jonpais

Here's a nice video shot with the a6500 and Crane by Brandon Li, using EOSHD Pro Color v2

Nice job. Handheld very steady looking with the IBIS, excellent sharpness, good exposures and color. Was this at ISO 6400? Was it straight out of the camera?

Here is the link to the downloadable footage. If you watch the video below at YouTube, you will find the link to the LUTs in the description.

I'm pretty sure Mr. Neumann avoided shooting at higher than ISO 1600, and in the woods scenes, he underexposed and lifted the shadows in post. If you want a general idea of the low light capability of the GH5, the closest thing we have at the moment are tests of the GX80/85 and G80/85. Personally, I'd never shoot higher than ISO 1600 with those cameras, but some members here say ISO 6400 is usable. I would have a look at them yourself and decide. Mr. Neumann shared his Vlog files, so I'm assuming he shot everything in log. His package of LUTs looks great by the way.

I wouldn't say Panasonic's colors are horrid - just 'meh'?.

I don't have a vast collection like you (yet- I'm working on it!), but I'd think the 16-55 and 50-140 would be too large on this compact camera, no? But sure, with a pancake, alright.

I was going to say GM1 too! You are a mind reader! But... no. ? I'm kinda liking my alternate identity.

A GH2?

Could you please take a second and find the link where Andrew Reid says that Panasonic has horrid color before we go any further with this?

I take it you mean the 'GH5'. I've been posting a while about this: I'm no longer a believer that a focal reducer is essential for getting good images from the micro four thirds sensor, and it may even be a useless expenditure, especially when there are so many good fast native lenses available now. In a recent video I uploaded, most people preferred the look of a native u4/3 lens over a Speed Boosted one. Of course, it wasn't a scientific test, and the focal lengths were different. Also, I don't use 1/10 of the features of the cameras I currently own. Usually, I adjust the curves, the contrast, sharpening or whatever and never touch them again once I've arrived at what works for me. Do you really believe Sony and other manufacturers necessarily have to offer vector scopes, waveform monitors and so on to compete with Panasonic? Even now, most videos I watch have poor white balance, my own included. Having more toys to play with won't eliminate those problems - it will only compound them. APS-C sensors by Sony and Fuji already have the lead - they have superior dynamic range, better low light performance, and faster, more accurate AF.

So, here we go again.. Is it even possible to shoot a Sony a6500 without S-log and get a pleasing image with skin tones that don't make people look like martians, or must it be graded? Because at least with Panasonic cameras, while the color may not be so spectacular that you jump out of your seat and shout 'Eureka!', it is do-able.

I will say though, that set design is just a huge mess, and having those shelves full of camera gear behind the 'actress' distracts the viewer's attention. If I had over $100,000 to make a two-minute clip, I'd at least hire an experienced set designer.

I used to own a Canon Powershot, great little camera, no bigger than the size of a pack of Marlboros. I don't shoot stills, but can someone here tell me, when you play back your pictures on a Canon, are they supposed to look blue and a full stop overexposed? Because everyone here uses Canon, and when they proudly show me what they've just shot, that's how they look. Just wondering.

Just watched this video showing off the Tokina Cine lenses and the Red Helium (over $65,000 in gear). Is there anybody here, who, if I said I'd just shot this on a G85 with a couple of Nikkors, would not believe me?

My sentiments exactly. Can anyone point me to some of Andy Lee's work with LTI, because I did a Google search last night and couldn't find a single clip shot by him.

I shoot every day, post videos and write in my blog weekly.

I should clarify what I meant when I said that Sony will still trounce the GH5, even if Sony doesn't introduce a single upgrade by April. I'm not saying that I wouldn't choose the GH5 over the a6500 in a heartbeat - I simply prefer the usability of Panasonic's cameras. But those with unrealistic expectations of vastly improved low light performance, dynamic range and AF-C are going to be disappointed. I wager that unless you're using V-Log, clips from the lowly G85 could be seamlessly intercut with those from the GH5 and nobody would be the wiser. Those who insist on 10-bit, who say they do 'heavy grading', meaning so heavy that the image falls apart - I wonder why they do that, since I've never seen a professional colorist stretch and pull and yank an image around beyond all recognition - and I've watched a lot of tutorials. Some of you may be too young to remember, but a long, long time ago, way back in 2012, an obscure little camera with a toy-like sensor called the GH2 was chosen over the Sony F65, Red Epic, Canon C300 and Arri Alexa by an unknown by the name of Francis Ford Coppola in the Zacuto Shootout.

The Sony's RS is notorious, but that hasn't prevented professionals all over the world from making breathtakingly beautiful films with it. So, it's a non-issue for me as well. There are those who pixel peep and nitpick, there are those that go out and shoot. Before buying the G85, there were a couple forum members who kept posting horrifying images of ugly oversharpening, monstrous destruction of detail at high ISOs, shitty dynamic range, pukey color (thanks for that, Mattias!); I was half-prepared to ship the camera back as soon as I opened the box. Could this camera really be that bad, I wondered. Anyway, it took me a couple of weeks, but it's shooting beautiful video. And it's comments like that that make me think that the GH5 is more than most of us deserve.

Depends on the camera? ? I thought we were talking about the GX80.

I'm sure, that just as it does today, and like it will handily do in April, that the Sony blows the Panasonic out of the water when it comes to image quality. If the OMD EM1 Mk II's AF-C is any indication, the GH5's AF-C will suck as Lumix cameras always do. As I said before, usually when something that radical is introduced, they have a press junket, and host rodeos, water sports, car races and hockey games for critics and journalists to try out. So my hunch is, AF-C will be awful, and we won't see any huge gains in low light performance, either. The Sony will also still kill it on pure image quality, by which I mean dynamic range and low light capability. Panasonic is offering a highly sophisticated u4/3 sensor camera, but it's not going to bring down Sony.

It will fit - right up against the flexible shutter cover, possibly damaging it, at best, cosmetic damage.

Have you ever shot with an X-T2? RS is not an issue at all - 0%. I don't swing my camera around, in fact, it's mounted on a tripod. RS is the least concern of mine with any camera. If it wasn't splattered all over the forums, I wouldn't even have been aware of RS. Whether it's 8 bit or not is irrelevant. 10 bit, 8 bit. I don't do a lot of grading - in fact, I don't do any at all. I can use the images straight out of the camera with little or no editing, they are gorgeous. The nicest colors I've seen since processing my own Cibachrome prints back in the eighties. And $1,700.00 is a small price to pay for the best image quality APS-C sensor out there. I prefer your answer to mine! But I did forget to add that the Acros film simulation also rules.

A 38" 21:9 curved monitor would be sweet.

The G85 and the X-T20 cost the same at B&H; and the superior color rendition and image quality of the Fuji might make it worthwhile to some if there were no line skipping.

I've seen many places online that for video editing, 16GB is more than sufficient. Are you running out of memory when editing video?