Chrad

So deeper DOF = artificial? Where does super 16 fit into thos equation for you?

The real wit of it comes from the Farrelly's though. He just illustrated it in an incredibly obvious way.

If there's no luxury to overexpose, I've found underexposure of one stop or less on a moderate ISO to look pleasing on the Lumix cameras.

I think every other GH5 video would look similar to your test if pointed at a scene that isn't even visible at ISO 200.

What does it mean to be a 'filmmaker' when no one is using celluloid anymore? The direct predecessors of vlogging are more reality tv and video journalism than anything we typically call film.

The key is to test what level of underexposure you feel is acceptable on your subject at various ISO values. Sometimes it's better to go grainy and even or overexposed, even if you have to push to 3200 or so.

New camera in 'Noisy when severely underexposed' shocker! Even at 3200 you're not near a clean exposure, what did you expect? Even the Alexa produces a grainy image when you starve it of light.

DSLR Filmmaking: the new wave that wasn't.

Yes, yes, yes. It seems like embracing the flexibility of DSLRs to define a new aesthetic has been replaced by trying to transform our little consumer cameras into Alexas.

Definitely, but wrong thread.

I think it's important to remember that people have different expectations when it comes to aesthetics and production standards when they sit down to watch a narrative than when they watch essentially video diaries of people talking to the camera.

David Lynch shot his Inland Empire on autofocus on an old DV cam and couldn't stop raving about how creatively liberating not having to focus was

It depends on what your aims are. Do you want to produce content, or do you want to produce art? Do you want to write a column or a novel? The main attraction of VLog and instagram work usually isn't so much the qualities of the image, story, themes as it is the ego of those creating it. On the other hand, great filmmaking looks both within the self and to the outside world. Where I think what these kids are doing does have something to offer people like us is in their willingness to shape a new aesthetic. We don't need to go as far in not caring about the technical, but perhaps creative liberation comes with holding ourselves to at least a different set of standards. I think a lot of DSLR filmmakers get caught in the trap of chasing the 'cinematic', which seems to me to be missing the point. I've been thinking of writing a thread about this for a while - maybe I should get to that.

These days all the cinema cameras have pretty high base ISO. Alexa is 800, as are the 4.6K, Pocket and 2.5K Blackmagics. Alexa has outstanding noise performance - to give you an idea, Birdman was shot at 1250. Varicam 35 is the true low light monster with two base ISOs on the sensor - 800 and 5000, with the same noise level for each.

Why not both? The size of the pixels here is huge. I don't know much about lens design, but I don't see why prioritising low light should necessarily mean poor DR.

I know a certain video camera manufacturer with a proclivity to using industrial sensors and an MFT mount camera that is due for an update.

Small full frame bodies that can take any lens that covers the sensor. That's basically it.

The A7s line are amazing guerilla filmmaking tools. They open up incredible possibilities to use available light that simply wouldn't exist otherwise.

Why commit to working in a challenging and uncompromised aesthetic when you can do something just as good without making a difficult artistic choice: camera tests! Wonderful 4K raw-shot camera tests of the gardens, parks and city scapes near 'aspiring filmmakers' everywhere, coming soon to Vimeo.

While this is amazing, will no doubt be put to good use, and any democritization of prohibitively expensive technology should be welcomed with open arms... ...the elephant in the room is that if you can afford to do serious work with 4K raw, you can afford a more suitable camera that requires less hoop jumping than the 5Diii. The storage cost is astronomical. Even independent features with A-list talent choose to record in less space intensive formats for economic reasons.

So because you used a focus chart in the past, you don't need focus peaking now? Err? Not sure I follow. DPAF and focus peaking are both great features that serve different needs. Rubbishing a manual focus assistance tool like no one needs it while championing auto focus just makes you sound like a fanboy.

Sony won't put everything we want in an inexpensive body. When have they ever done this? And why would they? They are the number one choice for video DSLR shooters right now. They are not fighting for relevance like Panasonic. They have a succesful prosumer line to protect, which further lowers their likelihood of putting features like 10 bit in consumer level bodies. What they already offer is selling well, so why push the limits?

The main advances I see from this camera are the 1080p out of camera being of comparable sharpness to downscaled UHD, the ability to use stabilization with my manual primes, and usable V-Log files and monitoring without an external recorder. The low light imprpvement and removal of the sensor crop for 4K are just bonuses.

Not this shit again. It's only a quarter size sensor if super 35 is a half size sensor and super 16 is a 1/8 size sensor. Low light on this thing is actually pretty good - it's not the A7S but it's comparable to the A6300, A6500. Maybe a stop under, becoming noticeable as you get to the upper end of the ISO range. Only in terms of depth of field, but if you see the sensor size as a potential advantage that allows you deeper DOF for the same level of light transmission, then that can be an advantage. There's also a (admittedly very expensive) 7-14 2.8 lens from an Olympus, and a 7.5mm F2 manual focus almost-pancake from Laowa launches shortly. If you want to work with Speed Boosters a ' FF 18mm F1.8' is attainable with a 14mm 2.8 and a Speed Booster XL. But how often do you shoot at Ultra wide? There are a bunch of fast options for M43 from the 20mm on full frame and upward. I guess it just depends on what you're using it for. You have a point that the auto focus is weak vs the competition, and also about the body getting a bit big for micro 4/3. I think that's preferable to a too small body that overheats. I'm guessing that the IBIS, 10 bit, high frame rates, etc necessitated a size increase from the GH4, along with the professional features they've added (HDMI and dual SD slots). If you're all about low light, a Canon cinema EOS or Sony A7s makes much more sense.