meanwhile

Don't hold your breath. Because 1. The mount size simply doesn't provide the physical margin for effective stabilization. Fuji have repeatedly said this and you can confirm it by just looking at the thing and comparing to stabilized mounts. Does anyone want an IBIS system that would add a lot of cost, drain power, only provide 1 stop of stabilization and cause vignetting and severe loss of contrast around the edges of the frame? I doubt it... 2. That site is beneath contempt. Eg look at the claim that the existence of a prototype XPro1s shows that there is a stablized XT2... When you check the link given, you find that there was a camera of that name - but there was no mention of stabilization. The s seems to have been added just as it was to the XE2s - to show a minor model difference. If you want to start wishing for new hardware, wish for a stabilized m43 with a BSI sensor. That tech actually exists and would push m43 performance up a full stop...

I might be new to video, but I know this syndrome from stills. No. This is a common mistake when evaluating cameras - comparing examples without allowing for the skill of the typical user. Bitd, the GH2 was a hot camera for elite innovative shooters. The GX85 is mostly bought by civilians. Skill is the main factor in image quality - and supporting hardware like lenses and lights are often the second. I shoot a Sigma Merrill for a lot of stills work and if you looked at their flickrs, you'd think that the Merrill is 10x the camera the GX80 is for stills. And the Merrill is better - at low ISO - but with the same shooter the difference is more like 1.5x. The Merrill attracts attracts fanatics and its such a pain that only the most determined shoot their cameras instead of selling them. You really can't compare bodies by looking at what the average user achieves - not when users are completely unalike. As JJ already said, so I don't see the point in bringing up this argument. Also, it really seems to be the case that with the GX80 you have buy a big SD, shoot in 4K and supersample the image down on your PC if you want HD. Which is still a lot cheaper than buying a GH2 was back when and was always going to be the best way to shoot HD, so really, what's the problem?

Well, thanks. But first I have to get rid of this flu...

The chutzpah and luck that makes reckless work is a limited quality. You save it for stuff that matters. Wherever you can use structure and work because they are cheap. Serious artists play the scales, study the hell out of their predecessors, and spend weeks in the library reading Civil War newspapers to get the feel of the language. Then they take risks and follow their insights and blast the hell out of the Newport festival - but if they hadn't done the work to bring it off, no one would care.

Actually, it's a textbook example of a bad exercise for building the sort of skills I asked about, because 90% of the effort in making a good film like this should go into the writing and the blocking or storyboard instead. And yes, writing is important, but I'm already good at it. And when I want to learn blocking then I'll open one of the books I have that covers it, read it, and do blocking exercises. It would be a great exercise to do in a month when I have basic camera skills. The first rule of getting at anything is to concentrate, as specifically and mindfully as possible, on that skill. You don't dilute practice - you concentrate it. When you want to learn focus pulling, pull focus, over and over for an hour. Not for 60 seconds in an hour you mostly spend doing other stuff. (I probably sound like Vince Lombardi...) I accept your apology. Obviously you lose points for writing "lol" - but not nearly as many as if you had used a smiley.

I'm not the person who asked about cineD. In fact, I'm the person who suggested to the CineD guy that it should be another thread. So probably the first thing I would do is read threads before replying to them... Aside from that, the first thing I do when I'm learning something new is create a high-level view so I know how different pieces fit and what order I want to take them in. If your brain works differently that's fine - although obviously my way is right and yours is wrong, because (again obviously) knowing where you are going is better than ditzing around blindly. You can certainly modify the route once you start, but if you are smart you'll know where the main rivers and bridges are before pulling out of the driveway. The suspicion I always have when people say this type of thing is that they feel defensive about their inability to do research and so pretend that anyone doing it is ONLY doing research. Because, honestly, I can't think of another reason for pointing out the entirely obvious. Thanks; no. When I learn stuff I want to be concentrating on whatever I think is the most important thing for me to be learning at that time. And I'm nothing of a joiner-in. But if you are, knock yourself out.

Great discussion on cheap diy follow focus set-ups http://www.theblackandblue.com/2010/09/30/toolkit-diy-cheap-follow-focus-solutions/ The Truedeau silicone jar opener looks perfect for this job - and it seems a lot of people use them this way.

I've head that the GM1 was supposed to have that look too - https://***URL removed***/forums/post/57204915 ..I saw a pictured of one on flickr that had been turned into a Bolex-alike with a magnifier and pistol grip.

I have no idea at all why you think someone writing an article that technical doesn't know what a curve is just because he doesn't discuss them in an article where they are largely irrelevant to the point being made - which is that Bayer sensors, film and Foveon have different highlight behaviour, and the last two are more organic. Ditto white balance. ..If everyone writing an article about anything stopped to point out every possible related point, no matter how obvious... Well, it might help some people, but it would be a drag for the rest of us.

Let me see if I can understand - shutter priority is better than A because if shutter speed changes relative to frame work then motion will become staccato (too fast a shutter speed) or unreal and dreamlike (too slow)? Which is generally more noticeable than a change in dof? ..What if you use manual and exposure compensation, but set the camera to auto ISO?

And when you have an easily comparable number, everyone builds their marketing around it.

That's because what those charts test isn't resolution but resolution of high contrast information. A lens or sensor designed to test well may sacrifice resolution of lower contrast information to do that. ..Then there's the issue of highlight spil and roll-off, which none of the test sites even consider, but which have a huge impact on "aliveness". Film and foveon sensors handle them more or less as the eyes does, which is their images look better when highlights are in frame http://www.13thmonkey.org/~boris/photos/Foveon2/foveon-highlights.html Film tends to handle low contrast resolution better than digital, which is another reason it look can more natural https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2014/12/36-megapixels-vs-6x7-velvia/

If you are trying to say that image quality can't be judged separately from dof, this is both wrong and irrelevant. If a sensor has poor resolution of lower contrast detail, that will be the case at all dofs.

Yes. The point of larger screens is that you are supposed to watch them from further away. An 85 might show problems with 4K if you shove your face against it... But that's not what you are supposed to do!

Like I said, I don't care who else makes a rangefinder camera. I won't use a bad rangefinder camera if there are good non-rangefinders available for a fraction of the price. And I don't consider Leica's rangefinderness to be relevant to a claim that they give better service than Canon, Nikon, Sony, etc. Because, sanely, it isn't.

How does it matter how a camera feels in your hands if the images - the images cherry picked to show it in the best (haha) light - suck??? More than that, Light are asking people to give them money based on these images. So saying that the images shouldn't be discussed is bizarre.

Actually that example shows what is going wrong and why the camera is bad. The overall tonality of the larger images is poor but yes, small high contrast details are present in crops. It's like the camera is scanning the scene for high contrast detail and junking everything else. I.e. it's an extreme version of the classic disease of bad camera design - trading resolution of high contrast detail for tonality. Aka Megapixel War Syndrome, Cheapus Compactusitus or Walmart Camera Canker.

I'm sorry; I wasn't aware that you'd asked such a question. Probably because it has nothing to do with the claims that I was concerned with - ie that Leica quality and service are better than those of Sony, Panasonic, etc, so I automatically tuned it out as irrelevant junk. Doubly so, because people who actually care about their work care about end results only. They don't fetishize having a particular focus system - they just want one that works. But, yea, if you want a toy of that particular kind rather than a camera, you're stuck with Leica. Me, I'll buy a camera as a camera - a machine for creating images. True story: a Leica owner complimented me on my "Leica". It was actually a Fuji XE2 with a piece of tape over the logo - I can't stand visible text on a camera where the subject might focus on it if I'm shooting portraits or fashion - but that isn't the funny part. He told me'd changed to a Leica because it let him choose where the focus went in his image. I explained to him how to place a focus point - no, he had no idea that he could have done that with his previous camera. And no, he had no idea what dof was, or focus and recompose error, and yes, he was shooting at wide apertures. Such are Leica's customers, and that's why they can combine the highest prices with the worst quality control. I'm not sure that any maker can actually claim to be good. What I am sure of is that anyone who thinks that Leica are providing a higher level of service or quality control is provably wrong - they are probably among the worst out there.

Excellent discussion of exposure for video http://www.leeminglutone.com/#usage More on audio https://www.premiumbeat.com/blog/record-indie-filmmaking-audio/

Do you understand the limitations of Panny AF? If you want anything like broadcast quality you are either going to have shoot with no follow focus for each cut or use lenses with the right sort of manual focus control to allow you a chance at doing follow focus. See - Of the lenses you name, I think only the 12-40 has that potential. As someone who has just done similar research, I really think that you are asking the wrong questions and doing the wrong research. You need to start by discovering the absolutely minimum quality needs for the market you want to sell to, a lot of which are about audio. You shouldn't even think about what camera body you should buy until you have budgeted for audio. For example, have you realized that you might easily have to spend $1000 on microphones? You also need to think about how you are going to function as a one man crew trying to do audio - to broadcast standards - and video at the same time. Eg If you need to record groups then you may have to operate a boom mic and leave the camera on a tripod: https://www.premiumbeat.com/blog/record-indie-filmmaking-audio/ I'd start by researching how one man crews function https://www.premiumbeat.com/blog/filmmaking-tip-gear-for-a-one-man-documentary-crew/ and what HBO want quality wise. Not by asking which camera body is nice. Don't even think about that until you really know what you have to spend on audio and lights and whether you'll need real video lenses and a rig with follow focus. And for that you need to know what lighting condtions will be, whether you need to record groups, whether you need to focus on movement. First goals, hence acceptable limitations, then methods, then hardware - and the more I look, the more camera body is one of the least important parts. And most of all, if you want something a real TV company will look at, sound, sound, sound. It matters much more than you think and it is much, much, MUCH more complex. (And I would be delighted if someone who has actual sold video at this level corrects me - life would get simpler!)

Being open-minded means being willing to consider ideas without prejudice on their merits. It does not mean "Give yourself a lobotomy - it's FUN!"

..Assuming E5 wasn't a typo, it was an Oly DSLR that existed before the m43 mirrorless cameras but had the same size sensor. Some people still use them for the same reasons as the Fuji S5 - not a lot of megapixels, but they love the tonality... (I almost bought one a few weeks ago!)

Or in other word: Yes, they laughed at Columbus. But they laughed at Bozo The Clown, the perpetual motion machine freaks, and the Hollow Earthers too. ...An appeal to Baer is just squirrel taunting. A lot of ideas are laughed at because they are not just wrong but hilariously wrong. And the idea of replacing raw with one of the most computationally expensive forms of "compression" imaginable is one of these.

Most Fuji stabilized lenses aren't really very well stabilized.