jonpais

Sorry, Ken, not trolling you, these are just my impressions, if you enjoy it, that's fine. But to my eyes, the shadows are all crushed - if 1/3 of the image is in shadow, we need to see detail there; colors are meh, as are the compostions. The Kowa lens looks like one to avoid. Please, please, can we just share stuff by talented filmmakers? For the most part, I've seen far more interesting videos created by amateurs with the G85 than I have by the privileged few with the GH5.

High ISO video quality comparison by Gordon Laing. Lumix GH5, Olympus EM1 II, Fuji X-T2, Sony A7s II. I didn't find this comparison very useful, but maybe someone else will.

And platinum prints are better than silver prints, so what? Irving Penn's stuff is phenomenal, so is Richard Avedon's. We never said one was better than the other because one used a historical printing process. The history of cinema isn't going to get caught up in whether directors chose to shoot digital or film, they're going to look at their body of work. Emmanuel Lubezki's work will reign supreme, not because he shot film or digital, but solely because he is a gifted cinematographer. As a stills photographer, it may or may not cost you less to shoot film (I really doubt that anyhow), but for most of us, who shoot video, film would be prohibitively expensive. If you're shooting digital stills, are you using a $300 scanner or a $100,000 scanner? If you shoot film, are you using a cheap Bogen enlarger and a $50 lens or a Durst enlarger and the best lens available? Even the easel you use is important. Debating which is better is really a waste of time anyway, since they both have their own advantages and disadvantages.

i promise never to get Devinchi.

You crack me up!

If Mattias only tested three cameras, those reviews must have been damn good, because he's got over 28,000 subscribers over at YouTube impatiently waiting for the fourth one!

What is it with you and your viewing setups? Just have a look at some of the videos I've posted all over here, and if the color is terrible, you can guess I graded them on my iPod. And by divergence, you mean film and video games will go their separate ways in the future, or come together as one? Just clarifying.

convergence?

These are nice test shots, pretty much what we've been asking for for a while now, since AF-C is most probably one of the major concerns of those of us who've used Panasonic cameras in the past. My only gripe (yes, I know, only one!) is that it appears as though either the in-camera sharpening is cranked up full-tilt boogie, or sharpening has been added in post. As most of you know, even in Final Cut, just adding +1 or +2 sharpening in post can magically transform an out-of-focus image into something that looks quite sharp. I didn't see any information about the camera settings in the info either. Whenever I do a lens test, for example, I always post the camera settings and what was done in post, if anything. The first screenshot is from a recent video I posted, with in-camera sharpening dialed down to -5, and no sharpening added in post. The second screenshot is from the GH5 AF video above, where, without even enlarging the image, you can see jagged edges and haloing around the subject, telltale signs of over-sharpening. In the following screen shots, the first image has had no sharpening added in post. The second image has had +2.5 (factory default) sharpening added in Final Cut, much more than I ever actually add, if any. These are simply to demonstrate the obvious: additional sharpening can conceal blur caused by camera shake or focusing errors. Contrary to what some may believe, I have nothing against adding sharpening in post. What I object to are tests where we are asked to evaluate an image for things like autofocus ability where the images have too much sharpening to make an adequate judgement. Also, I think this shows that it is preferable to add sharpening in post, where you have much finer control, rather than in camera; though in practice, I would rarely go over +2.

There are also many flexible LED light panels that can be mounted on the wall with gaffers tape. They are silent and draw little power. I would still get the Sony a6500, try it out, if it overheats, return it and get the G80/85. I'm still learning about lighting myself, but you could also probably throw in a couple more tiny spots and add colored gels for a more stylized look. There are several here who shoot bands all the time who could probably give better tips than I can.

Geniuses like Lana Del Rey only occur once in a lifetime.

Here are some studio shots by Manny Ortiz taken of his wife with the a6500. He's using the larger Flapjack, which would run considerably more money, but which also produces a softer light than the smaller, less expensive units.

For sure. For 500 GBP, you can invest in a couple of Fotodiox Flapjacks or an LED 100WB56 + Softbox and improve the look of your videos immensely. I just ordered the Fotodiox LED 100WB56 myself. I was hoping to get the Aputure Light Storm, but it's not available here in Vietnam, and it costs double anyhow, though without doubt, it's a better light. The Flapjacks can be battery powered for when you're working outdoors, the LED 100WB56 cannot.

You absolutely want to get the a6500. The Fuji is no good for vlogging and the G80/85 is not great in low light.

But I'm pretty certain the story will change again, it almost always does. "I want to upgrade to a mirrorless camera that can do 4K and has better noise performance". Thanks, you just made my point clear. You also now change your tune and say you're looking at used prices. C'mon...

Yes, I think the filmmakers showed remarkable restraint.

Good advice. First of all, nothing depreciates like cameras. Secondly, all three cameras are phenomenal in their own way (I've got two of them myself!).

Perhaps, but he's already ordered from UK Amazon. He says noise was his primary consideration, and both the Sony and the Fuji have better low light performance, and not just by a little bit. And for the millionth time, it's really next to impossible to give advice to newbies asking for camera advice when they don't say exactly how they'll be using the camera anyway.

Both the X-T2 and the a6500 are quite a bit more than 1000 GBP. If you had ordered from Japan, I don't think the G8 would have English menus. Also, since you said that noise was your primary consideration, I would have spent the extra money and gotten the Sony or the Fuji instead. But I'm pretty certain the story will change again, it almost always does.

May I ask what it is you shoot?

Which lens are you using? The solution is probably to purchase Canon STM lenses and shoot with the microphone off camera.

SLR Magic announces 8mm f/4 MFT. Price: $349.00 USD. It's being marketed as the perfect drone lens.

Proper AF tests comparing the Sony a6500, Olympus OMD E1 MkII and Panasonic LUMIX G80/85

BlackMagic Video Assist 4K?

Skin tones and overall color much better than the GH4 as well, but Panasonic has upped their game as far as color goes for some time now. I like this guy's attitude, and the fact that he doesn't try to insert a superlative to describe the camera's performance in every other sentence. Pre-ordered.