Leaderboard

I think the problem with some of these discussions is the fact that we argue about gear like we are using it for the same purposes. We are discussing the merits of specific trucks, only some of us are using the trucks for a country drive to church, and some of us are hauling loads cross country. This makes the conversations very frustrating. You can take a drive with an 8 stop DR GH1 and get some pretty shots of the trees at sunset and feel the wind in your hair. But have you ever tried to shoot a commercial project or a modern documentary with 8 stops of DR and be competitive in today's market?

Maturity level 1: specs are everything Maturity level 2: specs don't matter Maturity level 3: let's talk about specs in a nuanced way Let's try and elevate the discussion, shall we?

After that shithousery was exposed by the work we did on here with it you’d have thought that recovery times and techniques would be front and centre of these “reviews” but sadly not. Particularly in this instance when the reviewer in question can’t exactly plead ignorance over it.

This is why log exists. We capture a dynamic range the screens can't display, then squeeze it into a rec 709 image that works for the screen and retains the detail we need for the shot

Or the whole thing is completely overblown because four minutes of shock content on that is far easier to produce than four minutes of representative content produced by light from the great outdoors actually hitting the sensor. I'm absolutely no fan of this fella but this is a far more representative real world performance evaluation (queued up to overheating section). In looking at that section, he didn't have the screen out and maybe the fro was acting as a shade and no mention is made of recovery time and would have been better using a dummy battery in that situation etc etc. So, despite this looking far more indicative of what to expect when actually using it then, again, as I say, without any explanation of the mitigation/recovery it still leaves question marks. Funnily enough, I was in a real life camera shop (well plural actually) a couple of days ago with @Andrew Reid as we were looking for an S9 and talking to the staff about what its like etc and they didn't have a clue. Not because they're not knowledgable, its just that they don't get any hands on with any of them until months later if at all as its now all about just pre-orders getting collected. They don't have any training courses or even reps from the manufacturers coming to visit to show them the cameras any more either. Everything is about the first few weeks leading up to and following the online launch and getting those pre-orders in. The whole business now - and this direction is driven entirely by the manufacturers - is all about direct marketing through YouTube and other "influencers" and it is a complete disgrace that people are getting so short changed by shallow first look "reviews" and such obviously dubious relationships. Its difficult enough for bricks and mortar camera shops to keep going without wasting the experience and knowledge of the staff and reducing the experience of dealing with customers to just handing over a pre-ordered box that has been bought on the say so of some bearded dick in a baseball cap who is in the pocket of the manufacturer. I don't know who was more depressed about the conversation we had about the situation, the two of them behind the counter or the two of us on the other side of it.

https://artlist.io/voice-over Imagine the blow the voice-over community receives. Then I keep reading comments like: yes but the human voice is inimitable and there will always be room for those who want that unmistakable touch. Bullshit

Absolutely. I once overheated an iPhone shooting in direct sun in probably 40-43C (104-110F), and considering that iPhones overheating is something that is practically unheard of, overheating is something I pay a lot of attention to.

I don't know that their current business model is sustainable with a constantly shrinking market and being a niche system. So the question is really "how long can OMD stay in business?" It'll really boil down to how long OMD wants to stick around before deciding enough is enough. Panasonic has seemingly slowed down their decline and possibly even reversed it a little, so their long term future is less in doubt I think. But M43's future is still up in the air and really depends on whether Panasonic decides to keep going with it if it's just not a profitable part of their business. Even if it does stick around I don't know that we'll ever really see the true promise of M43s, which was small cameras and small lenses with powerful features. The lenses are smaller, but the bodies aren't that much smaller than their full frame counterparts. Still I'll always have a soft spot for the M43 system and wish I'd kept a couple lenses.

This partly true. Many pros will also come up with a lens/camera/filter combo that matches the look they want for a specific project, then stick with that combo all the way through. They then will add specific filters for specific shots. It's what I see done a lot anyway.

"let’s have a look at the waveform shooting our standard XYLA21 chart with the GH1 – 8 usable stops are visible: Waveform plot of the 2009 original LUMIX GH1 shooting the XYLA 21 chart – 8 stops are usable. Image credit: CineD 8 stops!? How was I ever able to shoot anything on the GH1 with that seemingly poor dynamic range? Well – interestingly enough, when I now look at some of my early GH1 films on Vimeo they look totally fine to me… it is glaringly obvious that camera technology hasn’t been limiting us anymore for a very very long time. " Panasonic LUMIX GH6 Lab Test - Rolling Shutter, Dynamic Range, and Latitude | CineD https://www.cined.com/panasonic-lumix-gh6-lab-test-rolling-shutter-dynamic-range-and-latitude/

All these things comes back to the same thing…which is a different thing for each individual. I’m not necessarily looking for ‘the best’ but rather what works best for me within certain parameters, the principle one being cost. Not just cost vs return, but actual cost. If the financial side was not part of the equation, like most, not only would I be using different stuff, I’d probably have a different career! It all comes down to need vs compromises we’re willing to make in the end with the wrapper being money.

thanks. will try these. did now see them when i tried. the results are truly amazing.

Yes and no I think. Can it get better? Probably yes, but at what level and how does it relate to how it’s displayed? So yes, good enough in 99% of cases 99% of the time as they say. I moved to a Sony A7RV for stills and does it produce better images than the Nikon Zf or Z6ii or the S5ii, my most recent stills cameras? Yes, but only very slightly. Where is it noticeable? In editing. On my website or social media? God no, no one would. So why bother? Professional pride and craft. I KNOW and for me, that is reason enough. Plus, as they say, it’s in the details which alone, are rarely if ever noticed, but if you can improve everything by 1% every year, it all adds up and keeps forward momentum as a whole. A tiny bit more DR, a tiny bit more detail, a tiny bit more more pleasant bokeh, a tiny bit more stabilization etc etc etc, - it all adds up and makes a subtle but actual difference.

We’re getting closer…

I feel like any of these discussions should include a link to Vincent Laforet's Reverie. He shot that with the 5D II with the early firmware which had all sorts of limitations in video mode. The 5D II's SOOC rec.709 had shit DR compared to a modern camera. Reverie still looks good. A lot of people will use a modern camera with greatly superior features and produce something that doesn't look even nearly as good. But with that said, I suspect that if you offered Mr. Laforet a choice between most modern cameras and the 5D II, he wouldn't hesitate to take the newer camera. Anyway, as far as whether DR matters, that depends entirely on the project and expectations. Are crushed shadows and/or blown-out highlights acceptable? For a lot of people, they are. If so, there's no need to be concerned with it. Will there be time to light the scene to keep things within a range that the camera can capture? Is the footage being delivered as-is or is it being turned over to a colorist? You can go shoot something that looks really nice with a T2i and its kit lens. Will it match what you wanted? Probably not. Will it be what the director/client wanted? Probably not. Will it be enough to put on something like instagram? Probably. Are the "probably nots" made better by using an Alexa? Only maybe. 😃

Yeah my point exactly. I have very little doubt AI will take over huge swaths of the market, it's just I think there will always be room for human made products.

You cannot Unsee his Insanely White Teeth, once you notice them. So Basically this camera is an Unreliable FX30 with massive overheating issued in Real Shooting Conditions (not under controlled environments). With No IBIS and a few other strange issues.

Not particularly to be honest. There is no comparison to the overheating performance of the Mark 1 and in his actual review of the Mark 1 he writes off any overheating concerns in literally a single second. And yet in this review of the Mark II he devotes around 30% of the whole video to it. Curious, no ? The thing is that the original Mk I actually had a widely reported (and click baited) furore around overheating which his review singularly failed to mention let alone highlight. Interestingly, it was actually one of the few reviews where he actually went outside with a camera and used it like someone would, so that may be related. The furore around the Mark 1 (fuelled in large part by people using it for two hour live streams) went away with the combination of the High setting, the screen flipped out and the use of dummy batteries. So, the latter points the finger firmly at the issue being the battery/chamber. Now the Mark II has a completely different battery and chamber so it is really relevant to understand whether the performance in terms of overheating is different and whether the same mitigation works. Like all the cameras that I have ever seen labelled with an "oh my God this is fatal" overheating "issue", I'm always wondering how many camera shops are overwhelmed with returns of them and the manufacturers having to withdraw them from sale as that reality doesn't seem to chime with the pearl clutching. In the case of the Mark I, it is extremely popular with its target audience, which strongly suggests that the real world usage of them by those people isn't unduly impacted by this, so if the Mark II is markedly worse or different then it is incumbent on "reviewers" to contrast and compare. These tests tell us nothing about real world performance not least because they do not take into account recovery time, which is the biggest debilitating factor in evaluating overheating. Once again, I find myself bewildered by how many people consider him as some sort of gold standard of reviewer. At the very least, the disparity between less than one second of evaluation of the overheating of the Mark I and five whole minutes on the Mark II warrants some sort of evaluation. Maybe overheating didn't drive the clicks in the same way when the Mark I was released.

Sony practically doesn't give a shit about overheating. In fact, it is now a trademark. It seems here in Italy in the summer you can't use the camera at home.

I don't crave "authentic handmade clothing". I'm fine with that all my clothes are machine made in a massive factory overseas. Am also don't crave "authentic hand drawn portraits". I'm fine that a machine (cameras, be it a DSLR, or even our cellphone) puts most of the work into making them these days. (even when you consider a highly skilled pro photographer, the marginal effort/time it costs to create an additional picture is exceptionally low vs what a portrait artist of the past had to do) While I'm not sure about what the timeline is for it (not even fully confident if it will happen in my lifetime or not, just that it will be "one day"), but I expect once AI movies are "good enough" (i.e. not Will Smith eating spaghetti!) then the future audience of them will also not care at all that they're "not hand crafted" just like they don't care for that about their clothes / portraits / etc (of course there will always remain a very small minority that do care, but for most of us this will be such a small market it won't be economically viable to target). But the musicians are not freaking out as much as the writers are... !

It's all about an inherent format look. Serves a lot but not all. Horses for courses ; ) Being IBIS as said above, the most interesting one, not much else to say, frankly : ) Versatile, yes, in fact, but doesn't cover everything. Fortunately AF is now not a miss as far as these tests are able to let us know :- )

Right. The use of a smaller sensor size factor is not only the question of DOF, with more or less deep versus shallow look, but the intrinsic quality of bokeh which varies in a variety of specific layers towards much detached aesthetics. For example, still photography, motion picture, soap opera, teledrama, docs, events, etc., are only a general way to address a few categories on this discussion. Many subcategories can be found on each. Which means no matter how many tricks bokeh is not exactly possible to replicate under equivalent variables, there is an intrinsic look on much contrasting subtleties, apparently indistinguishable, but only to the casual eye. - EAG

summarizing the tests by Gerald Undone for GH7 and CineD for GH6, GH7 has a usable dr of 12 stops at s/n=2 with dr boost on meaning 4k 60p at most, a latitude of 6 stops at least, 3 upper the mid gray, 3 lower. using Alexa 35 as the reference standard, Alexa 35 has a usable dr of 15 stops at s/n, a latitude of 12 stops. according to my experience on mlraw and r3d, I typically do ettr to 3 stops plus at most, then pull down in post to reduce the noise. I never did more than 3 stops as typically there is not enough available light for this, and ettr works fine enough for 2-3 stops to reduce the noise. although Alexa 35's latitude is amazing, gh7's latitude is good enough for most common scenarios. gh7's 12 stops usable dr is basically at the Sony Venice level. there were so many block busters made by Venice and there was no complain about its dr. good enough for Hollywood features, good enough for me. with its ibis and af, gh7 is a compelling package to me.

There sure is.. and the music people are freaking out more than the film-making people.

The names of these cameras are chosen by Satan himself. Damn them!

I don’t know about ‘always’ because 5 years vs 50 years vs 5000 years… But for the foreseeable future as in our lifespans, changes because there is always change, but probably not to the extent that some think. I believe this to be the case because although ‘progress’ continues to accelerate, there is only so much we can take, ie, it cannot simply increase exponentially. And then there is retro/analogue or whatever we wish to call it, but even that gets updated because to some, ‘retro’ is stuff from just a few years back which others of us, might think of as not far off being current. So AI I think will continue to play a part and increasingly so, but at the same time, I don’t think the sky is falling in. Well not completely. Or at least for some time yet… Please not if there is a god, until I’m done. Thanks. If you exist and are listening/read comments on this forum. And if you truly are omnipotent, you surely do? Or have someone do? Because you must because just reading that volume of shit on YouTube comments must take up a heck of an amount of time. Appreciate it.

This chart from Tiffen is really helpful for filter experimentation. Glimmer glass is the filter I reach for the most because it slightly softens the image just a touch, while also blooming practical lights a little bit too without touching the shadows or overall contrast. When pared with modern sensors it is a really pleasing look.

pdaf may pulse too. my c300 og is upgraded to dpaf. I used it for continuous af. at infinity for landscape, I can see it pulse. I have to use one shot af to force the lens to stay at infinity, then pan or tilt. for subjects 3-5 meters away during an event, c300 og dpaf works fine, I have not seen significant pulse. c100 mk ii dpaf is much more reliable. at infinity, I don't see pulse on c100 mk ii.

Well the Sony A7RV gets to stay. For now at least... It was always going to be a close cal between it and the new Z6III but I think I made the right choice. Had a pretty poor first shoot experience with it the other week when it got dropped and the Tamron 28-75 was sheared off it's mount and then shooting medium raw which 'everyone' recommends turned out to be shit. All medium raw did, other than saving some storage space and make the files slightly slower to process, was remove colour & detail and caused an utter trash low light result. Don't believe everything you read on the internets... OK, 61mp uncompressed raw is overkill for about 90% of my work but there isn't another combination of body & lenses, this compact & light, with this kind of performance. DR is higher than anything I have previously used and that is a big thumbs up. Low light capability on my most recent shoot was a concern after the previous week as these higher MP cameras are not renowned for being low-light monsters, but actually, it passed muster on the basis of using DXO PureRaw which I always use anyway. I would however like a faster lens than f/2.8 for lower light stuff and though it's a brute, that new Sigma 28-45mm f/1.8 is looking mighty tempting for this purpose... Please please please Sigma, make a sibling to it such as say a 45-90mm f/1.8 and I'm set for the rest of my career. No S9 yet, - that won't be here until towards the end of the month, but the Lumix set up are not any kind of concern as they just do the business.

I don't even think they lack in resolution. There are old cameras with 1080p that still look good to me, among them the original BMPCC, C100, and the GH3 (and hacked GH2). They might not have the higher resolution or the DR of cameras today, but they have pleasing images that hold up. In fact, from a pure image standpoint, the BMPCC was my favorite camera I've ever owned. It's the other quality of life things that made me move on more than the resolution or dynamic range. Other cameras had a "good enough" image, but better battery life, IBIS, auto focus, audio preamps, etc. were all worth the trade off. I could pull out my GH5 with minimal rigging and get 2 hours of record time, amazing IBIS, good enough auto focus, and all the other things that made my job significantly easier.

Exposure was different in many of those shots, Panasonic was brighter. Thus the highlights blowing more than the Sony. Matching all the settings for a comparison is great but it's of limited use when the two cameras have their ISOs rated differently. The S5IIX sensor was introduced with the A7III back in 2018! Not a new sensor at all.

Like with your GH5 post the other day, almost all cameras made in the last 10 years are capable tools that can produce nice images. It doesn't mean though that you should go out and buy a GH4 in 2024. There are plenty of "quality of life" improvements that have occured since the GH4's release that make it a lot less desirable camera compared to something like the GH5 or S1. We're blessed to be at a point where we could use a 10 year old camera and still get good results if we HAD to, but let's not pretend that the cameras that have come out since aren't significantly better in every way. IBIS alone radically changed the way I film and work.

No doubt, and these options are definitely worth pointing out. For me though, I prefer a much larger range of focal lengths for travel. I'm sure you know this stuff far better than I, but for @SRV1981 and others, here are some thoughts.. I'm not far enough into the film theory, but I know they shoot documentaries and ENG with zooms for a reason, and I suspect my reasons for wanting that flexibility is the same as theirs. I shot travel for a couple of years with a 35mm FOV being the main lens, and after a while I noticed a same-same kind of look to the footage. I noticed this same look when iPhone video first got popular but it only had one focal length, and the same for action-camera-only videos. My analysis of award winning documentaries and travelogues showed me two critical things about the cinematography: 1) the shots were nice, but not incredible 2) the way they were used in the edit was what made the final product really great I was also amazed at how many shots there were, and their variety. We all know that the average shot length of today's media is around the 2-4s (with 4s being on the slow side), which is 1400-700 shots for a 45 minute episode. This is easy to achieve if you don't want the shots to be that different from each other, but if you want variety and you want them to be interesting, you either need to go to a large number of locations or you need a zoom. The average vantage point will potentially have a large number of interesting compositions.. the wide shot of course, the low-angle wide and the high-angle wide might also be interesting, but beyond that it's about zooming in to interesting details. Due to compression at longer focal lengths you can also juxtapose different foreground and background elements by getting closer and wider or further away and zooming in. For travel, your ability to "zoom with your feet" is often severely limited, and you have to shoot from where you are allowed to be: At the zoo or the safari park, you can't go into the lions cage and walk up to the lion to get a close-up On the top level of the hop-on-hop-off bus you're not allowed to stand up when the bus is moving.. so the choice is either shooting the wide shot only (which might include the people next to you), or zooming and getting all kinds of compositions My shot of the pope giving a Sunday address at the Vatican would have been a shot of a tiny speck in a window of a rather grand building if I'd only had the wide, but thanks to the 10x zoom I had on that trip I am zoomed in enough that you could see his facial expressions Any landscape photographer will tell you that having a telephoto is wonderful because all mountains in the distance look small with the wide but the tele is how you make them look big Any time there's an animal - birds, squirrels, monkeys, etc... often you want the close up but don't want to get close to them, or they don't want to get close to you etc etc The online world seems reluctant to look at or learn from the professionals, who often have hundreds or thousands of times the experience and insight that the online crowd has. Or, if they do, they only pay attention to what Deakins might say about shooting a feature film. But travel isn't a movie set - it's real life and the doco shooters use different equipment for a reason. Ignore their experience to your own detriment.

Absolutely. It's like people have forgotten what the images in the cinema actually looked like, or that they were 35mm film. I say that because people who apply a "filmic" or "cinematic" look seem to apply a film emulation at about 284% of what is realistic. This is a scan of (IIRC) Kodak 200T (source) : The video above is: too sharp too heavy split-tone very heavy-handed diffusion ridiculous halation etc It's like they got a film emulation plugin and put some sliders to 0% emulation, and others to 350%. In colour, "if it looks good then it is good" definitely applies, but it doesn't seem to have a look of its own, it's just got a bad film emulation on it.

The most of the look is given by the black mist filter - people love to use very heavy "misting" with this camera. Personally, I thnk that it gives too much "halation" in the highlights, look like a very detailed scene of the 1st Unreal game. 🙂 A weaker one could take away a good bit of the "digital edges" of the image (which is desirable, Pocket 3 image is VERY sharp, even with the sharpness all turned down) without looking as a meth trip.