jonpais

Traded in one of my Sigma 30mm f/1.4 DC DN lenses for the 16mm f/1.4 DC DN. Total cost $250.00. I hope to do an unboxing video and post sample footage this weekend.

@HockeyFan12 Even if someone’s on the receiving end, your criticisms and thought process are so interesting to follow, it’s virtually impossible to take offense. ?

And I was getting flack for thinking of buying the Atlas Orion. =) They are probably right though, it’s just a hobby for me.

? sweet!

Matthew Scott is another former Red user who eventually switched over to the GH5.

That was fast work!

@Nocturnes If you read the OP’s original post carefully, you’ll see that he says something to the effect that the number of advantages of the GH5 are too numerous to list (my own poetic account), or that they’re already well known (slightly less poetic), which is why he was considering changing systems. But there must be a lot of crazy filmmakers out there, because he’s far from the first who would prefer shooting with the GH5 rather than with a cinema camera.

A great free app for locating those pesky files. Daisy Disk

Probably. ? I think Andrew speculated Panasonic was simplifying their model numbers to avoid all the confusion if I remember correctly.

At only $2500, the price is right.

@Cinegain Sorry, guys, you might have gotten a great deal on the GH4, but if you just check out a bunch of video reviews online, or better yet, look at Andrew Reid's review of the GH4, you'll see that the launch price (body only) was $1,699 at B&H New York. That's pretty near 1700 USD, isn't it? And from Tony Northrup's review (price over at Amazon for comparison) I sure hope Luke dumps his Panasonic for Canon too! =)

@PannySVHS @Cinegain Shared a video shot with the A7s with some of the most muted colors I've seen, and while I'm not overly fond of the low contrast look for extended periods of time, I think the results are quite pleasing. I'm not at all familiar with Sony, but I think it's shot in 8 bit.

Trolling is beneath you, Glenn. I don't join in Sony and Canon threads and tell them to buy Panasonic. And if you look back, most of the times I brought up the features of the Panasonic was when you kept insisting I buy a Canon! =)

I’m not sure where you got your figures from Glenn, but the GH4 was $1,700 at launch and I paid $1,800 for the GH5, incl. V-Log, extra battery. And I don’t know what you mean when you say the G9 jumped up $900 when it’s a new camera. Where did you get the info about the GX80? A fortune teller? ? Why all the hostility towards Panasonic?

because? is that a rhetorical question, or do you really believe anyone here has inside information? the same could just as easily be asked about other cameras that don’t have dual SD card slots, 4K 60p, unlimited recording time, focus peaking, best in class remote app, intervalometer, sensible UI, anamorphic de-squeeze, clean full HDMI out, crazy long battery life, well designed handgrip, internal 10-bit, ETC mode, loadable LUTs, waveform monitor, IBIS, ALL-I 400Mbps, HLG, the ability to store all user settings on an SD card, headphone jack, articulating touch screen, and on and on... why don’t you contact Panasonic directly and ask?

@Cinegain The UK seems to be at the forefront of this anamorphic, lens mod and customized vintage lens business. What I wouldn’t give to own just one of those Optikovs! Yeah, I just meant, if you’re already familiar with how a given lens does on the bench, what sort of footage do most readers prefer. One reason I ask is that some footage of anamorphics I’ve seen, for instance, gives no indication of what the flare or bokeh even looks like. And I’m sure most potential buyers are keen to know that. As someone who thinks in terms of the moving image, it’s also at times difficult for me to evaluate a lens’s performance based solely on stills or screen grabs. Same goes for heavily graded images. Those are just my particular preferences anyhow.

It’s interesting, to me at least, how HDR seems to hold little or no appeal for EOSHD members, while over at other sites, there is keen anticipation. Not a single doubting Thomas saying ‘my clients don’t ask for it’, or ‘I’ll wait till it’s in every home’. I would think that, given the fact that, at the very minimum, you could at last finally see the full twelve stops of dynamic range your camera is capable of, or display your work on a client monitor in your home or office, would be of interest to more than one or two filmmakers. Especially as most already own a camera that can shoot log, and purchasing an external monitor and last year’s top-rated OLED would run little more than the last camera body you purchased. For example, a Ninja Flame runs around $800, and last year’s top- rated 55” OLED is going for something like $1,500 - just a few hundred dollars more than the GH5 + V-Log. None of this has anything whatsoever to do with whether you shoot 1080p, whether your clients can afford it, or that your local broadcasters only just implemented HD.

@Cinegain turned me on to Dog Schidt optics, which I'd heard of before but had never looked into. Watching a video by Richard Gale shot in a wood demonstrating the bokeh and various types of flare that can be achieved by changing the aperture elements of his Trump lens, I could see the utility of his test. But in general, how many here find sample footage of lenses comprised solely of twigs and leaves to be a useful indication of the suitability of an optic for your own types of shooting? Also, should sample footage be graded, ungraded or both?

And why is that? And are you at all familiar with external recorders?

If Panasonic releases a GH5s with RAW, it’s not out of the goodness of their hearts - it’s a plot hatched to peddle more of their $500 v90 SD cards! Sorry, Glenn, couldn’t resist. ?

Just wanted to add one more point, and that’s about Vinterberg and Dogme 95. Many of today’s filmmakers, rejecting the immaculate rendering of digital cinema, are intentionally going for a grungy style, using vintage lenses and whatnot; but nothing in Dogme’s rules precludes shooting with even an Arri Alexa (provided you could handhold it). Those who think Netflix’s rules are arbitrary and restrictive should have a look at Dogme 95’s ‘Vows of Chastity’. Note: I’m not in any way comparing the streaming giant’s corporate rules to the Danish manifesto! Shooting must be done on location. Props and sets must not be brought in (if a particular prop is necessary for the story, a location must be chosen where this prop is to be found). The sound must never be produced apart from the images or vice versa. (Music must not be used unless it occurs where the scene is being shot.) The camera must be hand-held. Any movement or immobility attainable in the hand is permitted. The film must be in colour. Special lighting is not acceptable. (If there is too little light for exposure the scene must be cut or a single lamp be attached to the camera). Optical work and filters are forbidden. The film must not contain superficial action. (Murders, weapons, etc. must not occur.) Temporal and geographical alienation are forbidden. (That is to say that the film takes place here and now.) Genre movies are not acceptable. The film format must be Academy 35 mm. The director must not be credited. Source Wikipedia

@HockeyFan12 I think there’s a huge misunderstanding here, no doubt the fault is all my own. Number one, I never meant to suggest that video is superior to film. Let me be perfectly clear - I don’t believe Raging Bull could ever be improved upon! Number two, I realize that these great filmmakers chose the cameras and processing techniques they did, not because they were impoverished, but for aesthetic or philisophical reasons. When I said that some of the films shot on 16mm might have looked ‘better’ if shot on say a GH5, I did not mean to imply that ‘if only they had had a modern digital camera, their films would be watchable today.’ My point was merely that filmmakers should not be judged based on the camera they shoot with, something even the Cannes film festival can agree on. If I were to rewrite my post, I would definitely change my last statement about not being condescending toward today’s less fortunate filmmmakers! Come to think of it, I don’t know why I included Wong Kar-Wai’s masterpiece in my list - I think I just got carried away rattling off the names of some of the filmmakers I admire the most! His film obviously does not belong there, glad you pointed it out. My bad! I don’t believe I’ve ever had the opportunity to watch a pristine restored print of Chungking Express at the cinema, but would love to be able to one day.

I guess we’re making progress of sorts. I located a fellow here in Ho Chi Minh who makes clamps and the Hardcore DNA should be available the end of January. I still shudder when I think of the customs fees though.