Leaderboard

Right now, it’s probably the S5ii. You can adapt at least Canon lenses, but not sure about anything else. Definitely not anything ‘new’ such as Sony E, Nikon Z or Canon RF. The IBIS though is first rate in my opinion.

I just got the 14-140mm F3.5-5.6 Panasonic zoom lens, and in combination with my GX85 they do DualIS which utilises the IBIS and the OIS together. I'm able to hand-hold up to about 100mm, which is same FOV as 200mm on FF. The problem of stabilisation is that there's no standard for testing, and each person has differing abilities to hold a camera steady. If you're able to rig the camera in a way that makes it steadier then that will significantly improve your ability to get stable shots. For example, having the camera on a small tripod and using the tripod to brace the camera against your body, or using the string trick to hold the camera to the ground, or using a strap to pull it away from your body and stabilise it that way, etc.

I'm not proving your point. The picture is fuzzy, and there isn't a single definition, but these things do exist. Take "the film look". If you ask people what the film look is, you will have arguments until the end of time. Any attempt to define the film look will fail. However, that doesn't mean there is no film look... imagine two scenarios: Scenario 1: I shoot images with an 8K sensor at base ISO, Zeiss Otis prime, sharpened h264 codec, 709 profile, and I edit in a 4K timeline without colour grading, and upload to YT. Scenario 2: I shoot images with a 2K sensor at ISO 800, Contax Zeiss prime wide-open, in RAW, and I edit on a 2K timeline and in post I apply a Kodak 250D and 2383 colour transform, I add grain, I add gate weave, and I upload to YT. I then show both videos to 100 people. Probably all of them would say the second has a "film look" to it. Just because you can't define it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If I then shoot images and I add a film-like contrast curve, some grain, some subtractive saturation, soften the edges slightly, and do a warm/cool split-tone, people who saw it might start to say it's got a "bit of a film look". It's the same with the medium format look. Or the Kodak look. Or the S16 look. Or the Technicolour look. Or the Wes Anderson look. Or the Tarantino look. Or the VHS look. etc. These things don't have a single precise and universally agreed definition, but it doesn't mean they don't exist. Or it might be that you're not seeing it. That's fine, no-one here is even remotely close to seeing everything in the images. When the top cinematographers, colourists, editors, production designers, etc all look at things they all see things we don't. I mean, if interior designers can walk into a room and see the influence of late-18th century French sensibilities in a room, that leaves the rest of us practically blind by comparison, right?

Pretty much! I made the mistake of buying a used R5, specifically for its IBIS, to pair with my R5C, and ended up regretting it bcuz the difference between IBIS and the R5C with internal DIS and/or IS lenses was not worth the advantages of getting acsecond R5C will never do that again. Luckily I was able to resell the R5 and get a second R5C for about the price as the used R5. Currently I use my R5Cs exclusively with EF lenses that have IS and have no complaints whatsoever (I use DIS now and then but very rarely). Basically, I know the cam's limitations and respect those limitations. For shots that require something beyond the stationary tripod-styled look I invested in an RS3 Pro (using it with IS stablized lens gives me the best results). For R5C users, the RS2/3/4 Pro are pretty much the best/only options - and many R5C users who tried to go for something more affordable ended up regretting it. So in 2024 it's still a horses/courses/practice-practice get to know your gear approach.

100mm on MFT is definitely a pretty long telephoto for sure, but remember that in my case I had IBIS in the camera and the OIS in the lens both helping with the stabilisation. Depending on what camera and what lens you have, they might not work together like this, so you'll get less effective stabilisation. I find stabilisation to really be a bit of a gamble - you can get good comparisons from people and they're likely to be good information but until you actually test a setup yourself you're not going to know in what situations you can get a stable image. I've found that there are lots of things that can impact your ability to get a stable shot, for example all the following will have an impact: if you're tired if the ground is level and solid or not what sort of shoes you are wearing and if they're comfortable what pose you're in if it's windy your caffeine levels how tired you are if there are bright lights shining in your eyes (obviously) if you're moving or walking, but even then there are all sorts of techniques involved and how much practice you've had at them, etc Perhaps the best advice once you've bought your equipment is to practice as much as you can, know what you can and can't do, and have a backup plan in place for when it gets difficult.

Being serious, looking forward to Monday. Rarely do I preorder a camera and half my gear I buy used, but based on considerable user experience and my needs…and on the assumption that it will suit my needs perfectly, I can’t see why it will not be that ‘no-brainer’ for my needs. Second choice would be a used Z9 and although I prefer the battery grip built in approach, it is still considerably heavier than a Z6iii will be with battery grip and the spec of the Z9 is arguably a little more than I need. My only ‘concern’ is a Lumix S1H replacement with Samyang 35-150 will almost certainly come out at some point and it makes more sense for me to have a fully L Mount set up, but there are no signs of the former… And why a ‘S2H’? Quite simply the best camera from a user experience I have ever owned, video AND stills. But it’s not that big a deal me using L Mount for video and Nikon for stills and I’d rather do something this year than not as currently juggling 4 cameras is problematic…

Which is exactly how I’m using mine. Originally for the former and now with the latter. No regrets over ditching the gimbal. None at all. It’s not like I was ever a big gimbal user anyway, but after going through 3 of the damned things and never enjoying any of them…in fact they were an utter PITA, now loving the ‘custom C3 gimbal setting’ on my S5ii at the flick of a switch. Using the 28mm wide end of my Sigma 28-70mm, in S35 mode, it’s more like around ‘50mm’ or something and early days, but suits my limited needs.

A nerve wrecking affair extra ordinaire.😂 I would pee horrified Smileys into the sand afterwards. @kye

Best Ibis from a full frame camera, S5II. I have not tested it but youtube shows plenty examples. I find Ibis on the GH5 and GX85 more reliable than on my S1/H. It works very well most of the times on the latter but sometimes, possibly with adapted stabilized lenses such as the Canon 24-105, it can unexpectedly feel a bit too jittery. S1/H stabilized a 200mm very well for my needs when panning a protagonist handheld, to answer your question. Do you have a dslm camera with ibis? If not, GX85 from my experience is a good starter or Olympus EM10III.

it’s a trick to understand optics and basic math? jesus fucking christ man if any of you gave as much shit about making, or working on interesting art on here and sharing it instead of jacking off your lil dingdongs over new gear, resolutions, different starting point looks of shitty fucking sensors, or being mentally insane about 24 fps this place could actually have interesting discussions. I fucking hate gear. i fucking hate lenses, cameras, shitty lights, cables, rigs etc. Sadly its necessary to understand at least some of it, as it is a means to an end to create what i actually want to create. i suggest others to view it same way. Or learn color grading, like kye said. That has generated a bit of income for me from time to time.

@eatstoomuchjamThat's a good point. I guess I just like the specific look of the Mamiya 80mm f1.9 in that case

It must be amazing to know everything and have nothing else to learn. I can't imagine what that must be like. To see everything. To know everything. Wow. We truly are lucky to have you here to correct all of us in our silly and naive delusions. Please... tell us what else we all collectively believe that is also wrong... enlighten us... your omnipotence!

thanks for the long reply. all true. regards,

you are totally right, according to my research on ibis.

On the IBIS front, we've gone from taking out micro-jitters to gimbal replacement. IMO nothing truly replaces a skilled steadycam operator. However, if you're one man show, the Panasonic S5ii/x has the best IBIS in the business in June 2024. Sony is far, far behind for out-of-camera gimbal like shots on their FF bodies. Nikon and Canon still have issues with warpy corners on wide shots (the majority of shots for "gimbal replacements"). Coming from M43 and used to Panasonic and Olympus systems crushing FF bodies, I was amazed how Panasonic did it.

It looks like a camera. That’s one box ticked 😜

Those who ignore philosophy as science will struggle to identify any branch of it, namely aesthetics as something non-existent. If it is non-existent, why the hell there's any need to learn or even think about it? : D - EAG

LOL Loved the way you and @PannySVHS address the arena BTW ; ) Speaking of devil, Paul Lockhart, a mathematician, someone who uses an extensive knowledge of mathematics in their work, mathematicians so to speak but also everyone of us simple mortal users, he once stated: "Doing mathematics should always mean finding patterns and crafting beautiful and meaningful explanations". Understanding is the ability to catch sight of something aka comprehension. But also sympathetic awareness/tolerance. Yet, math is a language, just not the only one. Math is basics. One doesn't necessarily exclude another one outside. Trouble comes when people see the things solely built on rankings. They lose the sense of ridicule. - EAG

Maybe you need two... one to have the battery fail and the other one to be rolling and catch the moment!

Producing art of our penises or with our penises? It's been not too long, when I peed a Smiley into the snow. I didn't even take a Selfie of me and my happy snowface though. At the moment I disguise working in a crew, maybe never really will again. @PPNS I created my own recreational filming challenge which I have been doing for six days in a row until last week. @eatstoomuchjam has asked me what kinda "challenge" we could do when I was suggesting to do one. As being too picky about thinking of something exiting for everyone and myself I just created one for myself: unrigged og Bmpcc, with four internal batteries, 25mm Tevidon or boosted 28mm Pentax F2 non Hollywood. Tell you what, art happened infront and with my camera whenever the battery quit working.😊

@lsquareif you want a scratch mic with your DWM-XLR2 to get decent-ish ambient audio, then get the Deity SMic3S if on a very low budget, or the Sanken CSM1 if on a medium budget. https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1830582-REG/deity_microphones_dtm0304d11_s_mic_3s_short_shotgun.html https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1404643-REG/sanken_cs_m1_super_cardioid_short.html Unless they're specifically doing 360VR videos, or maybe some other niche usage (I dunno, creating audio library with lots of different format options??) then usually ambisonics is not a good idea for ambient recordings.

At the risk of jumping in on a question that was basically made for @IronFilm, if your goal is to capture ambient sound as a 360 degree soundscape, you probably want an ambisonic microphone. Look into something like the Zoom VRH-8 or the Rode NT-SF1.

No, this is ignoring everything I've said. Obviously the same lens on different sensor sizes at the same FOV will look different. That's not controversial. The point is that the FOV and DOF of a 12mm f/1.4 lens on a M43 sensor will be nearly identical to that of a 24mm f/2.8 lens on a full frame sensor. Will the specific characteristics of the lenses influence the overall look? Sure. If the 24mm f/2.8 is from the 1970's, it will certainly look a bit different from a 12mm lens made in 2018. But that has nothing to do with the sensor size. As I already said, I have done plenty of side-by-side tests over the years. If you believe that a bigger sensor is really giving you a different look, that's fine. I hope you enjoy it. It's just not a position that is supported by any actual facts.

That has just as much to do with bitrate than resolution. No one said that there isn't a difference between shooting 4K and FHD, merely that there is not much difference when watching them on the televisions most of us have, at the distance most of us watch them at. I've been filming in 4K instead of FHD for nearly 10 years at this point for a reason. But 4K displays were mostly a gimmick. While most people now have them almost all content watched on them is FHD because most people have thus far decided that 4K isn't worth the premium they want you to pay (example: Netflix's most popular tier by far is the Standard tier which is only FHD.) That's why I bring it up: you're already worried about 8K and whether or not 6K will look good on it, when 4K hasn't even become the primary resolution in which people consume content and still, most of us don't even have big enough 4K displays to appreciate 4K content all that much more than we do FHD. LOL. Man, 5' is way too close to be watching an 85" TV whether it's 8K or 4K. Seriously, don't ever do that. But to answer your bigger question: 6K will look fine on an 8K... and so will FHD and 4K, assuming you buy a reasonable TV size for your room and seating.

Nope. You're flat-out wrong. The only meaningful difference that has been presented is in the characteristics of different lenses which is real, but has nothing to do with medium format. Pentax 645 lenses look different from Mamiya 645 lenses which, in turn, look different from Mamiya 7 lenses, etc. They don't have a unified and monolithic look. They won't have the same look when adapted to work with your digital camera, with or without any sort of focal reducer. You could say "I like the look of Mamiya 645 lenses with a Kipon focal reducer on my full frame camera." That's totally valid, but if you say "Now my camera has the medium format look," you sound ridiculous. Your camera has the look of Mamiya 645 lenses, nothing more. People won't magically feel like they can now "walk into the image" and it won't be any more 3d than anything else. Using a bigger sensor, likewise, won't make the image more 3d.

The BrightinStar 28mm pancake is actually better in terms of image quality on full-frame thick-stack sensors, and it's a fraction of the price. The MS Optics has a focusing tab and I actually love those for manual focus. You develop a sense of where you are in terms of focal range by the position of the tab; this is how street shooters do zone focus, by the feel of where the tab is. Quite a few rangefinder lenses have that tab; some people hate it but as a focusing aid I love it and it's very fast.

Right, but that is proving my point. There is no medium format look. Maybe there are dozens of medium format looks depending on which lens set somebody chooses, but with a definition like "it means different things to different people," you might as well be saying "I prefer a cinematic look" or "I prefer something that looks more filmic." And of course not all lenses have the same character, but my point is really just that by the definitions given, I have actual large format and medium format film cameras that don't achieve the "medium format look" (as described by people here) and I have smaller sensor cameras that have a real chance of getting there instead, depending on which lenses I put on or whether I mount them on the back of a LF field camera using a vintage lens. And of course 8mm film and any modern-ish phone camera, not just the iPhone 4, will look substantially different. This is, again, a place where there are a number of characteristics which are fairly common among 8mm cameras/film, including 18fps, gate weave, huge grain, and a response curve typical to the film being used - some of which could be simulated on the phone and some not so much.

There is no such thing as a "medium format look." If you like the way your medium format lenses look when speed boosted, that's fine, but an 80mm f/4 lens on a 0.71x focal reducer will be nearly indistinguishable from a 57mm f/2.8 lens that's made for FF (aside from lens character considerations, etc).

RAW video is always much nosier because it come strait from the sensor. In camera video recording is heavily denoised. Great performance of sensors in low light when using internal recording is mostly result of good in camera denoise. When using RAW footage and high ISO you'll have to denoise in post production. Result will be even better than in camera denoise but unfortunately requires powerful GPU and will take a lot more time for the final rendering. Actually one colorist said that you have to denoise always when using digital camera. 🙂 Another way to reduce the noise of RAW footage with Panasonic S1/S5/S1H would be to shoot at 6K, then reduce resolution to 4K in post. It automatically gets rid of some of the noise. It is also well known fact that BRAW is partially debayered in camera otherwise it will infringe RED patent about compressed video. External recorders are not affected by the patent. While not true RAW, BRAW recording results are more than good for me and major factor to buy Panasonic + Blackmagic Video Assist. BRAW has other advantages as for example multiple quality settings and as result reduced file size. And of course ability to edit straight from the recorder in Davinci Resolve. Using ProRes RAW or Blackmagic BRAW is more choice of NLE than anything else. Quality differences are negligible and visible only in some cases and with heavy pixel peeping. Here is a good test of Blackmagic BRAW vs Prores RAW which demonstrates well the noise problem and differences between the two RAW formats: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPB6wrVKHiw