8 bit 50 mbits mpeg2 long gop. https://vimeo.com/channels/keypeele

Exactly, when it comes to just stills then for 95%+ of us an old body such as the Nikon D750 from eBay could meet 95%+ of our photography needs yet costs merely 10% of what a new Nikon Z9 would cost! The progress in tech for photography over the last couple of decades, especially in the past decade is: 1) has greatly exceeded the capabilities of almost all photographers 2) has somewhat stalled out, and is going at a much slower pace than digital photography was improving at in the 1980's / 1990's / 2000's Exactly, if you're on a shoot where you're doing both video and stills, it's much easier to jump between both if they're two different bodies. (especially the more complex it is that it becomes. What if for instance if the FX30 is setup rigged for video monitor + TC + audio etc, while the a6000 is setup to be used controlling external flashes?? You wouldn't want both of those combined into one!) Plus like you said, all the many benefits of having two bodies to use for BTS / timelapses / second angles / etc

There is one point I forgot to mention in the first post, which is the WHY of this whole situation. The point of looking at exposure and WB latitude isn't to correct these things in post. It is to understand how the camera reacts to colour grading. When we colour grade, we are taking the image and pushing things around. In a literal sense, we are just raising or lowering the value of the R/G/B channels in pixels based on a variety of factors, but it's just that - raising or lowering the value of each channel. So, if a camera falls apart when I try to make a tiny adjustment then I'll know that I can't colour grade it much. Assuming you get the exposure and WB relatively close in-camera then the changes should be relatively minor, but some changes are larger or smaller than others. As some examples, here are the operations that I would do across most shots in a grade of mine: Adjusting WB - this is raising or lowering the values of the RGB channels against each other Adjusting exposure - raising/lowering RGB channels together Adjusting contrast - raising/lowering RGB channels together but doing the shadows and highlights in opposite directions Adjusting saturation - raising/lowering RGB channels in a way that expands the differences between channel values Applying a subtractive saturation effect - lowering the RGB channels together based on the differences between channel values Brightening faces - raising the RGB channels in an area on and around the selected faces Massaging skintones - raising/lowering the RGB channels to subtly change the hue and saturation Cool shadows - lowering the RG channels in the shadows etc etc.. as you can see, all these things are just subtle changes to the RGB channels, which relies on the latitude of the files. Most of these changes will be adjusting values by 1 stop or less, and sometimes a LOT less (like skintones), but some might also be more (cooler shadows). I did an experiment on bit-depth and wrote a plugin that lowered bit-depth, and discovered that taking a final image down to 6-bits wasn't visible (and some were fine with 5-bits!) but if you tried to colour grade those 5-bit images then you'd discover pretty quickly that even very minor adjustments would annihilate the image entirely. The other thing that occurs to me is that there are things you can do to help the image keep from falling apart too, like adding noise etc. I should explore that in future tests.

I have an A6500, so not the A6700, but the A6500 has a reputation for overheating too. I've never had a problem with overheating myself, even during our hot California summers. Big caveat, however: My "takes" are rarely longer than 1-2 minutes, so the camera has time to cool down between takes.

One of the reasons I prefer travelogue-style work is because I don't relate well to people in person. I attribute this to my Asperger's. I'm kind of like a milder version of Sheldon Cooper in The Big Bang Theory. I work all day with nerdy engineers like myself and most of the casual conversation is about technical subjects, not about anything related to art. I've always been a big advocate of using the right tools for the job. I'd rather work with a tool than fight with it, even if the right tools cost more--to me, it's worth it in the long run.

No, it's one of these: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1629147-REG/meike_mk_ff35t21_pl_full_frame_35mm_t2_1.html Sorry to disappoint anyone who might have thought I wouldn't settle for anything less than a ARRI Signature Prime or a Cooke S4/i. 🤑 Yes, we brought a tripod as well. My wife held on to the tripod while on the cable car. I decided to upgrade my tripod when I got the C300 and got a Sachtler Flowtech 75 CF tripod. It's lighter than my previous tripod and much easier to set up and use as the leg locks are at the top. There were several factors that led me to buy the C300 over the C70: Bigger and non-built-in monitor, availability of a native PL mount, CFexpress card support. I didn't find it difficult to shlep the C300 and tripod around the city. I carried the C300 by its top handle in my left hand and the tripod by it's handle in my right. My wife and I are strong hikers, so the hilly terrain of the city wasn't that big of a challenge. The cable car ride was the only physically demanding part of the day, and that was only because I was hand-holding the camera at arm's length to get a better view (and avoid getting the head of the passenger in front of me in the frame).

I know the IBIS thing. Nothing worse than super shaky footage. It goes way back to my Pentax K5 (the first large sensor with IBIS if I'm not mistaken). Almost every camera I've owned had it. Of course, you can turn it off and everything, but I like the limitation of not having it now... nothing handheld or if handheld, use the steadycam (which means I almost never use it).

You could go gyro stabilization? Get a cheap action cam and hotshoe mount it. Use it to log the data.

Pretty much the same for me except I went Sony for full video and Canon for hybrid/stills work after being just Canon since Covid. Atm it's ZV-E1/FX30 for pure video work, Canon R8/R7 for hybrid/photog or if shooting with Canon shooter. 2023 is an interesting year for me, got layed off in the beginning and decide to do just freelance, went to travel for 4 months this year which is the most I have done in my whole life. I also started doing some photog work and man not have to carry that much gear is nice for a change lol. Mavic Air (the OG) is my longest surviving gear so far, client still happy with it and I don't do much drones nowaday so I don't think I will upgrade until it exploded or something. This year I might get the Osmo pocket 3 after renting it out for an event where I m mostly doing photo and some video. I was quite impressed with the result as I can't be assed to put my cam on the gimbal. And I bought M1 max Mac Studio during boxing day clearance recently, the general speed and export speed increase by many folds vs my og MBA m1 with 7 core gpu and 8gig of ram. Now my MBA can enjoy some semi-retirement time lol, when I told ppl I been editing multicam 4k on this little machine ppl were quite skeptical.

I'd agree with the others that you've already found the best ILC solution. Personally I don't expect any new very compact ILCs to appear (warmed over stuff like the G100D excepted) - I think that market segment is largely catered for now by small RX100/ZV-1 size 1" sensor compacts plus larger sensor phones. I think it's not that camera manufacturers couldn't do it, more about if there would be enough customers willing to pay a high price for something like a G9 ii sensor and processing sqeezed into a sub-GX80/GX9 size body, with the inevitable limitations on recording times and battery life. Re. IBIS - I've now sold all my older cameras without it, because I much prefer doing most shooting handheld. I don't like an obvious 'handheld' look (overused sometimes in films and TV), so like Kye I rely on IBIS plus stabilisation in post if necessary. It's mostly why I live with video quality limitations in exchange for IBIS performance on the E-M1 iii and OM-1 (the OG G9 IBIS gets close, has worse AF and better video quality - swings and roundabouts...). The ZV-1 in 'active' SteadyShot mode (OIS + EIS) is quite decent but IMHO not up to E-M1 iii/OM-1 standard - but it is pocket sized after all...

Yes. Spec chasing nerds. Half the posts here are higher number must be better. Few actual practitioners. It’s ok if you don’t make a living from doing this but you can tell the posters that only care and the technical process and not what it’s in service of. Most successful image makers aren’t posting on forums like these. They don’t even participate in these kinds of conversations because they’re such a small part of the end result. And yeah I’m posting here so what does that say about me.

Love this! I am coming to the same conclusion as I shoot in 8-bit rec709 more and more. And I find that having a color managed workflow helps a lot; the image is quite flexible when conformed to Davinci Wide Gamut; responds a lot like LOG does. And if my exposure and white balance aren't too off, the grading experience is great.

I agree with the above 👆 thoughts as someone who shoots stills and video all day long at every job I do. It is possible to use the same kit most of the time, but not all the time, something that has been part of the puzzle for me. My own reality came down to there being 2 solutions better than any other and these were: A. The twin body set up shooting min 6k raw to give me the ability to pull hi res stills, or, B. The 4 body set up with 2 set up and dedicated for video and the other 2 for stills. There was/is a 3 body approach but it actually required/requires more compromise than either of the above, for my needs at least. Therefore having a dedicated stills camera with a secondary additional compatible video function makes absolute sense.

+1 for the suggestion of getting an older camera for stills, for the following reasons: Older cameras are much less out-of-date for stills assuming they can shoot RAW stills (which is almost universal now) This will give you the ability to have one camera setup for stills and the other for video, with no fiddling around to change modes and adjust any settings that can't be recalled as part of a profile etc The concept of having a backup is a great one and one that I've implemented for my setup If you decide to shoot a second angle or BTS video or anything like that then you're set, even if you setup both on the same tripod and one shoots a wide and the other a close-up, there are so many uses You can shoot a Timelapse of a whole setup while also recording video of parts during the activity You can even do things like record with the FX30 from a distance and use the older one as a field audio recorder and have it close by with a lav running into it

Do DR next @kye as in when the manufacturer quotes 97 stops of DR, but it’s actually 11 when all the planets align. I’m just messing 😉

So 4 then.

Sony always cracks me up with their stabilization claims. 7 stops!