jonpais

Could you check to see if there are any light leaks in the camera? ?

My G85 does the same thing, super annoying, especially when I'm trying to see myself while vlogging at home.

@Andrew Reid I like the chunky mic level meter on the LCD. Is there any way to adjust record levels without diving into the menu or using the awkwardly placed icon on the LCD, which is at the very edge of the screen on my G85?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the faster lenses should also have nicer bokeh and shallower depth of field, regardless of T-stop, and that counts for something, no?

Anyhow, splash proof does not guarantee against damage when the camera comes in direct contact with water. So the same precautions apply.

I downloaded the advanced manual online.

outstanding

I thought the same as you, but I believe they are pink flowers. And her face is merely reflecting the pink light from them. So it may be that a secondary color correction would be needed to correct for her face. But if she isn't sitting still, it wouldn't be necessary. So that's another danger of just looking at a screen grab from a moving image.

Not the worst choice...

From the GH5 user manual: This camera is not dust/drip/water proof. Avoid using the camera in places with a lot of dust, water, sand, etc. • Liquid, sand and other foreign material may get into the space around the lens, buttons, etc. Be particularly careful since it may not just cause malfunctions, but it may also become irreparable. – Places with a lot of sand or dust. – Places where water can come into contact with this unit, such as when using it on a rainy day or at the beach.

Your post is both confusing and silly. Are you more interested in T-stops or optical performance? You say you were impressed with the low light ability of the Olympus, then you write that you are disappointed to read that DxO tested it and found it is actually slower than f/1.2. Then you say that DxO mark rates the Olympus lower than the Leica, but you insist it is actually the other way around. Did you even bother to read the entire review? Or do you profess to have higher standards than DxO mark? Because in the review you cite, DxO Mark clearly state that 'Its [the Olympus 25mm f/1.2] excellent light transmission ranks it as one of the highest-scoring MFT-mount lenses we’ve tested on the E-M1 II, only fractionally behind the Panasonic 25mm f/1.4'. Does measurement of T-stop take into account huge vignetting at wide apertures? Because even an outstanding lens like the Sony G Master 85mm f/1.4, which has a T-stop rating of 1.5, measures more than 1EV of vignetting wide open. Which is quite good performance for such a fast lens, BTW. All lenses have T-stops slower than their f/stop, because there is no such thing as a lens, let alone a UV filter, with 100% light transmission. Remember, the Olympus 25mm f/1.2 has one of the most complex designs for a m43 lens, something like 20 elements! Perhaps the reason few reviewers even mention T-stops is because it is a low priority when assessing the optical performance of a lens. I seldom even see it mentioned over at Lens Rentals.com, one of the more rigorous sites for testing lenses. Same goes for lenstip.com, unless the discrepancy is huge. I've never heard of any respectable photographer base their evaluation of a lens on T-stops alone. And I've never ever heard of anyone choosing one lens over another based on light transmission values. Maybe I should sell my Nocticron, since it only has a T-stop of 1.7. Are you after best value for money or absolute quality? Also, you mention several different focal lengths here, so not sure what you are looking for: difficult to discuss so many focal lengths - 12mm, 25mm, 30mm, 35mm - and throwing speed boosters into the mix makes it even more complicated. And if you're holding off purchasing the Leica DG Summilux because you're waiting to learn the T-stop of the yet-to-be released Zuiko, that's one of the most baffling statements I've ever read here at EOSHD, and I've seen a few. If you were to apply the same criteria to your camera purchases as your lenses, you might also avoid Panasonic altogether, since they inflate their ISO readings too.

Looking at the vector scope in FCP, the image is a little too pink for my taste too.

Well, I should have said 'post-GH4' Panasonic cameras! ? Agreed, I'm not overly fond of those skin tones either. It may be true that skin tones are subjective, but there are some general guidelines we can all probably agree upon: they shouldn't resemble asparagus, zucchini, kiwi fruit or grapefruit; they should have a different reflectance and texture from a computer monitor, a tweed jacket or a marble counter top; if a face is in the frame, it should be in focus (usually!); exposure should generally not go beyond 70% zebras; at the same time, we are seeing too many photographers afraid to shoot low key faces (James Miller did a wonderful job in his GH5 LUT test); and color should not deviate wildly from the skin tone line on the vector scope. Lastly, I don't want lifelike skin tones: if I'm shooting an Asian, I am free to take out a touch of yellow, as long as I don't make them look Caucasian; likewise, I am free to dial down the pink in the skin tone of a Caucasian if I think it will be more to my liking. But rule number one must always be to get it right in camera, not to hope to fix it in post.

With Panasonic, for good skin tones, there's no need for V-log - just white balance and expose correctly. Done! So many trying to fix in post what could have been obtained much more easily in camera.

The only problem with that look as I see it, is that his face, the microphone, the desktop the monitor all have virtually the same appearance.

Exactly! And my best is still not good enough. I should just go for the ever-popular marshmallow look and stop worrying so much. All due respect to Dan Watson, he's a cool fellow!

I think I MAY have noticed it before, but didn't give it much thought. But when I've got my ugly mug staring at me for 5 minutes and I look like I've been sitting on the beach all day with no sunscreen... Sorry, I don't use Google Chrome. Anyway, something is destroying the color, in the red channel anyhow.

I'm currently reuploading around fifty or so of my older clips to YouTube, just using the Master File. OMG. The clips I reuploaded last night with the Master File still look the same this evening, no more crimson, close to the originals. In Safari, anyhow. On my iMac and MBPr Touch Bar. Well, maybe it is a little more red, but the earlier one looked like I needed to be checked into the burns ward. Here's the master file again and the master file uploaded to YouTube and seen on Safari.

Let's try to keep this thread about tips and tricks, please.

He already explained why he shot with the 50-140 stopped down - he is comparing the lenses at the same f stop. He's already aware of the benefits of fast glass. BTW, the differences in bokeh rendition are obvious even at narrower apertures.

Yes, that's what I've been using all these years. But back in the day, I had problems with desaturated colors, and x264 worked. I haven't used x264 in a long time though, since I haven't experienced desaturation with my mirrorless cameras when edited in FCP and uploaded to YouTube.

I should say the reason I was using MPEG Streamclip is that it was recommended to me years back when I was still shooting with the Panasonic TMC900 camcorder. I also used to have problems with colors becoming desaturated when uploading to YouTube, and being able to select x264 in MPEG Streamclip pretty much solved the problem. MPEG Streamclip also reduces file sizes, greatly reducing upload times. For example, a recent 16GB clip was pared down to less than 2GB in MPEG Streamclip. Uploading the original Master Files to YouTube will take a great more time. As far as quality goes, aside from the improvement in color (no more cherry red skin), my YouTube videos with and without MPEG look virtually identical. I did a quick check of my older videos and can see they are more red, but not enough to make me go ahead and re-upload each and every single video a second time. I will also try exporting my next finished project directly to YouTube from inside FCP and see if the colors are true.

Not sure. Maybe I've seen this problem in the past, but didn't pay enough attention. Bad thing is, I've got to check all my earlier videos. Good thing is it's quicker to drag and drop master file than to process with Mpeg Streamclip. I've been doing it that way for years. OMG!

It worked. I just uploaded the Master File, no Mpeg Streamclip, and it looks normal. I wonder if I'm going to have to go ahead and re-upload 100 of my videos? Here's the one I just uploaded straight from the Master.