Inazuma

I don't know the answer to your question. I just want to know why you bang your lenses against your walls. It's the most hilariously bizarre thing I've read today.

I will lighten up (not that im actually angry) when people stop making the same nonsensical/ill-informed arguments about why one camera is better than the other. My favourite is the "sharp = video" one, which makes no sense because I've never used a video camera that has been as sharp as DSLR footage. Unless we're talking about those ones that cost tens of thousands that are used in sports stadiums.

Why did this need its own topic? There are already plenty of GH4 threads you could've slipped this garbage in. To get a great image out of the 5D3 you need to shoot RAW, which has its issues (stability, storage, etc). Otherwise you get something inferior to the GH3 even (

Completely gorgeous footage there Andrew. The contrast (whilst keeping detail in the shadows) and the colours are just wonderful. I find it hard to understand how anyone can be critical of the image, which is actually very similar to the way Leica jpegs are rendered (very contrasty with punchy colours).

Theyre protecting their top end. The only people complaining are people like us with no budget :) I cant believe their Cxxx line don't even have 60p though.

The 50mm OSS is an absolutely gorgeous lens imo. Sharp and the bokeh is just delicious. Only thing is that the focus ring has like a million degree throw, so not suitable for manual focus at all.

I liked the story, but the way the characters delivered their dialogue, especially the woman, seemed really odd/fake. Maybe it was a soundspace issue or maybe the actors just weren't up to scratch. Also the exposure/grading seemed really stale. Also I think maybe some of the shots were too smooth. Were you using a steadicam the whole time?

I'm based in Manchester too. Are you part of a production company or anything?

Raising the shutter speed is really truly a last resort. If your shutter speed is too high or too low, the motion will look too "fast" and you will lose the cinematic feel. I once shot a whole event at 1/50th at 50fps and when I got home and viewed the file, everything just looked silly.

One of my favourite independent directors at the moment is Nabil http://vimeo.com/nabilelderkin His work is very creative and wonderfully shot. Also glad Daniel Peters is getting so much attention now since I mentioned him a few weeks ago :)

I always felt there was something off about this sequence and others in the films.

Wait, there's a face in that picture?

You may be skeptical but after shooting with Canons, Nikons and Sony's, I can definitely say the Panasonic captures significantly more detail. The range in the shadows you can bring out is probably pretty similar in both cameras, but to get the same highlight detail I would have to underexpose by at least a stop on the a6000 (despite being able to pull down white level down to 235). Both camera's overall colour can be dialed to your heart's content, but I believe the GX7 captures more of the fine colour detail. Such as the various colours of the weathered and mossy fence and the shed's weatherboards.

Do they clarify what they mean by "it can track a train at 200 km/h"? Not that I have any use for that, but it sounds interesting. If they just mean it can track the train moving horizontally across the screen though, it's not that impressive.

Indeed, who am I to argue with you if you personally feel the a6000 has a nicer image :) For me the GX7 just produces an image closer to a downscaled jpeg, which for me feels more organic. Neither cameras have a real aliasing/moire issue but I would still argue that the a6 has more of a problem. In the first clip, the roof tiles look like they have some kind of rainbow happening on them! And the bricks in the background have diagonal alias patterns. I will have to look into my encoding methods, because in the original MTS, the GX7's clip does not show crooked aliasing of the shed's weatherboards or the closer building's bricks :/ Very strange that. No you cant get the best image out of having a camera for a short time, but remember I have previously owned a NEX 6 and RX100, so I am quite familiar with the menu system already. The settings as mentioned in the description: Natural picture profile, minimum sharpness and NR. Contrast, Saturation and DR varied between shots but I tried to keep them similar between cameras. Though it seems I may not have lifted the shadows on the a6 as much as I did on the gx7. I have used the GX7 for full days without overheating. But I never kept it on continuously for more than like 15 minutes. It's just not my style. What I will say though is that when I had the a6000, I definitely felt a lot of heat whenever I was using it. Whereas with the GX7 I feel none. Not even in hot weather (although "hot" in England is only like 23C).

In early April I bought a a6000 temporarily to do some tests and satiate my curiosity about whether or not it could replace my GX7. The larger sensor and nice grip, along with stabilized 35mm and 50mm lenses were attractive to me. All shot at 25fps with similar picture profiles and dynamic range settings, though the outside clips may have had more shadows lifted on the GX7. Noise reduction and sharpening were turned off on both cameras. Sony clips are first and have had their white level pulled down from 255 to 235 to bring out some highlight detail that would otherwise be hidden. Less compressed, 1080p video: sebcastilho.com/uploads/a6000vsGX7_video_quality.mp4 My findings:The Sony has a noticeably higher moire and aliasing issue on details like the bricks and roof in the first shot.The Panasonic has much more detail, most notable on the face at the end, in which the Sony does not display any of the fine pores or wrinkles. Also check out the grass, fence and tree in the first shot.In extreme low light, the Panasonic still has slightly more detail, but the noise is also more distracting than the Sony. I believe this is due to Panasonic's more accurate readout of the sensor. Whereas the Sony by nature is softer anyway.Both cameras are pretty accurate colour-wise and can be dialled flat or whatever to your liking. However the a6000 has trouble keeping highlight detail.Finally, there are a couple of distinct advantages of the Panasonic's detailed video. I can digitally stabilize and rescale without the image becoming really soft. I can denoise without losing too much detail. And I can use budget lens filters without worrying that they'll degrade my image a lot. In the end I kept the GX7 because I felt the a6k would be a downgrade in video quality and also it had a worse menu system and controls. Also the RAW didn't really seem any better. See raw files: sebcastilho.com/uploads/a6000vsGX7_raw_photos.zip *Disclaimer* I am not a professional film maker. My career is in animation, but film making is an increasing hobby of mine. These tests were done as scientifically as I could at the time. When I made the comparison, I'd had the GX7 for about 4 months. Before then I'd owned and used extensively several other cameras including a Canon 550d, Sony NEX 6, Nikon d5200 and Sony RX100

Very nice :) was that a jib crane shot I saw around the middle when viewing the London eye?

Actually when I had the NEX 6, the banding thing was present too. This is just due to the how the sensor is read with electronic shutter, or in the NEX's case, with front curtain shutter turned off. You have to avoid it by using a certain shutter speed like you do in video

Trafficarte, please refer to the tests I posted in this thread around early April. They are mostly just stills from the videos, but you can clearly see the quality differences. Maybe this weekend I will post all the videos on vimeo if I have time. Edit: by "this" thread I actually meant the other a6000 thread (the one with many pages)

I have tried various positions and the result always seems to be similar (indefinite movement)

Hi, Yesterday I received my Monocam CF Pro (thanks Matt for the recommendation!). I spent over an hour trying to get the balancing correct. It seems to be there for the most part, except for one thing which I'm not sure is normal or not. Basically, if I do a drop test, it will keep swinging indefinitely. I have seen videos of other peoples' steadicams where they stop pretty quickly. Another thing is that when I hold it up normally, it never just stays "steady". It moves about slowly and continuously. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3RS2lsaZvE&feature=youtu.be

I wonder what kind of effect these filters would have on scenery such as grass. Will the filters soften the look of such things, making them look more lush?

@kevin some adapters have a mechanism that allow you to adjust the lens' aperture. @iag you are clearly disillusioned :p

In interested in knowing how, without the filters, there is absolutely no glow around the bulb :o

That footage is incredible