Axel

I think the GH5 is the ultimate MFT camera - the most advanced as well as the last GH. You simply can't stuff significantly more pixels on such a small sensor. Or if you could, you had a hard time finding lenses sharp enough for it. It's an interesting detail in lens tests how lenses always perform better on Super35/APS-C and even better on full frame. Read the GH5 PPP linked to in the all is revealed thread. You'll notice how many techniques are used (and obviously have to be used) to top the perceived sharpness of the GH4. And yet - in my subjective view, it does not reach the Sonys. I've downloaded every clip available so far, and I admit it looks quite pleasing. However, we are starting to get used to 4k images ... And since resolution matters and unstable camera movement drastically reduces it, it's time to make friends with stabilization, lens, camera, gimbals. With these put to the equation, the A6500's rolling shutters (almost) ceases to be an issue at all. In the past I raised my voice for 10-bit, stating that it was more important than 4k. Now that we've got it in a mirrorless consumer camera, I'm curious to see what people make of it. It's an advantage, sure.

To get both AF and Dual IS on the GH5 you are restricted to Pana glass, which is expensive while not being very fast and not looking too spectacular. Comparable to Sony. But with the bigger sensor and better SNR of APS-C, the Sony lenses perform better. But you can shoot handheld with non-stabilized, adapted lenses with the GH5, because it has virtually no RS. Not so easy with the A6500.

I had the same dilemma. Ordered the A6500. Main reason: existing Sony-E-mount ecosystem. So for the same reason I would buy the GH5 if I were you. As far as image quality is concerned, they will both have their often discussed pros and cons. If the specs don't lie (and why should they?) the GH5 has WAY better ergonomics for wedding videographers. Or to put it the other way: the A6500 would be a big PITA for weddings (ergonomics, battery life, shitty monitor). The final argument for an easy decision is that you don't marry a camera. If somewhen I realize, damn, I should've bought the GH5 instead, look how good the images are on youtube, I can sell the Sony (and compare the, er, A7000 to the GH5 then).

The images are great. I am interested in this particularly because I am currently evaluating the "need" to buy a GH5. In a way your video is more stunning than Neumanns Beyond film.

This would become (FF equivalence) a 34-100mm f2,8 with the speed (but not the DoF-characteristic) of an f2.0 (one stop brighter). You will know better how good the focus ring is. Metabones list of tested and officially supported lenses for working AF with the Ultra: However, I suspect "working" means, it will focus if you are patiently aiming the camera at your motif for stills. Don't think that it's usable for video. Your lens seems to be top-notch. Probably a very good (parfocal?) glass for the GH5 with a very desirable focal range and very fast too. 700 bucks for the SB - if you don't like it, send the Speedbooster back and sell the Canon, that's what I'd do if I were you. The XL (~same price) - if it fits on the GH5! - would make it a 31-88 with the speed of an f1.8 - everything one needs, and IBIS would work with it.

For the record: I looked into the facebook GH5 "user" group, and I found this comment, which answers a question I asked earlier in this thread: We knew it would vignette on FF: Now there is a confirmation that the SB "XL" can't be used with the GH5 and SIG 18-35 (1,3 x crop). Maybe it would work with Ultra though. But frankly, I think I will look into full frame lenses then. There are a few nice MFT's, but they are either too slow or offer too little "bang for the buck" (a little shy to use those phrases - unsure if they are appropriate) ... @Flynn Thanks for the podcast link!

Between 26 Mbps and 40 Mbps. Full HD used to have 24 Mbps on the GH2 officially, in reality it were ~ 17 Mbps. The EOSHD "vanilla" hack had 40 Mbps, if I remember correctly. An average of 33 Mbps is particularly high if you take into account that it's slow motion, not realtime. The differences between frames are 7,5 x smaller than in 24p.

1. Be the voice of free America. Say and show that human beings of different ethnics can live together peacefully. 2. Propagade the positive values, liberty, fraternity, equality, solidarity, inclusion, justice. Not the words alone, but what they mean in everyday life. 3. Reinstate facts over fearmongering, hysteria and conspiracy theories. All conspiracy theories ("Deep State") tend to be bizarr exaggerations of very banal truisms, i.e. that corruption exists (everywhere, by the way) and that there indeed is a swamp. A criminal detective would ask cui bono? In a capitalist system? Do we really need to speculate? Rich elites of course. Make their interests transparent! Obamacare (with all it's faults) was financed by progressive taxes, who will pay in the future? 4. And: reinstate facts over false political correctness. Lets add honesty to the positive values under point 2. 5. Don't attack Trump. Facts don't stick to him. Everybody already knows why he doesn't show his tax reports. That his crew is not qualified for the tasks assigned to them. And so forth. A bag full of shit can't be critizised. Better stop this kind of scandal-obsessed celebrity journalism which made him all too famous in the first place. Clinton was impeached for Lewinsky, but he stayed in office. These things are not what policy is about. 6. Trumps "reign" can be an opportunity. Become aware (and make others aware) what has been accomplished in the past decades. And what we risk losing by DJT. Ignore the ridiculous enemy. Unite to show the world how great America is. For us non-Americans, it always had it's sinister sides too. Would global capitalism - uncontrollabe for a single nation (and not to be stopped by any kind of protectionism) and a severe threat to our planet and our species - exist without the USA? The good thing is, if you survive this regime, you will be stronger. I mean not militarily or economically ...

Depeche Mode: '... because my duty was always to beauty ...' A lens (or a camera, JVC for instance) that makes an epiphany look worse than how I see it with my naked eyes, I deem unfit. An image doesn't have to have sDoF, but if it has, the oof areas should not be outlined. Nobody can find this beautiful! As a wedding shooter, I may have different priorities. Just when I was notified of your reply, I had started watching this. Didn't finished yet, but I agree with what the guy says about lenses, that good lenses are paramount. Then start with Hong Kong Strong, just because there is a director's commentary. Li also has general views about filmmaking (having been a film student in my salad days, I noticed he doesn't use the term montage correctly, EDIT: ... but he admits that). And about gear (EOSHD and Andrew are mentioned!). I like his passionate rant about how unimportant the gear actually is. 8k Helium for filming deers? Cinematically? LoL!

@jonpais Not sure why you're quoting me in this context. My suggestions reflect my personal style of shooting, 90% handheld, MF, using EVF rather than display, classic 3-point stabilization. I'm evaluating publicly to learn if anyone has comments and can present alternatives. Another person = another style = other preferences. I saw Brandon Li's first attempts in the SHOOTING forum (then called SCREENING ROOM) here on EOSHD. They were more or less selfies with a tiny Sony RX100. Held the camera in his extended right hand and walked around. The images looked great. I am sure you know his travel videos. He prefers the Sony A-series, and his work is unmatched, imo. He once shot a test walking around in the streets with OIS on, looked as if shot from a locomotive size dolly. I remember that I liked his video - because you simply can't super-like a video ... I'm not Brandon Li, and I find it hard to use the Sonys. My buddy (Sony fanboy) recommended a A6500 to me. He knows how I prefer to shoot handheld, and yesterday he showed me this: Judging from hundreds of log clips on youtube, the chances to get satisfying results from log footage are not very good. That's why I was questioning the V-log hype around the GH5, but I may err. With my Pocket, I never shot VIDEO (rec_709), but always FILM (BM-log). The official LUT was good, I could preserve some highlights every now and then (now I'd rather let the sun or sky clip, if a forced HDR-approach would be distracting). The video looked good with just some minor CC on top of that, not grading. You are not referring to me, do you? My reasons to *think* about SB vs. native MFT lenses have nothing to do with cinematic look. I grew out of this. All in all, an SB solution *can* provide a better cost-performance-ratio, particularly since I want fast lenses without too little DoF. I had more - and usually more affordable - lenses to choose from. The lens has at least equal influence on the overall look than a picture style, and many Pana or Oly lenses have a terrible bokeh and look sharpened. Having seen your Leica 42,5mm clip, I exclude this lens from this hard judgment, but it does have a shallower DoF than a speedboosted f1,8 has - while still being equally fast effectively. It's complicated On cinematic look. There is an EOSHD thread dedicated to this. And you are right by saying "that a lot of the magic happens in the editing room." The essential magic happens in your mind, your imagination. One could write a book on Filmmaking without ever even mentioning cameras or NLEs, let alone cinematic look ingrediences. These are misleading and give us corny, mediocre videos: I don't know how many deers, sun through trees and snails in the morning dew I've seen, they could as well have been bought from Shutterstock (and the music, categories >camera presentation >jawdropper >nature from Premiumbeats). Rant over. I agree. Shows the options.

On Dual-IS: Seeing the list of lenses which support it, I know I wouldn't use it, except perhaps for the Leica 42,5 mm. The IBIS, working with all lenses, may or may not be very effective. On AF: I bet it will be disappointing in the first test, right after unboxing. Multiply face detection, pinpoint, seamless 1-area, multi-area, zone-AF, lowlight-AF asf. with the four custom sets and it's parameters. That's so many settings. I think one has to patiently test them, jonpais wrote something like this. It's not relying on automation anymore, it's programming. And one has to know this stuff by heart - or the AF won't do what you expect it to do.

Upon a closer look, you have to admit that there are very many corrections going on under the hood, let me cite a few: Is all this intelligence a good thing? It may be. But the image IS processed on many levels, and it may very well LOOK processed in the end (with artifacts originating from suppressing artifacts in certain circumstances OR just by eliminating everything that makes an image look - excuse the term - *organic*), compared to the dumb, barely processed image of a BM camera. Apparently - but the attached screenshots are somewhat puzzling - you can set a shutter angle instead of shutter duration in video mode. Good thing, if it meant you could make it 180°, and just forget about it. Shutter durations didn't use to be exact with certain framerates (i.e. 1/50 for 23,98 fps). People complained about poor motion cadence. To be honest, I'm not sure what this means. It appears the Neumann footage was set to 64-940. Does anybody know how this could affect post? ??? On a A7Rii you can customize colors very accurately - at your own risk of course. But what does this mean?

On my GH5 vs A7Rii comparison check list. I wrote above that I couldn't open the PDF from the PPP linked above. Found another link. Can someone confirm that it's the same content? https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzXpNy2MdkE6X3RxLTh1MksxTXM/view

Me too. You know what? If the GH5 had these colors and DR, I was willing to pay those ~ 7000-8000 € (an Ursa Mini with shoulder mount, battery, EVF and cards). I don't like the Ursa Mini for it's size and weight, price is secondary here. Since I've sold everything related to MFT long ago, the GH5 would cost me over 4000 € anyway ... The right profile, the right settings, a color chart, some post. Then close enough, I'm sure! Can't turn 12 stops into 15 stops of course. You'd have to use some old tricks, bounce the shadows or ND the windows, whatever.

BMPCC, BMPC and UM4,6k ProRes in log. Apply the official rec_709 LUT, some minor adjustments (CC, not grading) - e voilá! : really, really great skintones, many nuances. This isn't raw, it's ProRes (pre-production footage): Is it the codec? I don't think so. It's the color science of the camera. I dare say with the 400mbps Intra update the codec will be on par with ProRes. Did you know? ProRes422 is 400mbps @ 2160 25p - and it's a less efficient codec!

You know the truism it's not the camera. I add another: it's not the codec. The colors of my old 7D were gorgeous, and they could be color corrected (in the happy days when I just color corrected and not dabbled at grading) without falling apart with a very primitive H.264 codec. And you are right, it's easy to make the Sony colors look acceptable. It's impossible (in 8-bit) to make them really good. Will GH5's 10-bit allow this? I hope so. What I suspect is that they can be corrected to look as acceptable as A7x. Unfortunately the 10-bit footage available so far doesn't focus on skintones.

I wouldn't want an f0.5. It'd hardly have sufficient resolution for 4k, at least not with MFT sensors (because the size of the pixels crammed onto such a tiny sensor means the circle of confusion also needs to be smaller - good luck with finding a lens for 8k on MFT!). The better way is speedboosting. You mentioned Barry Lyndon. Did you read about their difficulties to focus? Did you see the BD? The image is actually too soft for HD, this would never work with UHD. BTW: does nobody have problems with the PDF-link above? Preview says the file is damaged. PDF reader won't open it: Is this a Mac issue?

XAVC is such a good codec, it doesn't need 10-bit desperately. Do you really think that the 10-bit of the GH5 is automatically better? I don't see any evidence for this so far. What I expect is a camera that just has so many good features that it will be a joy to shoot video with it. EDIT: ... and I really don't think Sony is going to cannibalize their FS7 by making their hybrids 10-bit. But who knows. The Alpha-series should actually be called the Beta-series. The minute you hold a brand new model in your hands, the successor is presented at a trade show, and it's successor is boxed in the factory (slightly exaggerated).

@Dimitris Stasinos You are right of course. As I see it, Philip Bloom didn't do us a favour by shooting "night for day" in his Now I See or later in the weird lake-shot that was only lit by the moon. Lowlight capabilities allow you to scale down the amount of light necessary to light a scene (but they shouldn't save you from lighting!), but to shoot in practically no light is a misconception. I also know the GH5 will never come close to the cleanness of the A7Rii/A7Sii (I use both sometimes). The DR also is very good with the Sony's. Be it as it may, they are terrible in terms of video usability. It starts with tiny, dim and not fully articulated displays. I like the images, I absolutely dislike to shoot with it. On a check list with a comparison of Sony vs. Pana the GH5 would probably get a "con" for lowlight.

I'd rather have a camera be fully manual like my old Bolex 16mm or the Ursa Mini (insofar as you have two parameters to worry about: exposure and focus, even WB isn't important). I'd try to "customize" the GH5 to do that. Waveform would be an assistant for better exposure, peaking for better focus. AF - perhaps -for certain challenges, IBIS -perhaps - for others, both assisting me to achieve exactly what I have in mind. If the camera has automatic features, I'd trust them only so far as I could fully control them, delegate a thoroughly tested routine to them. I predict we are going to see hundreds of terribly degraded v-log clips this year, slomos of paint drying, terminator-vision autofocus and far away sparrows in 7,5 x slomo, terribly graded with focus transitions to a wind wheel in the foreground. That's when they fell in love with the GH5's virtues but never thought of controlling them. You can turn that off in the menu, was the same with GH2, there it was the default.

I am not a native speaker, I can't feel those niceties. I use many terms because others use them and so they seem appropriate. Should I have written natural instead? I don't think so. Focus isn't anything you are away of when seeing the world around you. Sure, you can hold your index finger in front of your nose and simultaneously look at the television tower on the horizon, but you wouldn't usually do that. DoF only exists in images, it has to do with aesthetics and sometimes with film language. She was so absorbed in thoughts, the world around her blurred. What we do though (but not by visually blurring the background and thereby isolating the object of interest) is that we perceive selectively. Test this: watch one individual in a crowd for a few minutes. You'll notice that you drift into some kind of trance. You know that there are other people around, cars, trees, traffic signs, you actually see them peripherally, but they become marginal. Your FoV is vignetted - it really physically is, like right now. I know there stands a bookshelf on my right side while I'm looking at the monitor, I know the books have different colors, but it's just as if they were blurred. Focussing has to feel right. How can you teach a software to make an adjustment feel right? Only if it allows you to program it.

Interesting details not mentioned elsewhere. For instance the part about the fine-tuneable AF modes. My objection against AF with big sensor cameras (well, at least compared to traditional camcorders, MFT is still a big sensor) always was that even the smartest camera software couldn't decide what part of the image should be in focus, whether it was supposed to stay in focus if it moved or how sensitive it should react when the focus changed briefly. I saw this problem in an interview I had to edit, a talking head. Whenever the woman shifted slightly in her seat, went oof just for ten frames, the AF felt obliged to react to that, and it looked terrible. I told the camera operator he should have better focussed manually once. There has to be a profile you can set in advance, one that tells the AF how to behave. It's about setting a treshold and then some kind of ease-in, ease-out. Yes, I understand that in order to adjust focus in a way that looks organic, the AF has to be insanely fast. A computer driven motor can only accelerate smoothly by approximating the target position in many incremental steps, in between analyzing the progress. Many contemporary CAF systems still do it wrongly, they jump beyond the point, then back and forth, and with the object moving across the frame, they never stop. I'm planning a short about the thoughts crossing the mind of a jogger. He needs to be don-juaned by a gimbal. A good continous AF would come in handy ...

Not sure. You know how it is sometimes easier to keep an sDoF motif in focus manually than an image where everything is almost sharp. But if there won't be a reliable face detection or motif tracking AFC (for gimbal shots), then I know I will never care about the feature at all. Have never seen it work anywhere. Even the A6300, in the slot car shot selected to show off the AF speed it's not convincing imo. It's also a fact that AF needs programming. You have to input what you expect, how should the camera know? Perhaps it's brilliant. Let's wait and see.

There is one, but apparently with f5.6 - 8, so it's not very significant:

We have been discussing these things since many years now. The method of analysing the differences is very effective. Since a few years, the obvious technical differences vanished one by one. The famous cinematic look became famous with the affordability of camcorders for no/low budget storytelling (late 1980's, early 1990's). What the owners noticed first were the characteristics of their video, not those of Hollywoods movies. Video look let them invent the cinematic look: a bundle of obvious differences. I suppose everybody here knows Maschwitz' DV Rebel as well as the Zacuto 2012 shootout. If an inept and unambitious guy shot your cats lying on your mundane living room sofa with an Arriflex, would you expect the image to look cinematic? In contrast to that, if you - ambitious and experienced - were on the set of The Godfather, lit by Gordon Willis, and have the intense eyes of Al Pacino staring at you in a reaction shot just with, say, a GH4 ... I used to say that 24p were obligatory. They are as well a viewing habit as a signal for 'narrated time', whereas HFR (and of course interlace) signalled present tense and real time. But these are not rules of nature, they are just conventions. Ang Lee shot Billy Lynn @120 fps. He explained the experience. For every take of the film, he said, he had to remind himself that he was no longer in Movieland. The sets, the costumes, the camera movements, the acting, the editing, in short: everything had to be more precise. I would have liked to see an HFR version. Unfortunately, the producers decided to process it to 24p for a more *natural* look after unfavourable reviews following a test screening. One critic wrote it was "a fucking crime against cinema". The world is changed. We can feel it. Fake news everywhere, many of them easily debunked. Some say we are now living in a "post factual era". We don't believe in blatant lies. But it's particularly the mendaciousness of the common sense and political correctness we despise. We desperately needed fresh approaches. This may sound OT for you. But right now cinema (audio-visual storytelling) still has the greatest power over our morals and ways of thinking and feeling. Do we like to live in Movieland? Or force our minds to stay open, to dare new ways, to re-invent cinema? We decide.