gethin

Ah yes, Because of that I end up creating my own proxies for DJI h.264, otherwise I just edit with the source footage (my 4k nikon stuff edits OK). Hey the other thing you can try is resetting the workspace, that sometimes jogs thumbnails back to life. and the thing that pushed me to download resolve was 4 hours spent trying to do the most basic of things in premiere (import h.265 4k, speed it up, export it). Premiere and media encoder kept crashing. I downloaded resolve, and having never used it, did all that, stabilised and exported it in the half an hour you'd expect it to take I posted the wip on my insta page And it didn't crash!

Nasty, makes it a poor choice for a gimbal camera. You need faster readout for warp stabiliser not to poo itself.

Oh dear. As Fagan said: I am reviewing the situation. Was about to send them my z6 for warranty repair. Might as well wait now, or might get rid of the bloomin lot. I hear plumbing is profitable. The weird thing is I don't love the z6. I really love the d800. I even loved the d5x00s. They were a nightmare to use but the image always surprised me. The z6 is clunky like the d5300 but 5 times the price.

I get the black thumbnail thing from time to time. You can usually fix it by trashing the files in your media cache (or sometimes the media cache files). Also rather than batch applying speed to your clips, try selecting them all and go modify>interpret footage and specify it there. I think that's a more robust way of doing it. It basically tells premiere to treat that media as if it was shot at that speed (and ensures for instance that it will play every frame if you're slowing your footage to the same fps as your edit timeline). cool! I like it. mysterious thanks! good to know

Well Chris I have grown to hate Adobe with a passion. It's not because of the subscription model, its because the subscription model has earned them billions, whilst their products have stagnated and their support has gone down the toilet. I was an unofficial adobe evangelist. Photoshop was amazeballs in 1997, but it essentially hasn't changed much. Their algorithms remain untouched. As do the paradigms. But all of that is nothing compared to the towering magnificence of their ability to ignore bugs. There is one that dates back to lightroom 2. I had a workaround, but now that's broken too. It's broken my workflow. Their tech support is a joke. It's like falling out of love with someone: suddenly you realise the love is gone and all those little things you out up with for years now drive you nuts. In fact you realise you can't stand them and never want to see them again, the treacherous harpies! There's probably a meme out there with that guy turning round from his gf and looking at a girl he's just walked past. Well, that.

Feels so good. Not sure it'll still feel good in 2 weeks time when my subscription runs out. I have 20 odd years of Adobe workflow to re-do. (I may end up resubscribing to Photoshop and lightroom but if Snapseed was a desktop app I would think about ditching them too). So resolve is the no-brainer choice. Can i get away with the freebie version? And if not should I buy the bmpcc4k? I cant remember if the free version includes their warp stabiliser equivalent. Any other software I should look at?

They are amazing little cameras, but the one I had (the IV) wasn't a joy to use. But Sonys passion is not for photography it's for $$. That's capitalism for ya. On the plus side it creates space in the market for mavericks like sigma and the E2. I can't wait to see where they are going to go.

it looks to me like there is artifacting in there due to time warping. I suggest it was shot at a lower framerate.

anyone interested should hop on the facebook group an petition for a small-flange version of the s35 and FF models, due to be released with EF and PL mounts only. Kinson Loo is active on the page - one of the most appealing things about the camera: the management and techs are on there, and there is a sense they are learning and constantly perfecting the camera software.

I will buy this. Or th moza aircross 2 if it ever comes out. THe ronin s is tooo heavy. Hey anyone here used to use balance gimbals like the glidecam? I'm convinced that there is scope for a hybrid where the pan axis is just on a bearing. I used to get smoother slow moves with my blackbird. The organic tail off of the spin is very hard to achieve on a powered gimbal. Currently whilst moving any wrist movements can slow or speed up a pan, whereas on the old school ones a pan would slow down no matter what your wrist is doing. The other thing is that the joint on the old styley effectively removed some of the walk bounce.

Nikon still do not understand video, and they don't want to. I contacted Nikon Australia to point out that the auto mode had a minimum shutter speed equivalent to 360 degree shutter and no way to change it and they said: meh. (And when I bring this up so many people blether on about shooting in manual mode and fail to imagine a circumstance where having a fixed aperture but smoothly variable shutter would be useful, so don't feel you need to waive your lack of imagination around now ?) . The fact it works like this is emblematic of Nikon's attitude to video: an annoying bolt-on they've been forced into and driven more by their marketing Dept than by their engineers. They can't imagine a time where stills will be the secondary function for photographers. A bit like Nokia before smartphones.

I agree with all of what you said It was the grading workflow that was the nail in the coffin for me: I was spending way too much time getting the image to a point where it was acceptable. I admit I have a lot to learn about grading log footage, but for what I do it was totally bonkers spending that amount of time on it. Akin to linus tech tips shooting with RED, what a whole load of faff, for a tech a blog, they'd get better results quicker with an an a7. THe z6 is sooooo much quicker, I have a few presets I can dump on the footage for different setups, and usually I just have to tweak the curves a bit, then onto the next. However, I just shot a local tv ad on the z6, and I was missing the GH5: no log, no 10bit, no stupidly high bitrate, no advanced monitoring Mostly that stuff is a safety net, but just knowing that the gear you use is designed more for that style of shooting, and having those more advanced options available makes you feel more in control. It's not great working a job and feeling like your kit isn't quite up to the task (even if that is just in your head!).

@kye yep I think warts and all reviews are very important. Too many reviewers will cut together the nicest looking footage: I guess that's natural. for me I'd watched so much gh5 stuff I wasn't prepared for its shortcomings, (which for me was the highlight rolloff and the shadow noise). I realised in retropect all the nice footage I'd seen controlled those aspects. The thing I learnt from that (and I guess this test shows this too) is that the the perfect camera for you is not the perfect camera for someone else, and you have to modify the way you work to get the best out of a camera. That entails some compromises, and sometimes it can be a compromise too far that's makes you move on to different gear.

I probably should keep my big fat yap shut, and I have a lot of respect for Mathias and I agree with the sentiment about technique and worrying less about specks but (obviously there going to be a but...) I try to tell potential clients that if they're comparing photographers to try and look at all their output, not just their portfolio pics. And that anyone should be able to get 20 good shots together. It's how they handle the most difficult situations and the level of consistency that is the mark of a professional, and I'd humbly like to suggest the same is true of gear. It's when you push cameras to the edge of what they're capable of that you find out which ones work for you. I'm constantly shooting in very high dynamic range situations. The z6 is a better fit for me than the gh5. I prefer the highlight rolloff on the z6 and like how much you can push the shadows. The same test shooting the dog backlit against a window would be more enlightening. Can you recover shadow detail, highlights, does the image still look nice with the background overexposed etc.

Zounds! A2 printing. Methinks you're in the wrong forum ? Horses for courses: I care more about character most of the time. Except longtitudinal chromatic abberation, I hate that. Especially hard to correct on video. I have both, no the 14-24 is sharper, but the 14-30 has a simpler distortion to correct. Erm, re trying to tell someone what they should and shouldn't do on their own website: priceless. As I said - I prefer character than "perfection" Lol

whert? theres only 5 reasons, and none of them are that interesting. I only own the 14-30 f4. It's really handy, but it's not great, soft at 14, and farking expensive for a plastic focus by wire lens. And on that - what in gods name is good about it? They are a pain in the arse to fcus manually, let alone focus pull. The 14-30 is soft enough that even zoomed all the way in focussing by wire is a nightmare. Nikon touted it's lens mount as enabling super-duper lens design, then brought out f1.8 primes and f4 zooms aimed at a consumer market. Totally batso strategy and SNAFU for nikon. The only native z lenses I'm going to consider buying are wide, or light lenses, Because once you get over a certain size and weight, you may as well buy f-mount and keep your mounting options open (ie you can adapt them to everything else, whereas z-mount lenses are for z-cameres only). My lens research over the last few months has been on the zhongyi 85mm f1.2, 50mm f0.95 laowa 10-18. 12mm zero d, 105 f2. sigma and nikon 105 f1.4, even if z versions are released, I still might consider buying e or F mount versions of these lenses because it leaves my future options open. If nikon had released z versions of a 12-24 f4, 16-40 f2.8, 50 f1.2 that is a similar size to it's existing f1.2 lens (with similar rendering), and 20, 35, 85 f1.4 primes I would've looked hard at all of those. And why not have a focus by wire option that keeps the travel of the lens ring locked to how much the focus changes? how hard can that be?

missing my 4K 60 though.

4k60 ? 1.5x crop ? It just leads to a load of faff. FOr what I do it wold be quicker to have 2 cameras.

Yep I hadn't thought about sensor size. What's the Mavic 2 like in low light? The Phantom 4 is pretty crap, but the action cam footage I saw shot indoors was not terrible. I have to say: I'm not saying it was great, but that it was great for a$500 action cam. HDR 4k vid ffs!

I posted this because of some footage I'd seen. Honestly it was nearly shit enough for a $500 camera. It had no right to be so good. It made me positively angry. ?

well whatever you do, you always try and make it as good as possible, but even a year ago you wouldn't have thought about shooting on an action cam. It reminds me of the printing industry 20 years ago. People were going bust all over the place because they were still paying off 100's of thousands of dollars worth of kit, and were being out-competed by startups using kit 1/10th of the cost, quicker and easier to use, and cheaper to run. For $500 aud, I might have to get one, just to see. I could attach it to my current setup and would hardly feel the weight difference!

I just saw some footage from DJI's new action cam. HDR video! WTF? Sometimes I wonder why I dropped $5K on a camera setup when I could just shoot my real estate vids on an action cam, and most people wouldn't notice the difference. I just bought the 14-30 lens for my z6, and I'll buy the mozo aircross 2 to replace my ronin-s when it comes out, because 3.6kg of camera setup is killing me. But to think someone could just buy this and a wee gimbal, or the pocket osmo, and even begin to compete is head scratching.

I just quoted on a job. Required 3 trips to location, 3 lots of drone work and shooting on a roof and a little interview. I quoted $2200 Aud (about 1500 usd) for a 2-3 min finished vid or $275 per hour ($195usd) for the raw footage, only. Got message back that he didn't have a lot of money to spend on the vid, and ultimately that i was too expensive, and I just wonder what folk expect when they phone about that sort of job. $500? I am seeing this more and more. Time to give up on video and become a plumber.

the s1r is going to be 6-7000K in australia, I betcha. and they're positioning it as a stills camera that also shoots video. I dont really get it.

Yes really farking heavy, and 30+ degrees. that shot of the person in the river is me. Even after jumping in I was still roasting The video is really clean, in the shadows too. My first impression is that the GH5 will offer you more control, and ultimately a better image when you have time to work on it. I'd be more comfortable shooting a low-budget advert on the gh5 if I had control of light, and time to do anything about it. Coupled with just how weird the gh5 was to grade. Sometimes the exact same grading would look vastly different from one shot to the next. I was constantly fiddling just to get something acceptable. I'd try to pull the sky down and it would fall apart. I'd try to boost the shadows and it would fall apart. I got used to living with a shot pretty well how i'd shot it. z6 i get the feeling I'll be able to shove it around more, which is odd because I'm pretty sure its a lower bitrate and 8 bit. Go figure. I'm going to sell my gh5. Just need to decide if I'm going to sell all my m4/3 kit or keep it in case I get a BMPCC4k. the ronin is impressive in that regard if a bit quirky. Even with the ronin you dont get full movement - the rubber eyepiece hits the ronin, so you only get about 30 degrees to tilt down. I tried adding extra weight to the back so I could move the camera forward, but didn't work. Cant wait for the 14-30. (I imagine I'll be looking at the mooza air once i start getting more native lenses). However, seeing what sony are doing with their autofocus, and how much their colour has improved, I still havent ruled out going all in on sony depending on the next a7s.