kidzrevil

I haven't noticed much of any noise and you don't have to raise the shadows just the midtones and highlights. Maybe its the updated sensor but even 1600 has a fine grain to it. 1 stop underexposure at iso 200 for example is like iso 400 if im not mistaken. 400 iso equivalence is not demanding on the newer panasonic sensors. Im currently testing 1/3+ overexposure for those not comfortable with underexposing the image

Panasonic g80 natural picture profile test. I must say since I've been back shooting with Panasonic cameras there are a lot to appreciate about them. Very reliable across the board and now the noise issue that plagued the GH4 has been fixed ! The motion cadence can be improved but it is not noticeable and its probably a LONG GOP thing. Even though im big on ETTR or slightly over exposing I quickly noticed why people complain about ugly color on the camera. The top of the Panasonic gamma curves loses saturation and color accuracy FAST ! It's best to underexpose using the in camera metering by -1 to -2/3 of a stop. This puts the majority of the image into the midtone area (which Panasonic sensors,picture profiles and h.264 compression seems to favor). Downscaling to 1080 from 4k and I can't tell you I've even noticed much grain in the image and when I do see it it has a nice pattern to it. Still working on better settings for the cam but so far so good

Exactly ! There are so many different factors to what determines the output of a cameras inage that you have to test yourself ! There are no magic bullet settings ?

I figured out a lot about the panasonic color science this week. I started shooting at various exposures after reading the recommended exposure for cinelike d was -1/2 (panasonic white papers). I shot a bunch of exposures and noticed once you go +2/3 and beyond there is an actual shift in color. The camera responds best at -1 to -2/3 a stop underexposed. A 0 exposure is the limit before you get the weird panasonic color shifts due to how their gamma curve is setup. There is no real "knee" in their gamma response curves so areas of intense exposure loses saturation and shifts in color. I have been shooting with natural with -2 saturation with exceptional results. Im going to try -3 next and see how it looks in summary -1 to -2/3 underexposed gives the best results with the lowest ISO's possible. 800 iso is my max https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B-bXJQJcWYkVSnZ0VWFvMGU2ZzA

Thats up to your personal taste. If you like the image then its a good image i've obverseved when turning down contrast lower than saturation it creates a weird appearance in midtone contrast/saturated. It makes skintones look weird and id advise against it

I leave mine in 0-255 because unless the 16-255 forces the encoder not to assign bits below 16 it is a useless setting. My guess was it was suggested to use 16-255 for the same reasons technicolor cinestyle uses that range (to avoid assigning bits to the worse part of the codec). That doesn't seem to be the case here

Yup what @hyalinejim raise the iso and wave the camera around I usually start that test at 800 iso. When the ghosting appears mark the iso down then start testing other picture profiles and see which one shows it more

@Cinegain i am loving the look of these ? It looks like it covers the full width of the sensor and for some lenses they go a lil more towards the edges hence the vignetting. Either way there is a strong look to these lenses I can see me rocking out with these. Thanks for the link if you have some more please post ! These seem like a great alternative to lumix lenses and speedbooster setups

Sensor size is an aesthetic thing point blank period. If you've followed me on these forums you would know I've shot with everything from full frame to super 16mm. I prefer the rendering of super 16mm sensors at wide angles. Super 35mm is the max i'll go but lately aps-h has been catching my eye. Either way if the primary use was for documentary then imo that is even MORE critical than a fashion editorial. I can retake a shot in an editorial but I certainly can't redo a moment in time for a documentary. So that is no excuse for the performance of the sensor when we have a conparable super 16mm sensor from panasonic and sony with the rx line with no ghosting and better noise performance even with a smaller pixel density @mat33

that look is incredible @Mattias Burling it almost looks diffused, just the right amount of sharpness !! I like the distortion at the corners it reminds me of how full frame lenses render on full frame cameras. I gotta look more into these dude this is an incredible find

@tugela copy

lol of course. But when the camera is out over a year + and no one finds the flaws then what does one do in that situation ? Wait another year or two ? I guess because I AM a professional is the reason I was so quickly able to identify and expose the flaw. Thanks for the pro tip though :-)

@Mattias Burling dude those zeiss and kern paillard lenses are beautiful ! I am floored

where can I find the link to get more info on c mount lenses that work on m43 ? I seen a switar with swirly bokeh before and was blown away @mercer

@mercer that looks INCREDIBLE ! Which c mount lenses do you reccommend ? i know nothing about those type of lenses

Yeah the g85. I think they share a sensor so it should look the same. Much improved since the gh4

i've been shocked at the quality. The sensor performs way better than gh4

@Mattias Burling absolutely. i got good footage from the xc10 because of me the shooter...not so much cause of the hardware. Where I went wrong was when I assesed the pro's and con's from an online review instead of testing it on my own so when I got it in my hands I figured out the hard way it has a mine field of problems. I couldn't live with the xc10's flaws so it went straight to ebay. I am now using a g80 and I am fully satisfied with it. Good tip though i'll definitely keep that in consideration for my next purchase

my unit was showing image artifacts at its native 500 iso @hyalinejim & I pointed that out in multiple tests as we exchanged footage. The 1" sensor of the RX10ii did no such thing at any ISO. I think we are misrepresenting sensor size here because sensor performance has come a long way. A full frame canon 5d mark iii and its huge sensor isn't even touching the quality of an rx10ii 1" sensor in video. Out of experience and sheer common sense I have never attempted to push a small sensor camera past 800 iso so I hope im not giving the impression that im complaining about a hardware flaw while im shooting at 3200+. No. This was happening at very low iso's. The attached video is shot on an RX10ii btw @Arikhan

@Mattias Burling funny cause I bought the camera after your stunning review and recommendation. I really liked the footage you shot at the rally with it as well as some clips I seen from other reviews. The sensor size of the camera is irrelevant, the a7sii & g80 are more than enough for a fashion editorial & I've shot plenty. The xc10 is versatile enough to get the job done but the ghosting wasn't mentioned at all and that was a critical flaw of the camera. A large sensor cinema camera is too bulky and obtrusive to do any of the type of shooting im doing and is highly overrated when my delivery is to web & social media where the average monitor displays a maximum of 1920x1080. So again it has little to do with the sensor size, make & model and everything to do with the lack of hardcore testing of the camera. the minute I picked it up and tested it and revealed the ghosts a ton of people started noticing it in their units. what other people or the "pro's" shoot with is of no concern to me. Just because no one is using small sensor camcorder types to shoot their videos doesn't mean I can't pick one up and create a new aesthetic from it. Using what no one else is using is another way you create your own aesthetic. Having your own "look" is emphasized when you use the tools no one else is using. When you follow the pack you get left behind period. so in short there is no camera "meant" for the job. There are people shooting productions on the iPhone 6 and 7. So many people in fact that filmconvert launched a profile for it. You can use any camera if you know the basics of composition and lighting (reference Kendy Ty's work with a canon t3i) but no amount of knowledge as a DP can protect you from a hardware flaw such as the in camera NR. Here is my last fashion editorial shot with the xc10

damn that is a hard decision ! I would say go with the GH5 you can get the same aps-h crop with a speedbooster xl

@hyalinejim thank you ! You get EXACTLY what I mean ! I completely understand the requirements of a hobbyist or someone who just shoots casually is a lot less stringent however I do this to keep the lights on. You have to deliver an impeccable image to remain competitive as a freelancer so I am picky with the tools I depend on for my trade

i like the nikon speedbooster xl although I wish I got the canon version since it registers with the in body stabilization ! I prefer my nikon manual lenses only because they are not focus by wire and have a short focus throw which is ideal for run and gun and photojournalism imo. Anyway the nikkors look more like "film" than the native lenses and you don't need to use filtration to get the film look this is shot with a lumix 20mm f1.7 ii which is very fast and sharp. I use it for my street photography and quick shoots that dont require a ton of lenses. Works well but still getting used to the af system. I recommend using the native lenses with light grade lens diffusion filters like I used here because they can look too sharp and digital

yeah I am very selective with what shots I pick once I figure out the ceiling of what a camera is capable of. In the case of the xc10 if I can't get the shot at 500-800 the footage goes in the garbage. In daylight I used to overexpose clog by 1-1 3/4 of a stop to get the best signal to noise ratio and supress ghosts

@mercer I've shot good footage with plenty cameras some better than others. I can pick up a t3i tommorrow and shoot good footage but that is not the point. People are on these forums deciding what their next purchase will be so it is critical that the information passed onto them is accurate. Not everyone has the bank to test out a camera, these are big investments ! I wish when I looked at the reviews on the xc10 the reviewer would highlight the fact that there were extreme ghosting in the footage. I had to find that out the hard way and wouldn't you know when I brought up the issue plenty people had it. If I got accurate information the first time I would be able to make a more informed decision and that's the point im making. If he has shot great footage with the camera I wan't to see it and evaluate if this is a quality control thing or a flaw in the design of the hardware period. Some of us on these forums speak as if we are experts on said camera but have no footage to show from our field work with it and that is very telling