Emanuel

And many usual detractors have fueled their shameful defamatory campaign... Seems 4K60p (via HDMI or not) 10-bit 4:2:2 high(er) bitrate GH5 series have hurt not only a few ; ) ISO2500 won't hurt this time ;-) No worries mate, I guess you'll risk to (pre)order a higher resolution version in a couple of months to come... LOL :-)

What puzzles me is the poor photography men apply or achieve with the excuse based on available light when should even be a way further more demanding circumstances for improving framing -- truly B-factor, as for instance, though; seen, on the contrary, in that NY footage above instead... (just my two cents anyways, E :-)

4/3" format is well demanding more than any other larger one, like night and day, you can drive in one of those directions between a more cinematic way exploiting glass routes such as those supplied by friendly speed boosters or fall in the videoish category instead... GH5S versus the GH5 standard as comparative tools in one line : D so to speak ; ) But, as we all know it is everything in the pilot's hands no matter what : ) That said... ^ here's a fine example of that :-)

Not a comparative but I find the other one above-posted by me much more interesting though... : ) The glass settings choice there obviously counts :-)

A perfect match (where's the redundancy?! ; )

Yeah when physics pops up with small sensor sizes and slower apertures... reality acts like a bitch in a soap opera without mercy ;-)

The point is with the Canon mount you almost have the universal standard they are towards the 4/3" format when coupled with a proper adapter like a SpeedBooster as for instance.

Bit rate is more crucial than anything else... sample extracted from (minute 28:30): https://vimeo.com/114978513

well, if so, where's the catch then? :-)

It is not true! (that guy is an entertainer) Far from only 1-stop faster. It is beyond 2 stops to be conservative.

Not even a shadow of it... Let's take a look on this comparative: They are two absolute distinct cameras!

Right Zak : ) They are two different aspects of matter, of course. Apples to oranges. DR and high ISOs are not even a friendly match as we all know. It is even funny they misplace that...

Funny that about 36 hours ago, even without camera to test, I had mention 3 stops seemed to me too much: Here comes this one now:

@jonpais My dear fellow of these boards, I am. Just didn't express my opinion for the subject matter. Nice to read your heads up! : ) Changing topic, here's another GH5S sample from distinct settings slowmo included; seems promising:

There's nothing (not even) similar to FUJI... That's the most close to film capture in the digital realm, ARRIs included*. * I only don't add here Blackmagic because I really can't :-)

It will end in the same results because of diagonal: This is inaccurate: https://www.43rumors.com/exact-crop-factors-caluclated-new-gh5s-multiaspect-sensor/

Yes Fritz, ISO400 is cleaner than ISO2500. I've posted something on topic in another thread even though from another similar camera example but same family (EVA1). I meant on high ISOs instead. As said, both values keep the widest DR; a different department than exactly and strictly noise related.

That's only half true... It is not exactly what Adam Wilt has proved it: https://www.provideocoalition.com/review-panasonic-au-eva1-4k-cine-camera-part-3/ "Native 2500 is noisier than native 800 is, but the advantage of dual native ISOs is that the higher native ISO is less noisy than it would be were it derived from the lower base ISO." Boosted:

Jon in his provocative best ; ) LOL :-)

LOL You're good on that one, thanks pal : ) I meant on the high ISOs actually. Did they ever release the native ISO for GH5? I recall Matt Frazer said not to be allowed to advise on it. So, officially is 400? Since the native ISO2500 reaches the widest DR on GH5S, ISO1600 is roughly about half of a stop of loss and its DR is wider (2 stops they say?), it should theoretically be better than the outdated GH5, isn't it? ; ) Even though, as I could write to you earlier, practice redefines theory ; ) so as much as chart tests vs shooting real life, everything must be subject to be proved on the field instead before :-)

Jon, one stop and a half of improvement is too tight. Three stops that some of them claim is perhaps too much : ) Somewhere between 2 stops, 2 stops and a half is pretty more accurate as far as I could see from the samples already available.

As far as I could understand, yes, for 3328x2496 and 4992x3744 native resolution, respectively, on each one of those both camera models you've just mentioned. Any idea when we''ll have your anamorphic prime series and the adapter to reach the streets? :-)