jonpais

The screen grab I shared illustrates that Sony's 8-bit XAVC does not have inferior tonal transitions. Quite the opposite in fact. I'm not disputing the rest of your argument - however Matthew Scott has amply demonstrated that 10-bit is not in and of itself an iron-clad guarantee that it will hold up any better to grading than 8-bit. There are many variables involved. Talk is cheap. Show me the money.

And not only on paper. If the rumors are to be believed (as being reported here, since I haven't looked at the Fujirumors site), the X-T3 is supposed to sell for just $1,500, I think this, along with the a7 III's aggressive pricing, is going to exert tremendous pressure on both Olympus and Panasonic.

@kye I could also play the devil's advocate and point out that micro four thirds is in fact only one full stop behind if instead of relying on FF as our benchmark, we take the more common s35mm (APSC) sensor as our gold standard.

@Mark Romero 2 Shall I send you some clips SOOC to play with?

And I’m seeing pleasing highlight roll off, nice skin tones and ultra clean footage straight out of the camera. ?

Pretty please, could you summarize his thoughts, @Mark Romero 2 ? I could only watch up to 19 min. without losing interest. Who in their right mind thinks the a7 III has 15 stops of dynamic range? ?

The X-T3 will not have IBIS.

@kye The micro four thirds system, jointly developed by Olympus and Panasonic, had little to do with image quality and everything to do with smaller bodies and shorter flange distances allowing for smaller lenses. Yet body sizes have continued to grow and prices have risen astronomically as the compact system market has shrunk and manufacturers have had to move factories to Thailand, Vietnam and China to remain competitive. Ironically, flagship APSC and FF sensor cameras promising better lowlight performance, greater dynamic range and higher resolution are now more compact and substantially less expensive than flagship MFT models. Fuji already sells eminently pocketable primes for its X-mount lineup and it is hoped that Sony follows suit. As sensor technology has progressed, there is no longer a pressing need for mammoth FF f/1.4 glass, for video anyhow. For otherwise excellent cinema cameras that struggle in low light, there is an assortment of T1.5 primes to choose from. On the other hand, since I almost exclusively use primes, I don’t share the same feeling that even faster m43 zooms are the answer. And as I’ve said before, it took me a couple of days to round out my Fuji and Sony kits, whereas it has taken me years of research and selecting among an assorted ragtag of lenses for the much more mature Panasonic system. I’d have to agree that Panasonic’s got to explore s35mm.

Hopefully they won’t have the full grid artifact issue that plagues all of my Sony clips. ?

@kye ETC - extra teleconverter. hehe I suggest you have a look.

I merely said that his assertion was unsupported by the facts - meaning that he hasn’t brought any evidence to the table to back up his claims. That is a perfectly reasonable argument to make. I did not say he isn’t entitled to his own opinion. However, when he says that one codec has significantly (demonstrably, vastly, substantially, etc.) nicer tonal transitions than another, that implies that the difference should be readily discernible by a casual observer. I dispute his claim. Click on image to enlarge.

Looks like sharpening in post can be pretty complicated.

Still, focal length has a greater impact than aperture, no? Which is why I usually reach for longer lenses like the Oly 75mm f/1.8 or Veydra 85mm T2.2 if I need some separation. ETC has no effect on DOF as far as I’m aware.

Thanks, @webrunner5 ‘s right: I am getting old!

I still don’t know how to embed GIFs! ?

Help yourself.

At the moment, there are no true consumer priced HDR grading monitors on the market without lots of drawbacks. Which is why I'm asking the OP which HDR10 monitor he's using.

@webrunner5 Right, that's the review I was referring to.

Thanks for chiming in with your useless and delusional comments.

If your camera shoots log, it shoots HDR.

I'm not either - the article does not have test results, so let's be perfectly frank - it's not very valuable. Of those listed, the only that I've seen test results from is Dell's UltraSharp 27 4K monitor, and it has serious limitations. The VESA standards are practically meaningless, as now practically every monitor in the showroom can now boast of being HDR.

Right - you said it looks significantly better, with nicer tonal gradations - which is not supported by the facts.

The GH5 series is constantly being accused of suffering from excessive sharpening, but in fact, they they have considerably less sharpening applied than either the a7 III or the X-H1! Compare the X-H1and a7 III, with a maximum of 17.0% to the GH5s, with a maximum of just 6.2%! And those results are at factory default settings. What people may be seeing is a triple threat of compression, noise and sharpening. Fuji X-H1: Sharpening in video is moderate and similar at both low and high ISO: 10.3% and 10.1% overshoot, respectively, along high-contrast edges, and 13.2% and 12.0% undershoot. Along low-contrast edges, video stills show 12.2% (low ISO) and 12.1% (high ISO) overshoot, and 17.0% and 13.8% undershoot, respectively. Sony a7 III: Sharpening in video is moderate and similar at both low and high ISO: 10.3% and 10.1% overshoot, respectively, along high-contrast edges, and 13.2% and 12.0% undershoot. Along low-contrast edges, video stills show 12.2% (low ISO) and 12.1% (high ISO) overshoot, and 17.0% and 13.8% undershoot, respectively. Lumix GH5s: Sharpening in video is mild: 4.4 percent overshoot and 2.6 percent undershoot at low ISO along high-contrast edges, and 1.2 percent and 0.7 percent, respectively, at high ISO. Along low-contrast edges, sharpening was 6.2 percent (overshoot) and 3.7 percent undershoot at low ISO, and 1.0 percent overshoot combined with 1.3 percent undershoot at high ISO.

The videos and screengrabs I’ve shared tell a different story. In fact, some thought I was shooting log, when in fact I was shooting Cine2. In addition, noise is virtually invisible with the Sony, whereas even at low ISOs and at normal viewing distances, noise is always present in the Panasonic clips. Texture and detail in shadow areas which are obscured in the Lumix footage are also visible in the full frame images. As a matter of fact, Sony has higher resolution overall. This is borne out in rigorous lab tests as well.

Interesting tidbit from Roger Cicala’s review of Sony’s 24-105mm f/4 back in February: The simple fact is that Sony, more than any other company, is using electronic correction to a degree that we haven’t seen before. Some seem worked up about in-camera distortion and vignetting correction for reasons I don’t really understand. The bottom line is it allows the lenses to be smaller and makes it easier to manufacture the optics, which are good things.