dbp

Good choice, you won't be disappointed!

I've used the C100 (Mk1) and bmpcc a bunch. The C100 is the best all around camera for sure, such a delight to use and the quality really punches above it's weight. When it fires on all cylinders, I still prefer the pocket image. But you can't discount the "not getting in your way" factor of making a good image, and that's where the C100 is second to none I think.

Not the most favorable review, seems to be not much of improvement over the GH4.

^Yep, there definitely is. So it helps to have the fastest m43 glass you can. The really fast and good stuff comes at a premium of course (ie 42.5 f1.2) One of the disadvantages of m43 compared to larger sensors is that it's hard to find sufficiently fast zooms. There's the Sigmas, but f2.8 isn't really fast enough for lotsa bokeh, where as it definitely is with full frame. Much easier to find zooms f2.8 and up.

Yep, seems most of the olympus/panasonic lenses perform well wide open. I can vouche for the panny 20mm f1.7 But I've also read reviews and seen footage from: Panasonic 12 f1.4 Panasonic 15 f1.7 Panasonic 25 f.14 Panasonic 42.5 f1.2 / f1.7 Sigma 30 f1.4 Olympus 12 f2.0 Olympus 17 f1.8 Olympus 45 f1.8 Olympus 75 f1.8 All seem to perform pretty well wide open. The Rokinon 12 f2.0 that I have is also pretty good at f2, especially for the cost. So there's lots of options.

No I meant, you can use 1.4 to 2 pretty reasonably on m43, to get into the equivalent 2.8-4 range, since many of the good native m43 lenses are sharp wide open.

I don't think m43 is that bad for DoF. Although it does vary I suppose. I forget how big the GH4 crop is in UHD. I always think the bmpcc crop is bad, but the GH4 isn't much better. GH2, on the other hand, is actually pretty good at 1.86 or whatever it was. At least the native m43 are pretty sharp wide open. So you can get alot of them to be quite usable at f1.4-2. I think a lot of movies live in the 2.8-4 range, so it's not that far off in reality.

Interesting that you say this, because I am the exact opposite. Not to say that you are wrong by any means. What you are saying makes sense. But I think that's why I'm a bit enthused by the GH5, and a lot of new offerings in it's range, for that matter. It feels like having quality, accurate, true to life footage has been achieved. The GH4 and many others already do a decent job of that. I long for something that looks a little different, stands out, even if it's not necessarily accurate. In fact, I'd prefer it to look a little surreal. I think that's why I gravitate towards the digital bolex and the blackmagic stuff. It has a unique look compared to the many Canon/Sony/Panasonic offerings.

This. Though I'm not sure there'll ever be an end all be all, because we're all programmed to want more more more, and because I think the improvement curve is flattening out to the point that it's hard to make monstrous, noticeable image quality leaps now.

Despite the fact that they had other issues, I still think the peak of Panasonic color science was the HVX200/HPX170/HMC150 days. That's when people called it the panasonic mojo. They've gone backwards since then, though it seems like they are coming back around, slowly but surely.

From reading about cards when trying to shoot raw on the pocket, I think minimum speed is often the bottleneck. Many have a fast enough max speed, but dropping below the minimum even for a moment is bad news.

Yep, looks great! Wondered what lens too, cause it definitely seemed on point.... turns out it's the Zeiss Otus 55mm. Might have something do with it looking so nice as well : )

Yep, same. I work with a lot of the same photographers. They'll complain about lighting issues and it's like... what are you even talking about? Not to mention having the opportunity to use flash. I can't run a bunch of continuous lighting in a room without pissing everyone off. It's just an entirely different ballgame to get a good looking product. And I have actually considered it with Raw. Get a couple of 256gb cards. It'd be a monsterous storage hit at first. But you could scan through and quickly get the good clips to 95% balanced, export to dnxhd HQ, or even SQ and delete the raw. Footage would look much better and would probably give you a leg up, since even the high end wedding videos tend to have pretty crappy looking color throughout lots of it. No fault of the shooters, just the nature of the gig with crappy codecs.

Yep, tends to be big boy stuff, and I understand it. Funny though, the paradox is that it's *very* valuable for quick and dirty, low budget stuff, and events. The very places it's used the least is when it can help the most. A lot of times, lighting is minimal, set up time is minimal, they don't want to mess around staging stuff and repeating stuff, so you end up getting what you can get quickly and on the fly. It's very freeing to not have to worry about getting an accurate white balance while shooting. So many times I wish I could go RAW at weddings, but the storage would be horrendous. Crappy mixed lighting conditions, quickly moving between indoors and outdoors, harsh exteriors during mid day. All sorts of things where Raw and lattitude is invaluable. I love only having to worry about composition, focus, lighting ratios (if controlled) and getting a fat negative. The rest is all done in post.

It is annoying. I dearly wish either premiere would be able to handle cinemaDNG properly, OR have Resolve become a suitable editor. Honestly, I'd rather the 2nd option, as resolve's color grading is excellent. I've thought about experimenting with Resolve as a main editor, but haven't pulled the trigger. The workflow is *almost* there, but not quite. So yeah, it's a bit annoying for sure.

Can't speak on 5D raw, but honestly, the only thing holding back blackmagic pocket raw from being viable is hard drive space. RAW compatible memory cards have really fallen. Couple of 256gig cards would get you almost 80 minutes each. The footage runs really smoothly in resolve. I often shoot corporate videos, and I load the clips in resolve first. Whip through them with a basic grade, export them out and use them in premiere. They cut like butter in both instances, and I have a pretty old computer at this point. If you wanted to do extensive grading, it'd take more time... but for your standard real world looking color correction, it's super quick. You get a ton of lattitude, quality is excellent and workflow is barely impacted at all. Hard drives would absolutely add up with a ton of footage but that's gonna happen with any decent codec in 4K as well. Price you pay for quality, really.

That's true, exposure has been key with high ISO on all previous GH models and it can look decent if the entire frame is filled with light. That footage still has some dark areas where I'd expect it to go to hell pretty badly, especially at 5000-10,000. Just doesn't look anything like what I'm used to seeing out of the GH4.

Wow, that looks dynamite for 10,000 ISO. Some of the others have looked like GH4 or worse, so really not sure what's up.

Didn't intend on it being in a specific order, but I will say that the 5D raw stuff I've seen definitely seems to win for color.

Talking pure image quality, I'd say: 5D Raw BMCC/BMPCC Raw Digital Bolex Nothing else in that range competes with those based on anything I've seen. Ergonomics / usability is a whole different matter.

I have the magicpower juicebox battery mounted on top, so that adds a decent amount of weight. Steadycam solo and Glidecam XR-4000 both look like good options.

I'll cosign this. The Rokinon is excellent for a very reasonable price. Manual focus only... probably why it's so cheap. But manual focus is generally fine on a lens this wide anyway.

http://nofilmschool.com/2017/02/shootout-arri-alexa-mini-vs-red-epic-w-helium Seems strange that they didn't went with ISO 800 for the helium shots.

Yeah, that tests actually looks noticably worse for the GH5 in low light, compared to the GH4. Certainly hope something is up with that.

Show of hands, what are ya'll using to stabilize this little thing??