theSUBVERSIVE

But I was actually talking about a possible Panasonic competitor for the Sony FS5/FS7, not the actual VariCam LT, that's why I said "budget" camera, a sub-$10k camera.

This is pretty similar to the idea I had a few months back for a possible "Sony A9", it's just that instead of FF 24MP for a true 8K crop in APS-C, with a option for 6K full readout 4K output in FF, it's a APS-C to Micro4/3 crop. With JVC already using a Super35 sensor on a Micro4/3 mount, I think this can indeed be very interesting for Panasonic, making a clear distinction between the GH and GX line may be the next step since the GX8 has more "PRO" feats compared to the GX7, I wonder if Panasonic would really do that since people don't talk that much about GX8, so I wonder if it's selling well. The A6300 is a very interesting camera but it's Sony, so they made some compromises so there is still a gap for an A7000 series and so that the A6300 doesn't get too close to the A7 family, so are these little things that we would like it to have, but unfortunately it doens't. Panasonic could really take advantage of that, fill that Super35 video gap with a full featured video camera. With Fuji stepping up in video, it would be good to do it now rather than never. This would also open a precedent for a step up video camera to compete with the FS5, something that I would really like. Sure it can be up with the FS7, or right between them, but the FS5's modularity, size and weight is the most appealing part of it.

It seems that everybody is asking Panasonic for a FS5/FS7/C100/C300 competitor by Panasonic. I've already expressed that when Sony announced the FS5, it would be really great to see a FS5 competitor by Panasonic. I wonder what kind of mount would be better, wouldn't it be better if they chose a mount with a shorte flange distance - for better versatiliy - with official swappable mount to EF and PL than simply choosing EF? Panasonic did launch the DVX200 as some sort of gap but that is much more for broadcast and events than film makers, I would had preferred a faster zoom lens with a little less range to keep the size down. I really like Panasonic's Varicam images, they are astonishing and it has such a nice feel to it. I know they wouldn't use the same dual ISO sensor on "budget" camera but at least all the colour science and thought would be on it - since Sony lacks a bit of attention to details.

About the Nikon 4K, didn't Nikon say that they will improve that to 30mins? 1416

Can you upload some of these footages that you did this quick adjustments? Or at least a BEFORE and AFTER snapshot, it would be quite nice. But that's not what I meant when I said "even more Fuji doing so BEFORE Olympus", it's simply that if Fuji really delivers a great video, they will be doing so before Olympus. A lot was expected of Olympus after the firmware that enabled the use of the 5-axis IBIS in video mode. There was some improvements in the E-M1 but the camera that was advertised as this promissed camera was the E-M5 MKII, there were even ads shot with it, even a shortfilm and some early hands on talking about the video, but then, they couldn't quite deliver it and all the Olympus video hype cooled off. They did improve some video feats via firmware but it addressed some things video guys wanted out of the box, some extras but it didn't make the video quality better as far as I know. PR Game? C'mon, that's far from it and there is a clear difference, the only one that had similar deliver was Samsung. If you really want, I can list the differences in how Fuji and Samsung were doing and how the others were doing, even more Sony, it's not even near the same thing and it's not about having firmware updates but what they do. And if this is really just a PR Game, I hope that everybody else does it at this level. Fuji delivered some major feats via firmware and it wasn't just for one camera, it wasn't just for their flagship and it wasn't because the competition forced them to. They even brought - when the hardware allowed them to - some new feats that their newly released camera was bringing and it even happened when a new successor was released, you will never see Sony doing anything like it. Even a discontinued camera received some extra feats and improvements via firmware. If I missed these type of firmware improvements by the other manufacturers, then I can agree that it's truly just a mega "PR Game" by Fuji, otherwise, they have quite a catch up to do - and I hope they do, that's good for all consumers.

I don't think you quite understand what I was talking about. Just having a new sensor won't make the video better. There are tons of cameras that shared the same sensor, nonetheless, their video quality were completely different. It's not even about using the same codec, since there were also several cameras using the same codec and their video quality were very different as well. So it's about how you use and how you encode the data you have, so if Fuji learned how to do it, that's a huge step forward. Olympus might have the IBIS and even shot with their own camera - which I always thought to be a silly parameter - but the video still look bad. 4K will be just resolution if Olympus can't make it look good, but of course it would be great if Olympus can finally manage to deliver it. The mic input wouldn't be expected on the X-PRO2 but the important thing, as I mentioned, is Fuji's MO, their Kaizen. They listen to their customers, if they brought video quality you can be sure that mic input is on the way, even if it doesn't come right away, I'm sure that as people will ask about it, they will bring it. Moreover I wrote that if people start buying Fuji for its video as well, a flat profile will be on its way. Sometimes I feel like people are overrating a bit what having a flat profile means. First because not everybody really needs flat profile, if the main point is to output nice images, so unless you really need some serious color tweaking, if the camera already outputs a nice image, you won't really need a flat profile to work with and that saves you a lot of time, colour science is that important and Fuji has it, their images look great right out off the bat and that's something very few have, so it can do wonders. When the camera screw up detais on the shadow, skin colour, doesn't allow you to picture what you want, clip the highlights, etc. that's when you need the most DR possible so you can tweak it during post to make it like you want. Plus, unless you have 10-bit files you don't really have that much room to work with in a log profile, it might help you but it can also bring an unnecessary complexity to it as well and there are times that the gain might not worth it, even more if the other picture profiles re able to do it for you. So my comment was barely about what Fuji is offering with the X-PRO2 but rather about the potential they have based on their continuous improvement via their Kaizen motto. And what I wrote is based on this first impression, so there is a need for a better more in-depth review to reach conclusions about the video quality but from this initial report, it does look like Fuji is on it's way to deliver nice video. But yeah, if you get stuck strictly with what the X-PRO2 has and fails to look at the potential behind it, it might not look like much indeed and you might downplay it like that.

So this day has come... who would thought that? Even more Fuji doing so BEFORE Olympus. Fuji said that they want this to be more of a photographer camera, rightfully so, and that they were reserving the 4K capabilities for another line up, having the X-E2s being announced with it, easy to tell that the next X-T1 might get it. It would be interesting if Fuji who usually listen to consumers via their Kaizen, if they would add the grain simulation to the camera or even via software to do on your computer or maybe you can apply it in the camera after the shot - which is a possibility if they think that doing so in real-time to be too much. I would really like to see how Fuji will evolve from this. With Fuji's colour science you can use shots right off the camera without the need of a lot of color correction on it, but then Fuji can bring their own flat profile and make things even more interesting. But I wonder if with 8-bit files, a good colour science might not top the need of a flat/log profile, since 10-bit files would be much more adequate for taking real advantage of a log profile. But if Fuji could provide both, then it would be a killer. But it might be too much to expect from the next X-T1, but who knows?

It really depends since the X-E2s doens't share neither the same sensor or processor, so it really comes down to how they are processing it, but if the hardware affects it, which it probably does, at least for the processor - different codec and pipeline - the X-E2s might not have the same IQ. 277

From a presentation I watched from Alister Chapman I got to understand - not fully - a few things about colour science, logs, sensor, etc. with my own take on it since he wasn't talking about this specifically. He basically explained the differences between broadcast standard, how to use the extra stops you get in these cameras and how log works. I think that the sensor itself is less important to the discussion because that's just a workspace, two manufacturers or more can use the same sensor and have very different results in the end. Colour science does matter, I can't agree with those that say like "it doesn't, you just have to grade better", that makes zero sense. Actually in the presentation Chapman said something similar to Andrew's theory, Sony is an engineer company and they make it so you can get the most color gamut possible, therefore, they get more green as well, which not necessarity means it will make better images. But that's just one step, the other one is how you use it. He also talked about how the green end up shifting to fit the workable color gamut and he even explained the difference between S-log 2 and S-log 3 in more details and why S-log 2 is more complicated to grade or why you record S-log exposing to the right, about 60% zebra. When you create a log or a picture profile, cine gamma, etc. that's when you start to use the information you have from the sensor and in this case, simply showing all the color gamut is not really the best option and that's when colour science comes. I don't know if I would use the word artistic here, but more like perception, so making the data you get into something that looks more natural to our perception does make a lot of difference, even more because during color grading you will be doing something similar. But let's say that after the data you get, you make something unbalanced because you wanted to show all the color gamut possible, then it will be much harder to get a more natural look since you will be getting more green and depending on several factors like color space, compression, etc. you might not be able to get what you would had you created a more balanced log with a better colour science. So basically with a better colour science you make a better use of the data you can get from the sensor, it doesn't necessarily mean showing more colors or even scientifically accurate colors. Of course that also means it's subjective as well and there is no a right and worng exactly, but overall, when the difference is notable you can say that one colour science is indeed better than the other and when it's closer, then it becomes more of a personal preference. That's probably also why you have a big difference between measurements of stops, color gamut, etc. and practical, real life aplication because measurements don't really tell how you use it and that's also why those DxO ratings don't mean one camera is better than the other. - As for why the S-log 2 is harder to grade, in simpler words it's something like it's more curved than S-log 3. When you grade usually you will do it based on that middle and the S-log 3 from that part and above is more like a line and less like a curve, so when you grade it up or down, it's more uniform. With the S-log 2 you have to basically grade the shadows, middle and highlights separedly because if you do based on any of these 3 parts, the value you add or substract will be different in the other section, so it's not uniform. That also matches the info I got watching a Sony guys talking about S-log 2 S-log 3. He said that S-log 3 is easier to grade and that S-log 2 is better for highlights while S-log 3 is better for shadows and if you look at the curves you can understand why, S-log 2 has more values for highlights while the S-log 3 has more values for shadows and mid tones. I think that "better" is not really the word, it's more like more nuances. Chapman also talked that in 8-bit codecs if you really want more information, you better off with S-log 2, if you want something easier to grade you can go to the others gamma curves. He explained why in low light you DON'T USE S-log at all, which totally makes sense, unless you are at night but filming a lot of light, recording in S-log will only make it noisier because although you will be getting more data overall, in the areas that matter it's the opposite, making is much noisier and that's also why S-log is no good for chromakey as well.

I watched an interview in which a Sony said that overall S-log 3 is easier to handle than S-log 2 but the main difference is that S-log 3 is better for dealing with shadow areas while S-log 2 is still better for highlights. It should be interesting to test this out.

Basically if they were actually innovating there would be no need to imitate anybody. If there wasn't a huge price difference I would agree more that if you add a little bit of size it becomes the C300, but that's not the case, even if they really needed to make it a little bit bigger, it wouldn't turn into a C300 because it wouldn't cost the same and not just that but if would have different limitations and it'd be directed at a different market. Maybe Canon is really waiting to stablish themselves in the Cinema Market before getting back to invest in DSLR's video but I think that the clock is ticking. Although a lot of people are starting to go mirrorless there are still a lot of people that only know Canon as a video reference or is relutant to leave Canon lenses - which is starting to change since there are more and better active adapters now. Well, until there are still these many people buying and having Canon in this uninformed pedestal, I doubt Canon will feel any urge to be more aggressive and innovative. But as it was already discussed, that's such a lame posture by Canon.

I can't totally agree on this and weight on the final part sounds a bit bitter. I do agree that Panasonic took a bit too long and that this delay may cost them but I think it's a bit unfair to call out Panasonic like that almost like they were Canon itself. There is a reason why Samsung is doing this. First because they can, Panasonic does not have the same firepower and resources as either Sony or Samsung, Panasonic is much more like Fuji. Secondly because Samsung is the one racing from behind, the one that had no credit in the market so if they were any serious about video, they HAD to show that to the world, so the firmware guerrilla is a big part of that and a way to sustain interest from people. I don't think Panasonic would had been able to offer V-long off the bat, I doubt they had resources or engineers for that, at the time they were already proving the first of its kind, they were the one pushing bounderies. Sony wasn't even able to provide internal 4K in time with the A7s, that's why they pushed the S-log. Sure, after that Panasonic should had start thinking more serious about providing V-log since it was clear that it was a matter of time before 4K was coming to Sony cameras. Panasonic still provided the FZ1000, the LX100 and now the G7, which seems to be an excellent budget choice, all great cameras for the price and feats and only now Sony is catching up on that front. So, from my POV, this is back and forth and Panasonic is a bit late but just that. Panasonic won't come up with a new GH camear every year like Sony is doing with the A7 family. The A7s still doesn't offer internal 4K and it will never do that, and as I said, Panasonic doesn't have that same power to push new products like that. But Panasonic better wake up though. With Sony being able to provice internal 4K, S-log2, IBIS, etc. Sony basically took away most of Panasonic's upside. Panasonic still has the better lens ecosystem but with adapted lens with electronic connectors working as they are with the A7RII, anyone that have Canon glass can easily jump into Sony, just selling their Canon body. So Panasonic better come up with a new sensor, better sensitivity, faster readouts - possibly better slowmo -, IBIS, 4K/slowmo, etc. Panasonic still have a swivel screen, no overheating issue, better battery and some other things but that's barely enough now. Maybe not just a GH camera but an AF as well. I would like Sony to make the rumored A9. They could use their new tech for faster readouts and improved low light. There are 2 alternatives. One would be something like a bigger brother of the A7s with that insane low light capabilities and DR, another, which I think might be interesting as well, would be to make a sensor with more pixels, which would allow them to have lots of PDAF - to work well with electronic adapters - but one that could do 1:1 pixel crop in Super35/APS-C mode in 4K. I think they would need a 24MP sensor, this way you have the option for FF or Super35, in Super35, you would get less rolling shutter and differently from the A7s or A7RII, a true 4K image output. You could even use Metabones to get more light and FF look. Plus, 24MP would be enough for photographers as well. With a bigger body Sony will be able to put a better shutter for faster burst, without the miniaturization limitation that the A7 family faces, it would have better battery life, zero overheating issues and a swivel screen as well. I'm not sure Sony is ready to make the A9, but I think a camera like that would be pretty nice and it would make sense as well, it wouldn't be cheap though but I doubt Canon would be able to respond to that with a possible 5D MKIV or even upcoming EOS-C cameras. Anyway, this is all about competition and this is great for consumers. What more can we expect from the A7s II, the GH5 and what's the next step for Samsung?

​You probably have not being accompaning here for long enough, Nikon had plenty their share early on, it's just that they have been doing a better job improving than Canon which has basically not been improving at all. If you could actually look for the posts instead of throwing guesses this would had been a more productive conversation instead of just pointless.

​There was plenty of bashing about Nikon, even an open letter when they launched the Nikon Df - although I think a bit uncalled for, at least not because of the Df. Plus, despite not being their focus, Nikon has actually becoming better and their recent cameras are leaps beyond they were before. The D750 seems to be pretty good and the D5000, D3000 family also improved. Which is not something Canon is doing, improving, much less innovating like Sony, Samsung and Panasonic. So don't take this and morph it into some sort of one-sided thing or biased, Nikon had plenty of bash before and Canon is deservedly bashed still.

Is a full review of the LX100 coming?

​There was an article right here talking about the difficulties and the trade offs to be able to bring things like RAW - and even if there wasn't one, things are not really that simple, right? It's far from being as easy as you put, that's my point. You either have knowledge to talk with property about things like that or you don't, but I hardly think that the way to go is to bluntly make statements like that. Everyone can be wrong, but at least bring some arguments that tries to back it up. The comparison with BlackMagic doesn't make much sense, they are very different cameras and they were launched with different feats. It's like saying, the GH4 has great battery life, why can't the BMPC have it too? The GH4 has 96fps slow motion, why can't the BMPC have it too? It's too simplistic to put that way. For instance, the GH4 may be able to record RAW, but it would be capped by some things and they wouldn't be able to provide a full support since there are HDMI limitation, heat issues, datarate, firmware can become unstable, etc. They were testing but if I remember correctly, they would have to give up some type of monitor capabilities, as tre original pipeline that starts in the sensor didn't had RAW recording as part of it. The processor may not have ProRes codec because it was never intended to it. It's far from being "BlackMagic did that, so Panasonic can do it too", even more when a camera was launched without those things in mind, so it's not just software firmware, it's also about hardware limitation, plus the market and other models. I'm not a technician and far from it. Hoping, wanting, requesting, that's one thing but I'll never put out there bold statements saying that I'm SURE about something I barely know how it really works.

Does someone know the specs of the lens?

The comparison between Cinelike D and V-log was pretty cool, bad skin tones and highlights were really tricky and it really seems that V-log addresses that beautifully. Will that come to the FZ1000 or even the LX100 - which doesn't even have Cinelke profiles?

​You are sure they could add those feats easily? Well, you should share your knowledge on the matter by explaining how and which issues they pointed out some time ago in an interview are false.

​You can't mind their immediatism at all. A lot of the guys upset are those that can't think more than half-step ahead, they make conclusion without knowthing properly, they get upset with rumors, you can't really count on them as some kind of standard. There are beta-testers out there and the new 4K "DVX100-like camera" will already come with it, so those that are too upset and can't wait, should really sell their gear and then buy some camera announced today, and then, in the next big announcement from someone, they should sell all their gear again and buy another new camera and so on.

Is this the 15+ DR camera with 18MP sensor from recent rumors? Is the 15+ stops because of some processing trick like Canon? Or does it mean the organic sensors are coming to life? I found the 18MP odd, a bit of it may be because 18MP is more than the usable area, which could be 16MP, I don't know. Or maybe this is a Super 35 sensor with a 1:1 4K Micro4/3 crop, something like a hybrid, I didn't calculate to see if that would actually fit and it also depends on the aspect-ratio. The Super 35 part would be something like the 6K to 4K Samsung does with the full readout, but with less pixels to downsample. Who knows, we will know soon enough. I hope it's not a fixed lens though, I can't really see that as a groundbreak since the market seems to be going for interchangeable lens cameras, unless, of course, this is a superb lens with great aperture and nice range - something like 24-240mm f/1.8-2.8

I want Netflix to take action here, hire the trio and make it happen. That's all.

Some Top Gear-ish analogies... hehe... Is the LX100 full review coming anytime soon?

These times of over sensitive, full of politically correct hypocrites are utterly annoying. You over protect kids so much that when they are by themselves in the jungle they are unable to deal with any issue, as minor as it can be, everything becomes a life and death drama. I hate the feeling of not be able to make a joke because I have to be aware of whatever, that's why I only surround myself with people that can easily understand the difference between a joke and my serious opinion about something, that seems trivial but nowadays, it's really hard to find people like that, at least the ones I find usually become close friends of mine. One a side note, I don't really think that the US are really the place for Top Gear.

Is the HDMI output any better? If having a recorder does make a difference in IQ I think that it should be explored further with comparative tests as well.