jonpais

Max Yuryev's videos present the facts, you're welcome to disagree; however, he is not misleading anybody. he uses industry standard benchmarks. He's given us the most comprehensive review of these machines to date. He's no Apple fanboy; he only started using Macs a few years ago; and he's built his own Windows machines and continues to do so. Not only does he not gloss over the fact that Razer's GPU is more powerful than that of the MacBook Pro, he never said that the MBPr is an editing powerhouse. Those are your own words. He does point out that the Razer GPU loses it's lead when on battery power - is that Apple fanboyism? And it's already been amply demonstrated that it's not the individual components that matter, but how they work together. And I believe he did recommend the XPS for PP, not the MBPr.

I'm actually happy about the line skipping. Having paid $1,600.00 USD for the X-T2, then to have a model come out with identical video performance for $600.00 less would have made me have buyer's remorse. And then, I might have bought both cameras, and I'd end up in bankruptcy court.

Hi Sebastian. It never even occurred to me to shoot the X-T2 handheld. How about using a monopod?

If you don't have the very fastest computer available, and I'm guessing you don't, it's going to be painfully slow. So DaVinci may be free, but upgrading to the best computer you can afford will not be.

Resolve demands the fastest CPU, a minimum of 4GB GPU and at least 16GB RAM for best performance.

Since this is after all a website devoted to video and filmmaking, as a working professional, exactly what percentage of your costs should be dedicated to camera equipment, what percentage to a computer and peripherals? Let's say a camera body runs $1,500 - $2,000 (and hopefully, you arrive on a job with more than just one body), and lenses can cost anywhere from $350 - $1,300 or whatever, how much are you willing to invest in a workstation? I don't work professionally, but I'd say if I've invested conservatively say, over $10,000 in camera gear, and that is a modest appraisal, I'd think that spending upwards of $3,000 for a computer and storage would be a minimum. What do you think?

Agree with scotchtape 100%. Try to get the image you want in camera. Downsample 4K to 1080p in the timeline (or not), your images will have less moire, more resolution than shooting in 1080p. And don't get all caught up in useless discussions about specs and pixel peeping. Those people probably never shot a video in their life.

The MacBook Pro Max discusses in the above video cost me over $3,200.00 USD including Apple Care here in Vietnam. So yeah, it's a chunk of change. The dongles hysteria is a bit overdone - most of the time, I just use one USB to USB-C adapter if I'm editing or want to watch a movie on my laptop.

@Iford Go ahead and watch a few tutorials for both DaVinci Resolve and Final Cut Pro and decide for yourself which is better for a beginner. Here are the steps to editing a project in Final Cut: 1. Create a new library (hit File, NEW, library). I usually choose an external drive for the Library location, but you do as you please. 2. Create a new event (hit File, NEW, event). You will also be prompted to create a new project at this time. I name the project and choose 4K, 24p. done. 3. Import clips. 4. When finished editing, select SHARE in the File tab, export. Finished!

I'd highly recommend FCP X. A baby could learn it. This was edited on FCP-X.

The thing is, I've shot up close with the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 wide open with the GH4; I've shot a bit with the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 and the Nocticron at from between f/2 and f/2.8, in fact, I've done it a lot; and those lenses have shallower depth of field than the Nokton 17.5; I always focus manually, using focus assist (magnification 3X) along with focus peaking: and I've hardly ever missed a shot. The Nokton should be more forgiving, as it's a wide angle lens, with considerably more depth of field. Others have had more success than I have, maybe it's just not for me. As a matter of fact, when stopped down to around f/2.8 or so, the Noktons can achieve record-breaking resolution, so not sure what's going on here really.

After trying the Nokton out several times, first on the GH4, and now on the G85, I've concluded a) that I prefer long focal lengths to short; and b) that it really is difficult to get crisp images at between f/2 and f/2.8, no matter how hard I try. If I were back in the States, I'd be selling this lens. As it is, I'm stuck in a third world country where Westerners have plenty of money for alcohol and drugs, and nothing for camera gear. So I guess I'll be holding onto it for a while. Thanks!

If you can find a secondhand Lumix G7 for cheap, that's probably the way to go. I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest you do not start out using flat profiles, but instead use the Standard photo style with sharpening and noise reduction dialed down. Adjust white balance in camera when shooting, do not rely on AWB. Once you feel confident, then you can begin playing around with flat profiles. BM Resolve is not for the faint-hearted,

Yes, I figured as much. And they are expensive as hell, so I understand why you're asking. Hopefully, Andrew can respond.

Speaking of the recently released 50mm f/2, I'm in the middle of watching bigheadtaco's review, and while it's true that the 50mm may have something of an identity crisis on its hands when shooting stills in APS-C format, in 4K, it actually becomes something like an 85mm f/2.8 in full frame terms, which should be fine for some types of portraiture, fashion shoots or even street photography. But I don't see Fuji owners picking it up in droves because of the love shown for the 56mm f/1.2 or the superb 90mm f/2, as well as the fact that's it's still quite expensive. As for myself, I'm going to pass on it and get the 90mm, because I like to pick out faces in a crowd.

I'm pretty sure Andrew already said there's little reason to mount a BM adapter on the Lumix as the XL adapter already gives you 0.64x without running the risk of damaging your camera. The XL is also optimized for the thickness of the filter stack on the Panasonic. But he can answer better.

TCSTV just came out with their review of the OMD EM1 MkII. As far as video is concerned, they think ISO 1600 is the recommended limit, I was very skeptical of other reviewers claiming astronomical low light performance as well. The punch in AF is super clear and easy to gauge whether the subject is sharp or not. AF-C still struggles and they say is comparable to the G80/85. There are no truly flat profiles for those who like grading. Jordan took a monopod along with him on a shoot but ended up not needing it because the IBIS is that good. He also shows off some footage of Chris in a shop that almost looks like glidecam work. The lack of a low pass filter results in a touch more detail. I paid just over $700.00 USD for my G85. The Olympus is $2,000.00. As a video shooter, I'm not seeing any compelling reason to get the Olympus. Similar low light performance, no flat profiles like CineLike, same problems with AF, and you should really be investing $600.00 in a handheld stabilizer for walking and running shots anyway. Edit: I've probably mentioned this before, more than once in fact, but manufacturing wages here are a third of those in China; Chinese earn around $600/month, Vietnamese around $200; and two reasons why corporations like Olympus move manufacturing abroad (Olympus produces their OMD EM1 MkII in VN) are tax incentives and labor costs; so i admire companies like Sigma and Fuji, which continue to produce their products at home; I won't come out and say this is price gouging, but really...

Welcome to EOSHD, BTW! I've got the G85 and I love it. Anyhow, great to hear you preferred the GH camera colors. Lots of people online moaning about Panasonic colors for ages, saying skin tones are green, cyan, magenta, orange, or that they're fine for Asian complexions but not for Westerners, whatever - that might have been true in the past (I've honestly got no idea), but if you've had a look at a few of the videos I've recently posted here, you'll see that that's no longer the case, at least since I've started to get the knack of WB. Just don't rely on AWB - your colors will be off, it'll take you hours to correct your clips, you'll be miserable. To be perfectly frank, I prefer Fuji colors, but without IBIS, the X-T2 is a big a pain in the neck - every time I go out to shoot, I've got to haul along a tripod (I want to pick up a great monopod, but I haven't a clue where to begin, or if it will even be available here). I don't walk while shooting, run after my children in the playground (I haven't got any!) or swing the G85 around, but IBIS helps me get steady shots for what I do, which is street photography (street video? not sure what the correct term is). I've never had to use warp stabilizer in post or anything. As far as the GH5 is concerned, until I can shoot like Brandon Li or Kendy Ty, there's no need to pick up the GH5. I upgraded from the GH3 to the GH4 mainly for the 4K (which practically eliminated the moire and aliasing that was driving me nuts), as well as for the focus peaking. Lots of people are going to be dropping $2,000 - $4,000 on the new Panasonic body, lenses and peripherals, only to discover that their videos are not one iota better than before.

There have been numerous discussions of IBIS in these pages, and there are lots of video examples online. Olympus has better stabilization than Panasonic. If IBIS is your main concern, I'd stick with your present camera.

Go ahead, try it. And be sure to post your results. ???

I can buy that.

I only mentioned AF-S, because it really is necessary to make the distinction. The GH5 testers only had pre-production models, but yes - one of the very first things aside from overheating that the lucky invitees to Sony's launch of the a6500 tested was the AF-C at rodeos and water sports events. I doubt Panasonic would try that! It's good to be skeptical, even when reviewers get their hands on these, they'll gloss over the shortcomings and go on and on about everything else - all in the name of getting you to click on the link so they can get a small percentage. Even now, everyone and their uncle is uploading videos on YouTube about the GH5, sometimes merely reciting the specs, just in order to get hits. Soon, I wouldn't be surprised if some enterprising individuals begin to post 'footage' from the GH5 even though they've never handled one. This is all part of the game.

Is the a6500 AF-C in video really all that great? Up until yesterday, all I've ever seen online is how extraordinary it is. But I just watched a video showing that when selecting an AF point in video mode, then if the subject or the camera moves, there is no way to know whether the subject will be in focus, because the camera gives no indication of this on the screen. I don't know whether or not this is true, but if there isn't any confirmation until reviewing clips on your computer at home, this sounds a little hazardous to say the least. With the G85 in manual mode at least, if I hit AF, I can confirm focus by watching the focus peaking on the screen. First of all, it's important to differentiate between AF-S and AF-C. When it comes to AF-S, Lumix cameras are exceptional, except in very low light, but most cameras struggle there as well. Secondly, I think most buyers of Lumix cameras are aware that AF-C is not on par with Canon's top-of-the-line or even Sony or Fuji (if they're even aware that Fuji has 4K video!). I don't believe that Panasonic is intentionally crippling their consumer cameras, if that's what you mean. But until they adopt PDAF, it's hard for me to believe they will be able to compete. But who knows? Double the sensor readout speed, focus points, a better processor, improved algorithms... even if it's not as good, it just might be good enough.