TheRenaissanceMan

He says "I suspect that V-LOG L isn’t the culprit here; it is likely due to how the image is being processed by the camera itself." and that was a pre-production model of the DVX-200. Also, he notes at the end that the color from V-LOG L was both pleasing and accurate--just held back by the camera's poor highlight processing. Everyone else who's used V-LOG L on the GH4 has shown excellent results.

A paid firmware update and a pre-installed version of the camera would make way more sense than forcing existing users to sell their GH4s for new versions; Panasonic can't be that dense. I don't blame them for charging for V-LOG. A good LOG profile will be like having a whole new camera. And considering how many people are avoiding the GH4 based on color science, DR, and oversharpening, this will address almost every major complaint with the camera. In my opinion, that's worth a couple hundred.

I'm guessing it's a sensor size/mass thing. Yet another advantage for M4/3. The E-M10 II looks to be a pretty great video option, sharing the same IBIS and video quality as the E-M5 II. Wait 6 months, buy one used for moving shots, and boom--you're set.

Man, those highlights clip really fast. Also, if your lens isn't sharp, it's a bad copy or the codec is mushing the 4K a bit. It should be the same lens as the original, which outresolved the sensor in the middle wide open and the corners at 5.6.

Uh huh. I'm plenty relaxed, but you seem to have some problem with the comparison. Can't I discuss how they compare both in numbers and as a whole package? I didn't say you claimed otherwise. I just put forth the information. Why do you take everything I say as an attack? I wasn't "fighting." You made a point. I disagreed, so for the sake of anyone who looks through this topic for information, I made a counterpoint. That's how discourse works.

I mentioned a whole slew of other factors besides just numbers, actually. You compared the two and concluded that those interested in shooting video as well as stills would find the A7R II more useful. I was providing a counterpoint. The A7R II also doesn't stack up to the D810 in HD mode. You have to downsample its 4K to get comparable results...and 4K overheats the camera in 10 minutes.

Me and my friends have a technique we call the Polish Steadicam. It's the guy with the steadiest hands and a wide angle lens, who we push around on a little cart. We look like clowns on set, but the results are great.

That this test from DXO Mark, combined with the A7R II's well-documented overheating problem, proves to me that there's little reason to choose it over the D810 for hybrid shooting. It takes equal or better stills, has a much better lens library, offers more robust professional and third party support, is more reliable with long recordings, has a much better battery life, and gives you comparable DR with better colors. Oh, and it's $200 cheaper. Besides 4K and the EVF, I don't see a lot that points in the A7R II's favor unless you just can't cum without 4K.

With the FLAT profile, you get pretty much all that DR on the D810. Maybe you lose a stop, but you also have great colors to work with. Meanwhile, the A7R II has shut down due to overheating.

Have you seen the video out of the D810? Not to mention it doesn't melt into a puddle if you record for more than 10 minutes.

It has to be something to do with the fact that it works off the 1DC's JPEG engine, not the traditional video pipeline. I don't know enough to say how the two methods differ, but there's a clear quality difference going on. I'm curious why more manufacturers haven't experimented with this, beyond the ridiculous inefficiency of MJPEG.

For straight NDs, I like the Tiffens. Very affordable and good performers.

I think Dave Dugdale has one due to drop soon.

Completely agreed. Even 24mm is right on the edge. I think it's more that he recognizes that deep DoF is as important a tool as shallow DoF. This is where the other methods of highlighting your subject and creating dimensionality come in: camera movement, blocking, composition, and light. For example, these shots all have very deep DoF, but also create an immersive sense of depth and look 100% cinematic. https://vimeo.com/94628727 39.2, actually. Super 35 is a 1.4 crop. But that 35-40mm range is definitely my favorite. Wide enough to be useful, standard enough not to draw attention to itself. Nice, innit? That's what I like about using the BMPCC and the GH3. I can use the same lens with a 2x crop, 2.9x crop, and 6x crop (ex tele mode) and never lose HD. Just don't focus and recompose wide open. It has significant field distortion, which is both a problem and a big reason for its cinematic reputation. http://blog.mingthein.com/2012/07/19/zf28distagon/ Same! 35mm and 58mm have become my mainstay focal lengths on M4/3. Never would've guessed I'd enjoy shooting that long, but they just don't render as brutally telephoto as on S35 and 135. This is something we've never seen eye to eye on. While edge aberrations can sometimes be nice, especially on anamorphic, they undercut the reality I'm working so hard to make my audience buy. If I want to use the corner of my frame, that corner needs to be usable. Otherwise, the audience is going to miss out on important information. You can have a sharp, neutral frame all the way across and still look cinematic as hell. The proof is in almost every Hollywood film ever made. PL mount lenses are specifically designed to cover a larger area than S35 so that the edge problems are cropped out. Weird bokeh and cool artifacts may entrance us artist types, but the audience doesn't give a toss. It doesn't endear them the way it endears us. The key to cinematic lenses lies elsewhere, IMO. Among other things, low global contrast, good resolving power, and control over CA are far more important. The GH4 and Blackmagic cameras don't use the edge of SLR Magic lenses, but, used correctly, they still produce the most cinematic images I've seen out of either camera. https://vimeo.com/100916003 https://vimeo.com/110024810 Cruddy corners just don't give me as many options as a clean frame I can dirty up in post, with filters, or by cranking the lens wide open. I think a better explanation for that crop looking bad is that shots cropped in post-production generally weren't composed with that field of view/rendering in mind, so it ends up looking sloppy. To each his own.

In a pinch, I could shoot a short with nothing but a 28. I'd rather pair it with a 50, but it's doable if you frame a little wider.

Oh, I would never use a 28mm for a close-up. They're more for medium/wide shots composed in depth or Spielberg one-ers. Wide without being distracting.

That would be cool. As long as they keep the great audio connections, I'd be happy.

Yeah, I'd say it depends on your priorities. If you love to crop, use lenses without IS handheld, and regularly print 24x36 and larger, the A7RII is for you. If you prefer cleaner low-light images, take long video clips that can't be paused for overheating, and don't mind an external recorder, the A7S is becoming a pretty good value. Always decide what you want out of a new purchase first. Then, and only then, should you start perusing cameras to find one that fits your wish list.

Strongly considering it as well, both as a 10-bit recorder for the GH4 and a nicer screen for the BMPCC. I'm less concerned about that panel quality than with Blackmagic's cagey-ness about what exposure tools will be included. We still don't know if it'll have false color, waveform, or LUT support. I don't mind adding an external recorder as long as I have full-size HDMI on both ends. It's micro HDMI that's the problem.

It's already a really big device. Now you want to add a recorder and a big power supply to it? I feel like that's just going to shove it into an even smaller niche.

Once I sell off a couple things and pick up the GH4, I'm strongly considering it. If you shoot indoors fairly often--which I do--then the full-sized HDMI and the audio connections are worth the extra wall socket.

The YAGH has a regular size HDMI port, and there are some interesting converters on eBay that conform to the body of the GH4.

You could always use a V-lock battery to feed power into the YAGH.

I'd like to see a less extreme test. If this helps with moderate focal lengths, it could be a huge boon for vintage lens users.

The other half of it is popularity. The vast majority of shots take place with focal lengths between 28 and 50, so there are tons of different options. It's like how there's lots of slightly different four-door sedans, but less different kinds of trucks. It's this one. Nice lens, if a little overpriced and big. http://blog.mingthein.com/2012/07/19/zf28distagon/