Shirozina

Xrite i1 display pro IME is best cheap calibrator but the stock software lets it down and you can get much better results with DisplayCal.

They both look terrible - more indicative of the users failure to expose, WB and grade + poor profile choice than the inherent 'colour science' of Sony vs Fuji

Agree - no point in capturing in analogue if you are going to mash it up with a digital scan. Back in the day drum scanners did the best job with everything else quite a way behind apart from perhaps the Imacon. Not even sure if drum scanners are still around as the tech needed to run them is now obsolete.

Nothing stopping you from doing this with digital if you just put your mind to it.

The CEX website has some good deals but I'm not sure everything in the stores is up there. You have to ask where some of this stuff comes from if someone can walk in off the street with a bit of kit and then walk out with some cash.........

Update - I have got the 850 to work in another enclosure https://www.startech.com/uk/HDD/Enclosures/usb-3-1-msata-drive-enclosure~SMS1BMU313 It's quite big but has ventilation holes. I picked up a used one for under £10.

ebay but a long time ago but I'll check the transaction list to see if I can find it. https://www.ebay.co.uk/c/1091701075

The thing I bought ( and works) has no branding unfortunately.

See previous reply ? Something like this (but with a usb 3.1-C cable) https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/USB-3-1-to-mSATA-External-SSD-Drive-Enclosure-Case-Caddy-Adapter-Converter-Cable/323282979456?hash=item4b452aca80:g:gcwAAOSwEzJbER3i I think there are now USB-C to USB-C versions as well. As I said some versions may work and some may not.....

The Samsung EVO 860 works but the 850 doesn't. Don't know the models of the enclosures as they are cheap no-brand ebay purchases.

I've got a 1tb mSATA drive in a USB 3.1 enclosure that works with BRAW at the highest data rates. You have to be careful though as I've got a very slightly different enclosure and mSATA that the camera doesn't recognise.

BRAW is better as it has more bit depth and no baked in ISO curve.

Also Metabones are not amazingly well made and are over priced IMO. Optically I've not seen any evidence that the Viltrox is inferior.

The IQ of the GH5 in 'open gate' mode is IMO better than in the UHD/4k modes. It's got cleaner detail with none of the obvious sharpening that some users complain about in UHD/4k and the shadows are slightly less noisy and have cleaner blacks. More importantly it's got no aliasing artefacts in fine detail (when suitably downsampled in your NLE) which is the major flaw with BM cameras using 1:1 sampling sensors. Just curious but why are you not a fan of h.265?

'Without artefacts' - please explain what reality this is?

I may buy another one and sell my 'original' model to a cDNG'ist for a healthy profit!

I had a couple of FDn 35-105 F3.5's and they had amazing central resolution but the outer edges were horrible but this was on full frame so I'm sure they would work very well on M43.

You may like to shoot the messenger because you don't like what he says but it's the cDNG 'ultras' that have issues with myopia (at 300%).....

If the GH5 was released today it would be hailed as a 'game changer' (apologies if I've said as much before)

The P4k is a fantastic camera in many ways but the use of a 1:1 sampling sensor and no OLPF means that for high resolution / fine detail capture tasks it's never going to be ideal no matter what codec is used. If your application requires the highest clean rendition of fine detail then you have bought / are considering buying the wrong camera for this task.

+1

There's not such a big difference between the 400Mbps GH5 codec and the P4k RAW - depends how much you want to bend it in post or how much you need to recover mistakes in capture. Yes the RAW is better in a lot of respects but the 400mbps is also very good

That's why the P4k can't replace my GH5 - but maybe a future GH6 will replace the P4k......

The IS lock feature is amazing and can replace a tripod for a lot of situations.

Been there done that. Yes there are slight differences if you look at a magnification beyond anything you would see in the final film ( that's the tradeoff for smaller file sizes). Your language is hysterical and bears no relation to reality and gives a totally false impression to anyone wanting informed information on this topic.