jonpais

I'll give that a shot tomorrow. If that doesn't work, I'll try hitting 'share' and exporting directly from FCP

My videos are coming out cherry red on YouTube. I edit in FCP X, use Mpeg Streamclip to convert to QuickTime, h.264, 45Mbps, high quality, 24 fps... Top: Master, Bottom: YouTube

Nothing to worry about. It's just the opinion of one old guy with liver disease.

hhahaaha

Which lens is which? Looks like you made a killing! For 150 pounds, that lens is great... for good light.

Watch my video of the Leica DG Summilux 12mm f/1.4 shot wide open here:

Here you can see how the Leica performs wide open, how foolish I look in Chinese traditional garb, sweating like a pig and making two mistakes - I say I'm using the GH5 (fantasy?) and the Lishuai 1500RSV (actually, the 700RSV). But I was about to die from exhaustion, so sorry, no second takes! BTW, two full stops more light gathering power makes a world of difference. Moving a little closer to the camera and throwing the background more out of focus helps tremendously. What do you think?

Love that lens to death

If it were a rangefinder style camera, it wouldn't necessarily be competing with the DSLR shaped body of the GH5. Many people, myself included, prefer the ergonomics of the DSLR style. Remember, Panasonic also released the GM1 shortly after the GH4, which was a hit among several of us here, as well the G7, which was like a poor man's GH4, and I believe even Andy Lee said he used six or seven of them on a production. So there will still be lots of innovation, and as I've said in the past, I never used a tenth of the features on my GH4, and I would most likely not use 1/20th of the features of the GH5 after I've played with them for a while. For example, I never touched master pedestal, i don't do multi cam work, so I have no use for color bars, I don't do stills, so I have no need for high buffer rates, I never shot V-Log or anamorphic, I never used 4K photo and on and on, all these features I'm paying for but end up not using.

Many of the features that were on the GH4 were inherited by the G85, and it arguably has the better sensor, better color and more accurate white balance (some will disagree, that's fine). Not only that, but they added IBIS to the G85, one reason I stopped using the GH4 and eventually sold it. And for me, the G85 is the perfect size. But opinions are what make the world go 'round (or something like that).

Sorry, Arikhan, but I'm the wrong guy to ask. I don't shoot in low light and I don't shoot stills. Maybe Sebastian can answer this one...

But it is going to happen, and I've been saying all along that we can expect an announcement of a premium rangefinder style body by the fall of this year with some of the refinements of the GH5. Which features those will be is anybody's guess, but unlike Canon, when Panasonic comes out with stuff like 4K Photo, DFD technology, Dual IBIS, highlight and shadow curves, monochrome live view, and tons of other features, they don't just reserve them for their high end cameras. Precisely - if you're using lighting, there's no excuse in the world for using presets, except out of sheer laziness.

@Fredrik Lyhne I double checked myself, the same frame in my original file with the Leica and over at YouTube. YouTube is definitely adding patchiness and red in my complexion, making me look like Quasimodo. @Fredrik Lyhne Are you seeing anything in the GH5 that would convince you to upgrade?

Thanks for pointing that out. Now I've got to spend weeks researching the best settings so my YouTube videos look like the actual files, rather than a Frankenstein version!

I like skin tones that have some richness, tonality, and texture. I dislike washed out out skin tones with no texture or detail, particularly in shots of men. In the fashion shoot we saw earlier, shot with the Leica 42.5mm f/1.2, the lighting was very soft and flattering, and the model is wearing makeup, so we won't se much skin texture, but we want to see crisp detail in the eyes, the hair, and the lips, which there is. Below are screenshots from a lighting test I uploaded last night and from a recent video on YouTube over at the Cinematography Database. I resemble a Chernobyl victim with a radioactive lime green polo, while Matt Workman bears an uncanny resemblance to a marshmallow wearing a hoodie.

When I used to shoot 4K with the GH4, hair looked brittle, and since most of my subjects have hair, it was disconcerting. I'm not seeing that so much with the G85. I'm able to get realistic looking skin tones with the G85, but I shoot with noise reduction dialed down to -5. Even the close up of the young woman, where the lens is stopped down to f/4 or so, and we can see the tiny wrinkles around her eyes and her eyelashes are clearly in focus, the details look smoothed over. Excuse me for a moment while I delete another spammer.

Was the entire video shot with a pro mist filter, because all the images look soft and the skin looks kind of airbrushed.

I just finished watching a lighting tutorial over at Max Yuryev's YouTube channel where he shows the difference between using a slow kit lens vs. a moderately fast prime. He was limited to f/5.6 on the variable aperture zoom, meaning he had to crank up the ISO to 1000, whereas with the prime, he was able to record at ISO 200 at f/1.8 (or something like that). And unsurprisingly, not only was the image cleaner at the lower ISO setting, but he was able to throw the background slightly out of focus. I also see many other vloggers with nice production values routinely using fast primes, including Hugh Brownstone, who used the Leica 25mm f/1.4 wide open on a recent episode. I also tested the Leica 12mm f/1.4 at f/2.8 using single point focus for one of my YouTube videos, but it would have been even better at a wider aperture. And if vlogging from home is something you're considering, I would still recommend either avoiding slow variable aperture kit lenses altogether or picking up a fast prime as well. Several posters here have talked about Hollywood filmmakers preferring to shoot at f/4 or f/5.6, but we're not Hollywood. If you host a YouTube channel about photography and your face is on the screen for 30 minutes, pixel peepers will without question be looking at every hair and wart on your face and will want to know which lens you were using, for better or worse. Another factor aside from mere resolution worth considering is the lens's color rendition. The variations of color reproduction between different manufacturers' lenses can be dramatic. And in my opinion, the Leicas have a more pleasing color than the yellowish looking Panasonic lenses. In any case, a fast lens gives you the option of shooting wide open or at a narrow aperture, whereas a slow lens is going to dictate the aperture and ISO settings to you. And even with the fastest kit lens, a maximum aperture of f/2.8 at 12mm does not offer a wealth of creative possibilities for playing with depth-of-field.

Here's a picture of me demonstrating the ingenious stabilization system of the Fuji X-T2 to some curious onlookers.

Face detection in video? Didn't even know it had that! hahaha I guess I could compose using the app, turn the camera off and on again... nah. I don't like AF-C when I'm just going to be sitting in one place slobbering into my drool cup in a rocking chair. I want single point AF. Guess I could always hire one of the cuties here to be my assistant...

I'm 100% certain that any of these kit lenses will be fine for shooting family around the house. The limitation won't be the lens; it'll be the low light sensitivity and AF-C.

Would have been nice of Fuji to offer an app that really works with video. As it is, I can't even use it for vlogging at home.

When they show the back of the camera, you can see he's using 'cloudy' instead of Kelvin. There's no way in god's green earth that those LED lights have a color temperature of 'cloudy'! hahaha

I'm still reading through the list. Got my histogram in video! Are you going to cancel your Sony order now?

Nice to see someone rocking one of the best native lenses for m43. But I find it questionable that a professional studio photographer uses a white balance preset rather than setting it manually. It only takes a second, and colors will be better.