jonpais

?

I thought they both shared identical sensor and image quality...

@Mattias Burling There may be instances when crushed shadows and blown highlights are effective for stylistic reasons, but trying to pigeon-hole people who don't share your opinion only makes you look silly. Do real non nerd people also prefer heavy-handed grading, blurry images, harsh lighting and distracting out of focus backgrounds?

ND filters and monopods are your friends.

In what way is the Aputure superior to the Video Assist?

@Mattias Burling I know you're primarily a stills shooter and the Xpro2 is aimed at stills photographers. Could you say what prompted you to get the X-T2 in the first place? Incidentally, I love mine in spite of all the quirks, and plan on using it when I begin work on a narrative short, which hopefully will happen before I'm diagnosed with liver disease or cancer. Sorry for being so morbid!

@Ivanhurba I think he's shooting with the PanLeica 100-400 here. I really think that no matter the camera, those shooting with these super tele zooms should consider bringing along a monopod to steady the shots out a bit. They're lightweight, not too expensive, and take up very little room in a backpack.

@Ivanhurba Actually, not true at all about the Panasonic. Have you ever shot with Panasonic? Ken Ross has shot some excellent footage of an air show, everything was tack sharp.

I've never flown a drone in my life, but this is some incredible work. It looks like computer animation. Is it obstacle avoidance software that allows him to keep from hitting everything in his apartment or what?

Have to agree with you there.

It's all good.

You can disagree with anyone you like in the forums, that's your privilege, and a lively debate is always more exciting and stimulating than everyone agreeing about a topic like a flock of sheep. But it's generally considered poor etiquette to call someone who disagrees with you a moron, and does not advance your cause any further. Name-calling is childish. It's unprofessional. It demeans the person who uses that language. If you want to delete that post, go ahead, if not, I'll delete it for you. As far as AF goes, most of the work I've seen by self-professed experts who preach about how autofocus is just for idiots looks, well, it looks like a moist, steaming pile of doggy poo. Maybe you're the exception. Do you have a YouTube or Vimeo channel, a showreel or a website where I can see some of these magnificent focus pulls of yours?

If you even bothered to read the title of the topic, it says "Actually you can make the GH5 look very cinematic!" As I'd already seen a number of nicely exposed and graded examples of the GH5, my expectations were pretty high, particularly when deezid is claiming to have achieved something that apparently nobody thought possible before. So yes, the first thing I noticed was that on a technical level, it comes nowhere near the level of filmmaking I'm accustomed to seeing, and falls a little short of being an exemplary piece of digital filmmaking. Lighting, WB and grading are part of the language of cinema, just as spelling and grammar are in literature: and if a book has a number of misspelled words and poor grammar, I'm probably going to put it down. There's no reason why I should have to re-calibrate my monitor when the thousands of other videos I've watched, as well as the hundreds of others I've uploaded, look good. And if a half dozen forum members say that the blacks might be a little crushed, rather than reacting defensively, deezid might take those responses into consideration and think about lifting the shadows a touch. And although this has been shot in 10 bit V-Log, because it's been underexposed, there is actually very little dynamic range in the picture - the colors are flat, there is little gradation between tones. There is another aspect that is distracting, most likely not something that can be corrected in post, and that is that not only is the image soft, but the out of focus areas and bokeh are distracting: and my eye is constantly drawn to unimportant background details rather than to the subjects.

@jase Beautiful work.

A fisheye would be cool, too, why not? What the heck are you on about?

@joema Some of the first common sense I've read since Fredrik's topic got me poking around the internet looking for information about the best configuration for video editing.

Crushed means no information in the shadows, so yes, the shadows are crushed. Rich, vibrant colors can coexist with shadow information intact.

I fully expect tons of hate for speaking my mind, it looks okay, but the shadows are pretty crushed from beginning to end and much of the lighting looks rather harsh. Bring it on!

I'm still waiting to see what the Pro offers, but I'll probably end up getting the identical configuration as @JBraddock.

This got me thinking about the beautiful clip shot with a Voigtlander and uploaded in one of the threads recently. I don't think shake would have improved the clip at all, and I would probably have stopped watching.

I would pick the X-T2 hands down, however?image quality doesn't exist in a vacuum.

The 4K image of the X-T2 is fine and the build quality of both the body and lenses is exceptional. But it's been sitting unused in the dry box for months. I much prefer shooting with the Lumix G85. I prefer the menu system, the larger handgrip, easier to see information in the viewfinder, a remote app that actually works, the ergonomics, the articulating touch screen, IBIS and zebras.

They added histogram already, which is why I'm crossing my fingers for zebras one day.

right. hopefully, they'll get it right with the X-T3. ?

Would you be so kind as to share some before and after examples? Did you purchase all three at once and only discover the defect afterwards? Why didn't you send them back for replacement? How is it that three adapters are all of such poor quality?