TheRenaissanceMan

I'll never get tired of that gif.

Just one of the downsides of full frame.

I think it's quite possible to comment on the "look" of a lens after using them both for a bit. It doesn't necessarily require a controlled side-by-side test in scientific conditions. That helps, but it's not strictly necessary. I'd rather have Zeiss or Leica glass on a shoot than any Canon L Lens. They render more 3-dimensionally, have nicer color, and a generally more cinematic look. But that's just my taste, and YMMV. I also disagree that the difference in look between different lenses is too subtle to see. Take this test by Shane Hurlbut. I see huge, dramatic differences between these lenses with no trouble whatsoever. https://www.hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/2015/04/film-school-online-micro-43-lenses-3/

From what I understand, it's great with higher contrast scenes and drastically improved by 10- bit recording. It's flatter, lower contrast shots, especially internally recorded ones, where it struggles a bit. I've heard some people are intercutting it with CineV with good results.

Any reasons besides those couple economic foibles that you haven't been getting on with the g7? Great test. This new generation of phone cameras has been insanely impressive. The XC10 and G7 would definitely match better if you pushed the Panasonic's tint settings a couple notches toward magenta. Maybe it's the color science, but the Canon looks WAY more magenta to my eye. I'd also like to see an ISO 1600 test scene, because imo, that's where these cameras start to break.

The lowest I've seen it used is $500-550, and that was on the mu43 forum. I would definitely buy used, though. If you end up selling it down the line, it's like paying $50-100 to rent it for a couple years. No brainer.

Wow...it's just a lens suggestion, dude.

He asked for faster, wider, better quality than the kit lens, and better stabilization. The SLR Magic lenses provide the first 3 and the 12-35 addresses all 4. I'm not trying to rip on you. If you have a suggestion I've forgotten, please bring it up. I just don't think the 42.5 is an applicable suggestion in this case.

But they're not wide angle on M4/3. It feels like you guys aren't getting this. The 12-35 is the best option if you want wide and stabilized. Otherwise, a used SLR Magic 10mm or 12mm is a good option if you really want to go wider.

Except the whole "wide angle" part. +1 on the 12-35mm. I'll be picking one up later this month.

Oh, there are definitely reasons to go with the GH4 over the G7, the ones you mentioned chief among them. Here's the thing, though: I hardly ever use that stuff. I've never had a shoot where the camera's lack of weather sealing held us back from doing work. 96 fps would be nice to have, but it's soft enough that I'd rarely use it over 60p. I always record sound with an external recorder, so I'm usually using my Zoom's headphone jack rather than the camera's. And even when I'm doing weddings, it's rare I can't spare two seconds during the ceremony to restart the recording. I won't be buying a YAGH either way, and V-LOG seems to create more problems than it solves. Battery life and overall build quality are the two things that still keep me lusting for the GH4 over the G7, but the fact remains that despite being cheaper, the G7 offers the best image quality in Panasonic's DSLM stable right now.

The camera's going to sleep. Just go in the menu and turn it off.

Same here! with the BMPCC as a compliment, I think the G7 will satisfy my need for 4K and stills. I can even buy a nice lens or an Olympus camera if I'm craving IBIS and still spend less than I would've on a used GH4. Here's what I posted in the V-LOG topic: According to a couple of long, rambling threads on DVX User, what I've gathered is that the GH4 has some sort of inherent problem with its processing that causes this magenta/green splotching/accuracy issue. Apparently, this problem is present in all the GH4's profiles to some degree, but the data pushing from encoding and grading from LOG hugely exacerbates it. My understanding is that these color errors occur at the processing level and before compression, so while 10-bit recording reduces compression and helps make the footage more pliable, it doesn't solve the underlying problem. I have to wonder if the G7 would experience this too. Its low-light processing seems to be much improved from the GH4's, and creates far less splotchy color artefacts. See the low light samples in this review: http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Panasonic_Lumix_G7/ Check out the comparison with the GH4 at 5:45: http://dslrvideoshooter.com/panasonic-gh4-vs-g7-video-review/ And Brandon's high ISO samples at the bottom of the page: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?337827-g7-vs-gh4/page4 I wonder if they could improve the GH4's performance by offering the new NR algorithm as a firmware update or something. Maybe it's part of the underlying hardware or LSI. I don't know. But it reminds me of the G6's massive noise advantage over the GH2, despite using the same sensor (and actually reading less of it in video mode). After this V-LOG update, I had my heart set on upgrading to the GH4, but if the G7 is this much better with noise and $400 in the bargain, it seems like a no brainer. Shame, because I already have the batteries and whatnot from my GH3. :/

Haha, clearly you've dug more into this than me! That's interesting. I guess it goes to show how far ahead Panasonic is on the video processing front.

Incorrect. The GH4 sensor doesn't have phase detection AF points on it. We know Panasonic fabricated the sensor, but it isn't the same as the sensor in any other Panasonic camera.

I don't know about that, Andrew. I think enough of us are hung up on 5-axis IBIS to pick up an E-M1 or E-M5II just for handheld/moving shots. And event shooting? Imagine being able to walk around a wedding with nothing but the camera and an Olympus 45mm and get beautiful, stable footage. You can always use a Panasonic for the more demanding wide shots.

I find if I show up with lights, a pro-looking set of lenses, a rig, and a mattebox, they don't look twice at the name on my camera--especially once they see the final product. YMMV. You could also look at a set of Contax Zeiss glass. If you're okay with f/2 or 2.8 lenses, you can pick up a basic set fairly inexpensively. The thing to watch out for with Nikon glass is that the focus rings turn the opposite direction of every other lens manufacturer. It makes it hard to develop muscle memory if you ever use anything else, and, personally, drives me bananas. The ones on the Personal-View FAQs? I found those pretty helpful. The Minola Rokkor and Contax Zeiss Survival Guides are also worth looking at if you want the lay of the land.

Oh, I was just talking NX1 vs GH4. Although if you're not a big low-light shooter, there's less difference than you'd think. http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-versus-Panasonic-Lumix-DMC-GH4___795_943 I haven't shot 5D RAW, but I've just started with RAW on the BMPCC and it's in a whole other league to H.264 footage. If you can handle the workflow (the 5D requires one more step than BM's CinemaDNG iirc) and you appreciate the look, then go for it and never look back.

Sensor size is a wash if you take into account Speed Boosters, noise performance is almost identical (good up to 800, getting ropey at 1600, wouldn't want to use 3200), and several tests show the two cameras having either identical dynamic range or slightly more on the GH4. You also left out that the GH4 has better compression, 10-bit HDMI out, and way less rolling shutter. Stills are a different story, but I'd take the GH4 over the NX1 for video any day.

Aim it at a Xyla chart, expose it correctly, put it on a waveform monitor. It won't give you a definite number-- that's always a bit subjective-- but it will give you an objective look at what the sensor does with light.

That is indeed how it works. It downsamples a 4K sensor readout to 1080p very early in the image processing pipeline to improve SNR and color. Here's a long boring white paper from Canon explaining the finer points. http://www.cs.ucsb.edu/~mturk/imaging/Misc/EOS_C300_New_35mm_CMOS_Sensor_WP.pd I don't know much about internal vs external recording as I haven't tried them both, but count me as a +1 for exposing to the right on Canon cameras. As long as you avoid clipping any color channels, it seems to respond well to bringing the image down in post.

If this is the Dragon sensor, don't expect much out of it in low light. Most DPs don't rate it higher than ASA 320 with the Skin Tone OLPF (the one that doesn't make human beings look like horrifying zombie people). And if you're fine with that level of low-light performance, I don't see why you'd go with the RED over a $2999 Ursa Mini 4K, which has a much lower system cost, larger sensor, and gives you both ProRes and compressed RAW. That's not even getting into the 4.6K, which, according to OneRiverMedia, can easily be pushed to ASA 3200 without issue, has higher resolution, delivers about the same usable dynamic range (except better balanced between shadows and highlights), and has an actual S35 sensor. Honest question: What's the appeal? In the current marketplace, where is the Raven's niche? I don't see our crowd going for it. Most of us will stick with DSLRs, mirrorless, and the lower-end BM cams. Higher-end owner/operators would probably stick with the Ursa, Ursa Mini, Epic, F3, F35, etc. I guess it could work as a B-Cam for Epic shoots, but you may as well just rent another Epic. I don't get it. But hey, would love to hear other opinions.

According to a couple of long, rambling threads on DVX User, what I've gathered is that the GH4 has some sort of inherent problem with its processing that causes this magenta/green splotching/accuracy issue. Apparently, this problem is present in all the GH4's profiles to some degree, but the data pushing from encoding and grading from LOG hugely exacerbates it. My understanding is that these color errors occur at the processing level and before compression, so while 10-bit recording reduces compression and helps make the footage more pliable, it doesn't solve the underlying problem. I have to wonder if the G7 would experience this too. Its low-light processing seems to be much improved from the GH4's, and creates far less splotchy color artefacts. See the low light samples in this review: http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Panasonic_Lumix_G7/ Check out the comparison with the GH4 at 5:45: http://dslrvideoshooter.com/panasonic-gh4-vs-g7-video-review/ And Brandon's high ISO samples at the bottom of the page: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?337827-g7-vs-gh4/page4 I wonder if they could improve the GH4's performance by offering the new NR algorithm as a firmware update or something. Maybe it's part of the underlying hardware or LSI. I don't know. But it reminds me of the G6's massive noise advantage over the GH2, despite using the same sensor (and actually reading less of it in video mode). After this V-LOG update, I had my heart set on upgrading to the GH4, but if the G7 is this much better with noise and $400 in the bargain, it seems like a no brainer. Shame, because I already have the batteries and whatnot from my GH3. :/

Raise your hand if any of Emanuel's posts in this thread have been useful to you.

Low light performance is the main thing that's making me insecure with my current gear, but if I'm being honest with myself, I really don't need it. Most of my work is lit, and what I can't light I can fake my way through with fast lenses and an eye for natural light at the location. Even if I had the A7S II, I'd probably shoot it Brandon Li style and get my look in-camera. LOG profiles can be nice for big projects, but for novice colorists like me it's just too difficult to handle.