jonpais

You are amazing. People here raise their eyebrows when I tell them I own four cameras and a dozen lenses. Oh, and I want to thank you so much for bringing the X-T2 and the Zhiyun Crane to my attention: if you hadn't written about them, I might never have even purchased them. Right now, I'm using the Lumix G85 much more, simply because I want to run a lot of tests about best settings, u4/3 lenses and stuff.

So you're not buying the Fuji X-T20, huh?

Not sure what any of this has got to do with filmmaking. I wouldn't post a camera review in PoliticalForum.com or whatever. So yeah, I can appreciate the humorous comments here. If you were to at least write about news correspondents or censorship and banning of filmmakers that might hold some interest for me; if I want political coverage or commentary, I turn to other websites.

I studied art history in college, and we were required to read and write essays about artworks, and to the best of my recollection, not once did the word organic appear in a single text by a renowned scholar. I'm also familiar with several great music and dance critics, and never have I seen the word organic used in relation to a string quartet or ballet. Neither have I ever encountered the word in film criticism, let alone a lens review. Scholars and responsible critics explain what they mean when they use a word or phrase. And if it cannot be described or defined, I have difficulty wrapping my head around it. And I've been snapping pictures since before adolescence. Surely if one can devote a lifetime describing the life in a piece of music, the form, structure and meaning in an abstract painting or modern ballet, then it is not too much to ask that someone either demonstrate or define exactly what is meant by the word organic in relation to lenses. Bokeh is a term we all understand, it is something concrete, and as such, it can be be described, measured and evaluated. Organic is like the word beautiful, which means all things to all people.

I know there are still a lot of readers who are interested in picking up a G80/85, and one of the questions we get here all the time is which focal length to select with focal reducers for IBIS to work efficiently. With the Metabones XL Canon mount, the focal length is communicated to the body, the stabilization icon will appear in the EVF, and there's really nothing more to do.

I may just have to look into this. Plus, it won't break the bank. ?

It's normal.

@kidzrevil I've often heard people recommending the Nikkor AIS lenses and cheap Chinese adapters on MFT. They're full frame film lenses, correct?

But Dan is using the same lens on both cameras. And the difference between the two charts is immediately noticeable. I'd be concerned too, I guess.

I just finished watching the video, agree 100% about lenses, which is why I still struggle to understand why most people still choose the kit lens, typically a slow, variable aperture zoom, especially those so concerned about image quality and low light ability. "But it has good resale value!' they say. I personally don't want to deal with trying to sell stuff on Craigslist I didn't want in the first place to a bunch of cheapskate Westerners here in Vietnam. I had to cringe when I heard a Panasonic rep at Photokina saying an f/2.8-4 lens was fine, because the GH5 was so awesome in low light. Many also balk at purchasing a lens that costs more than the camera. What I don't agree with is when he says you can't use Nikon or Canon glass with the Panasonic, unless he means that AF will suffer, which is true. Also, he could dispense with the 'what's up you guys!' in the introduction. The dolly zooms and wipes are exciting to watch in Brandon Li's Hong Kong.

I'm not by any means discounting the value of a gimbal, or the work of the super talented steadicam operators out there, and I am shaky as hell myself, but you can get some very powerful movements using just IBIS for short clips where you are just following a subject. You see it all the time in drama and action films, where the camera is moving up and down - it can add tension and drama in a scene. But yeah, using a stabilizer adds 'production value'.

Any reason you're not considering the G80/85 with IBIS?

I wasn't really referring to any video in particular, but it's always great to hear how you work. Your experience corroborates mine as well, since in my very last video, I intentionally underexposed faces (meaning that if I saw zebras hit 70%, I generally dialed exposure down a 1/2 stop) in order to preserve as much detail in their faces as possible, as well as to maintain information in the surroundings. So the GH5 might still suffer from highlight clipping, just like my Fuji X-T2, and which many say is the tell-tale sign of video compared to film, which has a more gradual roll-off. And since you mention Aputure, it's about time I invested in a modest lighting setup, if not for my street work, then at least for the small personal projects which i hope to begin working on sometime this year. Kitsch.

Hi Axel, Mostly just in regard to native lenses for the u4/3 system, their 'look' and so on - I've been reading for ages that focal reducers were the way to go, but if there are other u4/3 optics as good as the Nocticron, i'd be willing to give them a try. I fully expected the Sigma to kick butt, although, with the SB, the Sigma Art 50mm is not nearly as long as the Nocticron, and I might have to adjust the speed booster or something - I really have no idea. Yet the thought of paying close to $700 for a device that constantly needs tweaking doesn't sit well with me either. When i purchased the XL, the infinity screw was loose and I had to take it to a camera repair shop to work on it - it took them 30 minutes to get it working - the seller in HK, an authorized dealer, hadn't even bothered to package the Metabones properly. In fact, not knocking Metabones, but even LensRentals.com posts a caveat about them on their website. Not sure if other focal reducers are any better in that regard or not, I've never used them. You mentioned earlier that some native lenses screamed video, so I thought you were going the SB route for a more cinematic look:, if I was mistaken, my bad. I'm not familiar with Li's work, the Internet is acting up now, so I wasn't able to watch any of his clips. I'll give it a try again this evening. I do enjoy occasionally watching videos by editors and colorists who explain the reasons for their choices, based on story, mood, continuity, but you're right, the magic does begin in your mind.

I hear you! It's just that after using Lumix cameras now for the past four years or so, and having had to re-think everything I've been taught to believe from forum members here and at other sites, particularly regarding Photo Style settings, using adapters, LUTs and so on, that I'm starting to question every remark I see online, which I'm not sure is a healthy thing. Then there's the fact that I want to grow as a filmmaker and I'm not at all sure where I'm going with that. As for what kind of information I'd be interested in hearing from you - for example, I often wondered why someone would intentionally underexpose an image two stops; I've never had to underexpose a shot, then bring up the shadows: it seems like a recipe for introducing noise and banding in the image - I see embarrassing examples of this all the time on Vimeo. But listening to Paul Nelson explain how he often shoots athletes in shaded woods, and how he underexposes to retain detail in the sky at sunset, then lifts the shadows in post, and now I understand that there's a time and place for underexposing shots, and at the same time, this obsession with wide dynamic range and low noise. When I was studying French at university, we had to learn French culture as well as language, and we were tested on both. Some students complained that they just wanted to learn the language. But you can't learn one without the other. So, I guess I'd just like to hear more about your experiences a filmmaker, your workflow, how you overcame certain difficulties, anything but specs!

I would be very interested in your findings, because to be honest, this is the very first time I've heard someone claim a Lumix wasn't sharp enough - usually, it's the reverse. I always shoot with sharpening dialed down to -5, and the images are still crisp. I shoot with the G85. Then again, I stopped shooting with the Vario 12-35mm f/2.8 because I suspected it was too soft, and this is a lens in nearly everyone's kit. ?

I was watching a review of the Sony a99 Mk II on Max Yuryev's channel last night, where he had sports photographer Paul Nelson as a guest; and one commenter actually complained that Max didn't bookmark the specs or something so he could just get the information he wanted, without all the discussion of Mr. Nelson's career, background, and experience. Yet this was Max's most interesting show ever, and I'm neither a stills shooter nor a sports photographer. I bring this up because I am really as interested in hearing about Mr. Neumann's personal experiences as a director/cinematographer as it relates to the equipment he uses as I am in the specs of the GH5.

Since my last test, I'm beginning to question not only the gospel that in order to get satisfying results, you must always shoot log, but also the virtually undisputed tenant that focal reducers magically impart a cinematic look to u4/3 footage. How many of us can actually do this? ? In another thread, it was asked what constitutes the film look, and I'd answer that a lot of the magic happens in the editing room. But I'm not Casey Faris, never will be. That being said, Mr. Neumann's cinematic LUT package looks f** incredible!

This brings up another question: it is widely accepted that focal reducers magically impart a cinematic look to otherwise mundane looking u4/3 footage, '4K Super 35!' I'm beginning to seriously doubt that, along with the gospel that it's always preferable to shoot log.

hmmm... another test perhaps? ?

Hoodlum - do those scores make the Olympus preferable to the Lumix for video?

Glad to hear it's working for you Oliver.

Are you really experiencing problems with RS? ?

? Then you would love the Nokton lenses.

Yeah, the Leica does allow you to get a little tighter as well, which suits the way I shoot. Kind of a strange project I set myself - this whole week leading up to the Tet holiday, thousands of beautiful women all dressed up in ao dai converge on this street, thousands of photographers are shoulder-to-shoulder grabbing beauty shots, and here I am, walking up and down the road shooting motorists. I need to get my head examined!