Stab

Hmm sounds plausible. I just saw a DXO transmission test of this lens, and it confirms the brightness increase at 28mm but it is only very very slightly. On my lens it is much more apparent it is at least a stop in increase. Maybe this is indeed because it is 'Speed Boosted' twice. Would this have any other disadvantages? Or can you, in theory, keep Speed Boosting lenses forever with multiple boosters? :D

I just tested some more. The difference between brightness at different focal lengths is actually less visible wide open and becomes more apparent when stopping down a bit. The lens is most bright at 28mm with a pretty large difference with 20-24mm and gets slightly less bright at 35mm again. Someone with an Sigma 18-35mm who can look how theirs is doing?

Nope.

Today I noticed that the brightness increases when I zoom in on the Sigma 18-35mm f1.8. When I get to around 28mm I suddenly get like a stop increase in ilumination. I thought this was a constant aperture lens. This means that brightness shouldn't change when zooming, right? My buddy's Panny 12-35mm doesn't do this. Could someone please check / reply if your Sigma does this also? Or is it a defect or does it have something to do with the Speed Booster which I'm using with it? Thanks! ---------------------------------- Edit: I made a video which shows the problem: You can see the problem clearly at F4. At F1.8 it is almost non existent... https://vimeo.com/97710680 (at f4) https://vimeo.com/97710654 (at f1.8)

Yea I guess you are right Quirky... But I've always assumed that, as long as a video doesn't get 100.000's of views it isn't much of a problem to use copyrighted music. I post my wedding video's on Facebook, get maybe 300-500 views at most, and that's it. I just keep 'em on Vimeo to show to possible future clients with a link. I don't think many people have gotten legal punishment because of this and, although I know it is illegal, this shouldn't be much of a big deal I suppose. But if Vimeo pushes this through, that means I will not even be able to take this risk :) Also, my wedding video company is still in it's early phases and I can't really say 'no' to customers at the moment if the competition will say 'yes'. Difficult.

So what do guys like me do now? I shoot a lot of wedding video's, and clients often want to pick their own music of choice. Often it's a song that means something to them. Does this mean I can no longer upload this film to Vimeo? What is the alternative? I cannot contact all the big record labels for all the wedding video's I do that at most 300 people will watch, right?

I just came across this device: http://www.b-hague.co.uk/canon_eos_5...ra_support.htm Anyone has any experience with these things? It looks great to me. And it's cheap too. I currently mostly use a Manfrotto Fig Rig when doing weddings, but it's a bit too large and clumsy, and I can't attach my monitor to it. This Camframe actually looks like a much better shape (rectangle vs circular) and has shoe mounts on top to place monitors and such. Also, you can mount a baseplate under it so it can be used directly on a tripod. What's not to like? Well, just curious if anyone ever held them and know if it's any good. It's kinda cheap so... Almost too good to be true. Any downsides that I'm overlooking? Why would this be worse than a circular Fig Rig for instance?

The film looks extremely 'videoish' to me, but that is because the framing is not filmic at all. Also, with some color grading it could be greatly improved. I was just watching Californication the other day and while some shots look filmic, other's look like video to me. Same camera, same crew, same setting ... It's just about the framing. This movie would'nt have looked more filmic with an Alexa.

Am I the only one here who prefers the colors of the GH3 over the GH4's? Could be the grading though, but IDK, just looks better in my eyes. Also, I keep being amazed by the GH3. In these wide shots there is of course an increase in detail and sharpness when switching to the GH4, but it actually only really becomes apparent on the 200% zooms. And that's on my 27 inch 2560x1440 monitor. I bet most 'normal' people would hardly see the difference on their 21" 1080p monitors. The difference between those 2 is actually smaller than I thought. Especially taken into account the 24mbps AVCHD of the GH3 vs 2160p MOV files from the GH4...

I just checked the specs of your computer, and it's not looking that good for you. Your i7 is a dual-core, not quad core. Your GPU is outdated and very slow. Also, 4 GB of RAM is too few for any kind of editing. I wonder if you actually had smooth playback while editing 1080p native h.264 camera files on this system. Since you can't upgrade this laptop to the extend that you want, I think you should start saving for a new computer or try to get a few more months out of it by trying to convert all the camera's files 1st to a less compressed format such as prores or anything. Then set the playback resolution in your NLE to 1/4th and take it easy on the effects. Good luck. I wonder how my setup would handle 4K. Probably not great either.

Breaking news (for me) I randomly got it to work. I was just messing around with the buttons and it suddenly worked... So when I turn on the camera and the monitor, I first have to go to playback mode on the camera so the monitor gets the signal. Then I have to press 'Camera' on the monitor and quickly change the camera back to live view / recording mode. Then I have a signal and output on the monitor :D Very strange, but at least it works. Topic can be closed if it would be up to me. Thanks anyway!

Thanks in advance for your efforts to help me. I just bought 2 monitors from Seetec. This one: http://www.amazon.co.uk/SEETEC-Input...rds=seetec+5.6 As you can see it is designed to work with several Canon, Nikon and Sony camera's. That's why I could suppose it should also work with the Panasonic GH3. When I connect the monitor to the camera, I get a 'no signal' message whatever I do. The strange thing is that, when I go to 'playback' mode on the camera and play back some old recorded clips, the monitor receives the signal and works! So this rules out that the monitor or cable is broken. I have almost no settings to play with on the monitor. On the GH3 I tried different framerates, shutter speeds and turned Vierra Link on and off. Nothing seems to help. Am I missing something? Do you have any idea why this might happen? Thanks!!

I carry a big bag with me all the time, with prime lenses. That means every time I think the situation asks for a different lens, I have to swap lenses. I carry an screw-on ND filter in my pocket all day, so whenever I move outside I have to screw it on. I do manual focus only so I have to stay sharp all day. On top of that I carry a Fig Rig and a Shoulder Rig with me and use an external monitor. On of our GH3's in on a tripod during the ceremony recording every minute of it, and we have to turn it back on every 30 min because of the recording limit. Life would be much easier with an camera that doesn't need a rig, has autofocus, a 16-100mm f1.8 zoom, build-in ND filters, no recording limit, a larger better screen with focus peaking, etc. Weddings are already tiring and stressful enough as it is, and I acknowledge that still-camera's with a video function in combination with prime lenses is not the best tool for the job in terms of easy of use. But, I do love the look of the footage, how long the battery last, the 1.4 apertures for shooting in dark area's, the slowmo, etc. You just simply can't have it all at this price point.

I shoot weddings on a GH3 + prime lenses. (+ SpeedBooster) I know I'm not making it easy for myself, but I just love the footage that I'm getting and it's worth the hassle. Plus it's relatively cheap, filesizes are managable and it grades pretty nicely.

I think most modern camera's with a big sensor can look cinematic, in the right hands. I don't think a GH3 is less cinematic than a 5D or D600 at all. It can be, but that would be because of the cinematography. Give whatever camera the correct exposure, a cinematic framing and especially grading, that is what is going to make the difference. And then, I would rather 'start off' with a camera with a high resolution, non aliasing, low contrast 'base-image'. And I tell you the GH3 can do that.

I hate this 4K 'revolution'. Manufacturers are out of ideas how to squeeze more money from us in the long term, so they shove 4K through our throats. Of course, after the 1st telephones and handycams start to shoot 4K, along will come 4K televisions and monitors. 99% of all the people I know still work on a 21 inch or smaller computer monitor with 1920x1080, but mostly even less. Almost everyone watches their series and movies on their 15" laptops or computer screens. Over the last 2-3 years, almost everyone has upgraded their old chunky televisions to huge 40-50" LED, flatscreen TV's. Can't we just see that 'we are there' yet? Consumers don't need more than this. And the only thing we, as filmmakers, need is better 1080p with real 1080p resolution, higher DR and better colors and codecs. My 42" Full HD TV is so damn sharp and colorful. Everyone who sees it for the 1st time says how nice it is. Also, I have never heard anyone after a visit to the cinema and watching a film on a 30 meter wide screen (shot on a 2K Alexa) say 'Nice movie, but Leonardo was not sharp enough'. They created a problem that doesn't exist, and now we all want it. And why not, it will be relatively cheap to get it. To answer your question, I don't know if 1080p camera's will become obsolete soon. I hope not. It depends on how film makers and broadcasters deal with it. I hope it will be 'rejected', just like happened to 3D. The problem is that 4K will become the new 'Megapixel'. People that have no knowledge about image quality throw these terms around like it means something. People will ask me in the near future if I can shoot their wedding in 4k, because uncle Harry bought a 4k camcorder for $500. Then we should be able to shoot 4k as well, right? And there we go. Upgrading our camera's, our storage devices, our computers, our screens, our websites. All because of a problem that didn't exist in the 1st place. And the funniest part? Our clients will watch our 4k produced film on their 15 inch 1366x768 screen. Meh, this post actually need its own topic.

Nice post. On top of this, when everyone has changed to 4K camera's, more things will change. Our clients will 'demand' 4K. 'Why can't you shoot my wedding in 4K? My uncle has a smartphone which shoots 4K!' It's the new 'Megapixel' for people without technical understanding. That means that we, as film makers, have to upgrade to not only 4K camera's, but also to 4K monitors, editing hardware and software, and the like. At the same time, Hollywood keeps pumping out glorious images which have been shot at the 2K-Alexa. And I have never, ever heard someone say 'Nice movie, but wasn't sharp enough' after watching Alexa footage on an 40m wide cinema screen. For me, I wish they would focus on good 1080p.

Yea I read more about it and got it now. Strange. I'm surprised :) I would have expected a different form factor, let alone using the exact same GH3 body with some different sensor / processor in it and bumping up the price a lot.

I call fake.

You guys are right about Canon / Nikon etc, but you can't blame them for their strategies. Companies have to make money, on a LONG term. They probably could release a €3000,00 camera tomorrow, that does everything 'we' want. Everyone will buy it immediately. And then what? What happens in 5 years when nobody buys shit anymore? That's right, they go out of business. No more Canon, Nikon, Sony, etc. Only 1 company left that now has a monopoly and charges 1000$ for simple repairs of your camera. I'm not saying its better or worse, just stating the obvious here. If 'we' got all the tech that companies are technically capable of today, we would all have the fastest computer possible, the best camera's, a $50 chair that licks my balls. a fridge that can cook, etc. But once we have all of it, then what? Exactly. No more companies.

Big difference. But not as big as a difference as the DR between these two! Look at the playground under the tent. In the 70D it's all shadows, in the G6 it's utterly bright. Nice.

Nice! Definately looks better with the 'High Dynamic' turned on. Can you show me an example of the 'downsides' when turning it on, on 'regular' shoots? How does it look when you just shoot in daylight with that function on?

There is no better. They will totally give a different look. 24p is more 'film like', 60p is more 'real / documentary like'. Try them out both and see which you prefer :)

Wow thanks Zach! The ding effect at the end might not have been necesarry indeed, but I'm sure there are some people who would miss it if it wasn't there and that would ruin the whole film. So I thought, better to be safe than sorry :) Thanks for the nice reply.

Thanks! What was the stupid ending you were expecting? :D