jonpais

Hi Mattias, I like some of these street shots, for one thing, because I know lots of street shooters like yourself usually prefer to use a wider lens and set it at hyperfocal distance, whereas I prefer getting in close and throwing the background a little bit out of focus - not completely obliterated, I like to have a sense of the place... but I would not call this background blur or bokeh creamy... just my opinion... it looks quite busy, frenetic, with unpleasant outlines. I wouldn't want this in a portrait shot, because it adds a bit of nervousness... Of course, what's creamy, what's a little busy, what one person likes and so on is a matter of taste. I'm glad you're enjoying this and generously sharing it with everybody.

For the two or three people in the forums who own a Fuji camera but don't already have the 90mm f/2, I'll be posting some clips with it soon I hope.

I suppose V-log is non-refundable though. ?

Did you meant to say elevate or alleviate? Thanks for the article!

Your link isn't working for me. Here's a link to the article.

Can't wait to shoot with the Oly 25mm tomorrow!

You guys are killing me, but I really need to learn to lighten up, so thanks! Gotta love that 12-60mm f/2.8-4.

Thanks for sharing that, Phil. I enjoyed the parched, monochromatic, earthen tones of the wood, stone and leaves in the first round, and SlashCAM seems quite taken with V-Log as well.

And that's your preference. But since you already own fast glass, you can choose - do I want deep DOF or shallow? If you have slow glass, you no longer have that choice to have nice creamy bokeh or sharp detailed backgrounds. Before mothballing my Panasonic G X Vario 12-35mm f/2.8, the only way for me to throw the background out of focus to my liking was to zoom to 35mm and move in very close to the subject, but that wasn't what I wanted. The lens was dictating my composition, rather than the other way around. There's a shot in this video where I stopped following my subject and asked her to keep walking, the idea being for her to sort of disappear into the distance, which would not have been effective at all had she remained in focus. I could not have achieved this had I been shooting with a narrow aperture (I was shooting with the Sigma Art 50mm f/1.4 and XL SB).

But if you glance at the two screenshots I posted earlier from Jason Lanier's YouTube video, you'll see that even with lots of space between subject and background, the difference between f/1.4 and f/8 is significant, no?

I just got the next best thing, at least I think I did. Won't know till I test it out, though. For those who are interested, I should be posting footage of the Oly 25mm f/1.2 sometime in the next couple of weeks. Kind of burned out from shooting street life for the past five years; ordered some lighting equipment: planning on going in a different direction. So, not sure how soon it will really be up...

The most recent example being the Olympus 25mm f/1.2 that Andrew mentions in his review of the Olympus OMD E-M1 Mkii. It is sharp center to edge wide open, and while it never breaks any resolution records, it is perhaps one of the most uniformly sharp across the board of any m43 lens.

Lenses have aperture rings (or not!) for a reason. For one thing, it is their remarkable speed that enables lenses like the Nokton 25mm f/0.95 to attain record-breaking resolution when stopped down. For another, if you're shooting a variable aperture universal zoom, say an f/3.5-5.6, that means that at the telephoto end, you've only got one or two apertures to choose from before diffraction ruins the image. Would anyone purchase a $1,000 prime that could only shoot at f/5.6? When someone like Roger Deakens is shooting a film, they have powerful lights, if you're an event photographer, you don't always have that luxury. And with an enormous sensor like m43, the sure way to add noise to your images is to shoot at small apertures and crank up the ISO. When someone tries to defend the choice of purchasing a slow lens by citing as an example that Kubrick or whoever usually shoots at f/5.6 or f/8, that just makes you look silly. Did you even bother to read Roger Deakins's interview, where he says in no uncertain terms that he prefers fast primes to zooms? And when a Panasonic representative claims, as one does in one of the videos, that the kit lens is all you need because the low light of the GH5 is so great (my paraphrase, ok?), that is just ridiculous. I've already stated my reasons why fast primes are preferable to slow zooms for m43: you have the choice to shoot wide open or not; since m43 sensors are more prone to noise at high ISOs, shooting with fast glass will allow a cleaner image; you have more control over how much depth of field there is in your image, and more. And yes, many of the videos I've seen here would have benefitted from shooting with a fast prime rather than the kit lens (with the exception of the Kowa), if not for the entire clip, then at least in parts. Tossing all artistic value completely aside for a moment, many of the videos posted here are not even accomplished on a technical level. I don't want an engineer testing the camera - I want a photographer - and photographer doesn't mean just anybody who can point and shoot - it implies not only technical expertise, but also a keen aesthetic sense. Panasonic doesn't appoint ambassadors based on their vast technical acumen, but on their artistic merit.

If you squint, you can see his secret weapon in the corner.

Agree with you about the content part. And about not needing new gear, with a difference. I'm guessing a good number of us need new gear, but not necessarily a new camera body. That could mean better glass, some LED lights, some C-stands, reflectors, better microphones or whatever. But Roger Deakins isn't talking about shooting with a kit lens, nor is he talking about shooting on a m43 sensor: at f/8, diffraction is already noticeably destroying the image. He's talking about shooting on Cooke or other fine cinema glass with at least a super 35 sensor. Finally, Roger Deakins doesn't shoot weddings or portraiture for a living. If you're shooting a Hollywood spectacle where you've got gladiators duking it out in a coliseum on a sweltering hot summer day and you want everything in focus, I suppose you'd choose a wide angle lens and stop down. FWIW, Roger Deakins dislikes zooms and prefers fast primes. This is from an interview at Arri News RD: The performance seems very much the same. I first tried the Master Primes on NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN (2007) and I've used them ever since. I was thinking about why you would need such fast lenses when the ALEXA itself is so fast, but a lot of the night scenes on IN TIME were shot virtually wide open with the Master Primes and we did the same thing on SKYFALL. I use them because they're the fastest, cleanest lenses that I've come across. I always shoot on prime lenses rather than a zoom; I dislike zooms unless they are actually being used as a zoom. Anyhow, with fast glass, you always have the option of stopping down, say for some street work or environmental portraiture. But slow lenses can't be opened up any wider than their maximum aperture of f/4 or whatever. That means having to shoot at higher ISOs, and with small sensors, that introduces noise.

Another problem with many of the videos we've seen is they're shot with the slow kit lens. Disagree with me if you like, it's just my opinion, but professionals shouldn't be shooting with an f/4 kit lens. Especially with a tiny sensor like m43. Okay, if you're going to be shooting at f/8 all the time, there's no point in buying fast expensive glass because they're probably identical when stopped down that far. So if you only shoot in good light and like nice, crisp, sharp, detailed, distracting backgrounds in your portraiture, event photography, wedding shoots or whatever you do, go ahead and get the kit lens. On the other hand, if you like some separation between the subject and the background; if you love pleasing bokeh; and yes, much higher resolution, I'd go with some faster glass. That could mean fast primes such as the Leica Nocticron or the Olympus 75mm, the Voigtlander Noktons, or adapted lenses and a Speed Booster. From reading comments in the forums, it sounds like many are basing their decision to get the kit lens based on dual IS compatibilty, which to me (again, just my opinion!) is a shame, because I've already shot plenty with non-stabilized lenses on the G85 and they're rock steady. That nice bokeh, the ability to shoot in low light, are far more important to me than squeezing out an extra 1/2 stop of stabilization.

If you absolutely need 120fps, go with the a7sii. It records 120fps at 1080p (with a 2.2X crop). The a7rii can only do 120fps at 720p. Also, if you plan on doing long takes in 4K, I think the a7rii might be prone to overheating. I don't own either camera, so someone who owns either of these cameras can correct me if I'm wrong. Here are three videos put out by B&H comparing both cameras for stills and video.

For $1,300 less than the EM whatever, the G85 carries its weight pretty well. I'm sure I could get results as good from the GH5 as I can from the G85, but the poor exposure, white balance and grading of most of the crap I've seen leaves me wondering...

Same with the Driftwood video, though a bit less than others I've seen. Most likely because the Kowa he was using can't keep up.

Thanks.

This has got me thinking of cancelling my preorder- I like what I'm getting from my G85 and X-T2 more than the GH5

Fine then, mate. If I have time, I do the honors, because, like I said before, the colors are meh, the shadows are crushed, it looks worse than many videos I've seen uploaded by amateurs using their GX80/G80 cameras.

wow. You are so right, If I have time this evening, I'll post some screenshots and discuss just how awesome the exposure, composition and music are. Maybe you could do the same? I mean, it's one thing to just say something is the cat's meow, quite another to actually analyze the. video shot by shot. It will be a terrible bore, I know, but for you, who admire this so much, it would be a labor of love, right?

Can we please be a bit more selective when uploading videos? Also, if you're thinking of uploading, and you have a keyboard, could you try typing a few sentences saying why you think we should watch it?

your question is not clear at all... you want to record audio at a high frame rate, slow it down, then use the audio or what? i don't think that's possible, but so many people request that. Think about it for a moment...