DPC

Except that choices cost money and that limits freedom.

Oh dear, that uppercase STILLS is worrying. I, for one, need it to be great at both stills and video. Otherwise it's just an expensive whim.

Well, if it does come in at around 2000 € body only in France, many potential buyers will hold out for the GH5.

That's great Ed!

Be careful updating libraries to 10.3 because this deletes any proxies you have generated (which is absolutely absurd).

And really hard to focus ;-)

http://blazinglist.com/top-10-best-laptops-hackintosh-2015/ Was wondering the same. Are you wedded to FCPX? because if you're using Premiere or Resolve, why bother with a hackintosh at all?

Full-frame isn't shallower depth of field. It is and increased possibility of obtaining shallower depth of field, which is not the same thing. That and the possibility of having less noise in some circumstances due to larger pixels.

More, surely? Smaller sensor, more depth (=deeper, = wider zone of acceptable focus).

Oh, OK, can't argue with fact.

I'm afraid you've lost me. How do you define IQ? Anyway, after reading all this what really comes to mind is that if what you shoot is interesting enough, nobody gives a damn what you shot it on. And if the first thing viewers think is "oh what a lovely full-frame look", you're probably doing something wrong. Oh, and to avoid confusion, "you"here includes me.

Of course you can. For MFT compared with full frame you need half the focal length and to open up two more stops.

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

I sold a 5D MK III for a Sony A7R II. Despite all that is said, I reckon the Sony has only about 1 stop noise improvement in low light compared with the Canon. To get the most out of it you really need to be good at noise reduction techniques. Sony's low light focusing is very poor and you can't even use a focus assist red light, either on the camera or an external flash. Manual focusing in low light is pretty unreliable too. The build quality is much inferior to Canon and battery life is extremely low. For fast low light stills work, using Canon lenses on the Sony via an adaptor is a waste of time. I intended to do this but ended up having to buy three Sony lenses instead. The Sony is only really good in video in APSC crop mode and has strong rolling shutter. That said, the A7R II offers plenty of video options and the quality can be excellent. The XLR adaptor (if you want to spend the additional money) is useful. The EVF is a wonderful improvement over an optical viewfinder and the main reason I wouldn't return to Canon. But all in all my advice would be not to believe all the hype about the A7RII and to remember that theoretical resolution is not the same as real world sharpness. My Panasonic GX80, far cheaper, focuses better than the Sony in low light and, despite being only 16 mpx, produces files that can be printed very large indeed (like 100 cm on the short side at 300 dpi via Perfect Resize). After nearly a year of A7R II pro work, I'm thinking very hard about abandoning full frame and moving to micro four thirds completely. I've been delivering MFT stills and videos with supposedly more "pro" Sony files and nobody can tell the difference or even cares.

Yes, but while recording. And on the GX80.

Is it possible to magnify the manual focus while shooting video (like I can on my A7R II? I don't think so but wanted to check I haven't missed something. Thanks!

@DBounce - Is that supposed to be good? There are big jumps in the smoothing as far as I can see. Having seen that, I would put the phone on a little gimbal. I hope you can turn the stabilisation off. @Chris Oh - To be fair, the LG G4 camera is truly excellent. But the technician who dealt with my repair(s) said he sees a lot of G4s come in. Also, LG has no loan service here in France, so I had to buy another phone for during the time(s) the phone was away.

OK, now the video is visible again. That's not really what I would call a low light test (except for, perhaps, at 1:14 where the light is globally quite dim). More a high contrast ratio test. Even then it's not very difficult to retain the highlights let the shadows become black... I think my LG G4 does just as well. And all the shots are locked off so we can't see how good the stabilisation is or if rolling shutter is a problem.

I can't see the video, definitely prefer Android to IOS, but there are real downsides to (trying to) use Android rather than iPhones phones for video. I've tried. There are fewer app options, almost no lens, case and grip attachments. I have an LG G4 which is great for stills but I can't get Filmic Pro, Cinema 4K or Cinema FV5 to work correctly and I get such awful burn-in when I try to do video with it that I can destroy my screen within a couple of hours of filming. Add to that the fact that in less than two years it has been sent back for repair (and away for a total of six weeks) twice... So I'm wary of getting carried away with enthusiasm this time. It's not because a phone can produce nice video that you can actually use it...

(1) PP Cinema 1 / Pro Gamut (2) Cinema 4 / Pro Gamut (3) Cinema 1 / Pro Gamut but maybe you should use lights. Alternatively, you could google "Leeming LUT" and try out Paul's suggestions. Other advice? Buy lots of batteries and a battery grip. Be very wary of the camera's focusing. I find it easy to get out of focus shots and not to see this in the EVF. On long takes (camera running for over an hour in my case) the camera still overheats.

@Fredrik - Looks as though we've pretty much come to the same conclusion. @Raafi - Were you starting from Standard or Neutral?

After more testing, I can't really see any significant difference between Natural -5 -5 -5 -4 and Natural -0 -5 -5 -4 with Highlights / Shadows -3 / +3. I'm not even sure that the H / S settings actually change the clipping points (I believe they don't). It occurs to me that they only affect the way values roll off towards those points rather than the points themselves. I may be wrong. Whatever I do, the camera seems to insist on giving me pretty well crushed blacks. Sorry not to post actual footage. Most of my tests are simply pointing the camera at difficult lighting ratios while out and about or filming family and friends in a private context.

With matrix metering, "correct" exposure in the camera looks about a stop over to me. Maybe more.

@mercer - Yes, I mean that at least for what I do where an edit can be made up of lots of shots made in very different (usually available) lights, having to regrade everything can be a chore that isn't always justified by the end result. I've got years of experience grading raw photos so I'm quite good at it, but still... @Fredrik - I had seen that before and it looks very nice indeed to me. My only concern, as you mention yourself, is that your starting point is very flat lighting so I'm not sure it would always be a good strategy in documentary shooting conditions where you will probably encounter greater contrast.

mercer - I'm going to give your settings a try. When I used a 5D MK II / III, I started off with all the flat styles but by the end I was just using a basic Neutral. As Noam Kroll says, these cameras just aren't made for heavy grading in post (which, to my way of thinking, can be a terrible bore and one of the best ways to ruin your film).