mercer

Weirdly, I find the first video utterly remarkable. And in the third video, I am struggling to find the blown highlights... well maybe a few inconsequential highlights are blown, but shooting in mid to late afternoon sun in the middle of the woods is not an easy task, so the occasional blown highlight to see the subject's face is a fair trade off if you ask me. As far as crushed blacks... I just see some clean blacks, I wouldn't call them crushed. Film recognizes black. The idea that blacks need to be lifted is really for a pseudo faded film look that became popular with digital video to take away the inherent video look a lot of consumer cameras deliver. But I also like that faded film look as well. The real star in these videos, well the first and third, is the color separation and tonality and the highlight rolloff... in my opinion.

Jon, I am not seeing any aliasing in the first video, where did you notice it? Yes, it definitely looks softer than Panasonic footage with a native Panny lens, but I wouldn't say it looks like 540p. Or maybe I find 540p footage looks better than GH5 footage... LOL. Did you try watching the video directly from Vimeo? Because I did notice that the filmmaker only has two viewing options... 360p and 1080p, so it's possible that due to your internet connection, Vimeo is automatically choosing the 360p version. Also ML Raw has ZERO in camera sharpening. In the description, the filmmaker states that he added sharpen at default in FCPX which I believe is 2.5, which really isn't much. But I think we've also established that you prefer ultra sharp footage, so the soft, I prefer organic, look just may not be your cup of tea. In the second video, I believe the filmmaker did add some gorilla grain, which can add to the perception of sharpness. I don't know if I would say a lot of sharpening or excessive film grain, but that could be taste, so I will yield to your preferences. Honestly, I probably shouldn't have included that video anyway, because he used the GH4 for the slow motion footage, so it wasn't a true representation of 5D3 with ML Raw.

This guy uprezzed the 60p 1080p footage to match the 24p 4K footage in this video... it looks pretty good to me...

That's true about the focal reducer. They'll probably do a FF as you said and then a super 35mm crop like they did with D750... that way they have a better chance to pull professionals toward their mirrorless line. Honestly, I'm unsure what I want to do for a second cam. I was messing around with D5500 files and GX85 files today and neither impressed me compared to the 5D3 stuff I've been shooting. It's tough going back. Or I'm used to Canon color. I don't know. Maybe I'll just get a point & shoot. Of course, I can't deny the appeal of the GH5, but I'm also not excited by it either. The footage looks pretty good, but I like the footage I've seen from the X-T20 and the 5D4 and the 1DC better, but none of them have the features of the GH5. The answer is probably simple and I am content with what I have, but it would be nice to have a grab and go camera... well I've never tested an LX100... LOL.

@Cinegain I agree with a lot of your post. A mirrorless D5500, even in the DSLR form factor would be what I would ask for... I would just keep the same mount... Nikon has too rich of a lens history to start a new collection. It didn't work with the J1 or V1 or whatever that was, so why invest in one now when they already have some of the best lenses ever made available in the F mount. And personally, for me, after using so many different cameras over the past couple of years, I am just tired of big, clunky adapters. I'd rather have a native mount. Apparently Canon is planning the same thing with their rumored FF mirrorless and if the rumors are true, it will be an EF mount camera.

If you get a chance that would be great, if not, no big deal... I'll probably be interested in 3 other cameras by this time next week for a second body.

With that being said, there is something for convenience and no budget filmmaking and for the money the GH5 is the best deal around. And with every passing month I am seeing more and more quality work done with them. It may be just me, but I have noticed the 1080p looks better to than the 4K with highlights. But since I haven't used one, it's probably not fair for me to say for certain, just some general observations from the videos I have seen.

Wow, that would be awesome. Any or all of the above... of course we don't have too many windmills in the states, so that could be interesting. I'm in the process of selling off a lot of lenses, cameras and crap I've accumulated over the years. I assume it will take a couple months but I will probably use some of the money to buy a second cam. As of now my preliminary options are either an upgrade to a D7500, try my hand with Fuji and the X-T20 or resign to the fact that for run and gun, even casual shooting, the GH5 is the best deal around as far as bang for buck goes. For any "serious" shooting I'll continue with my 5D3 but for casual, off the cuff, grab and go footage, I'd like a second camera. I'd love to stay with Nikon but if the price gap closes around the holidays, the GH5 may just be the smart buy. But I'm really, really hoping the D500 4K beats the GX80 in your test.

@BTM_Pix I know this post is more about still photography than video, but don't you have a D500? And if so, can you shed some light on the 4K from the D500... particularly shot with the Flat Profile. There really aren't a lot of samples out there, but I am dying to try it.

@maxotics well it makes you wonder why none of the major camera manufacturers have implemented Raw video into one of their cameras. We already know it's possible, so for Nikon that does have that rich heritage in photography, if they were to introduce, even 720p, Raw into one of their consumer/enthusiast cameras, I would be one of their first customers. I had the NX500 and now have a D5500 and although the NX500 wins with resolution, the D5500 I still own. As much as I wish Nikon would introduce more features and make the video process easier, every time I get those humble files into FCPX, I am blown away by the latitude of its Flat Profile. I don't know the technical intricacies of the curve, but I know I can easily push the image to a modern or vintage look with cold or warm colors. The image will break much quicker than other footage, with better bitrates but it's amazing what a simple curve adjustment can do with a Nikon. If a beginner came to me and asked me to recommend a camera for video, without a doubt I would recommend the D5500, or D7500 if they want 4K. The NX1/500 would be at the bottom of the list. But this is just my opinion and in no way am I even suggesting that the NX1 or NX500 are bad cameras... they're just not a Nikon.

Well that's the catch, right? For a thousand less than the GH5, one can buy a used BMPCC or BMCC and get an instant cinematic look, but you don't get the conveniences of the 5-axis, better battery life, better screen... well I guess just those 3 things really because nothing else is better. If you need a workhouse camera for videography, the GH5 is a great camera, there's no doubt about it, but if you want a cinematic image, then get a BM camera or a Canon with ML Raw. Obviously, great work can be filmed with any camera... it's been said a million times. I love my D5500 for its low cost, clean 1080p image at 24p and 60p, but if I am working on a project where I am looking for a purely cinematic image, I'll pick up the 5D3 every time.

Hey Marty, yeah it is a great video... the filmmaker did an excellent job with the tool he had. I would never trade my 5D3 for an 80D or a D5500, but I do get excited to see what can be done with sub-1000 dollar cameras... especially the ones that get ignored by a lot of filmmakers. I've never used a camera that has DPAF, so I am intrigued by the creative opportunities the 80D affords. And since I have recently realized that I could care less about 4K right now, my next camera purchase will be one of convenience and near Hollywood level focus pulling is definitely a convenience that will allow me to worry about framing, composition and performances. As I said, I am definitely tempted to pick one up. But then on the other hand, I already have a more serious camera and the D5500 for casual shooting, so it may be unnecessary. But if DPAF is as good as it seems, a test of it with the 80D could help me decide my next big purchase next year, when I need to decide between the GH5, 5D4 and 1DC. But I am at least a year away from that purchase, so no rush really. Hope all is well with you and you're having a great summer. Happy shooting!

That is some beautiful work... but can you imagine the logistics? Any word on what cameras he used?

Exactly, I've been wondering why people do that to DSLRs as well, let alone with an iPhone. We are granted such freedom with the digital revolution, why treat the work like Hollywood filmmakers do?

I wouldn't say hands down. ML Raw with a 5D3 is pretty simple and offers all of the same filmmaking tools that the GH5 offers and more. I have yet to have one single issue while shooting. And the only problem involves a slightly longer post, but that is even lessened now with MLVFS and the GH5 footage still needs to be converted to an intermediate codec anyway, so it's pretty much the same amount of time. Storage and media are the only obstacles but hardly an issue if you're trying to get the most cinematic image.

So I think that it is smart to design projects that have the best chances of being marketed to not only a mass audience, but also to a DIY filmmakers audience. But there is also this misconception that if you make a project you are passionate about, then it will only help you and that is true, to a point, but if you're passionate about 19th century ceramics, it will definitely be harder to be sustainable even if the movie is better than a found footage movie, or a slasher film, or an action film, or a crime film. At our level, I believe, a genre film will give you better odds at success. Also, I think "good" is such a subjective word, with so many variables, that it may be important to have a voice than make a "good" movie. This is probably the best topic posted in weeks and one I have been exploring as well. I would assume a multi-thronged attack, including festivals, is the smartest play to make a living as a narrative filmmaker. And even then, on micro budget scales, you will probably need to supplement your income with other means.

I agree... The Break In, which is the best case scenario, of the Amazon Prime path, was shot on an iPhone. Well, we discussed this already, found footage movies are popular, so it is an easier audience to grab for and I believe the iPhone angle was paramount in that film's "success." If the average audience member even knew it was shot on an iPhone (doubtful) it may have excited them. They have a great idea for a movie, they have an iPhone. But also, we are part of a specific niche involving no budget, DIY filmmaking and that brings its own audience to the table as well. So fast and cheap could help with the marketing of self-distributed material. But in the end, the cream will rise to the top, so making a good movie is as important.

I think you are right and wrong, it isn't a great deal or very encouraging if you look at it as though you need 44,000 people to watch your film, but when you look at the 80 million worldwide subscribers to Amazon Prime and think about it in terms of viewable hours instead of fully watched films, you will see that you get credit even if the viewer only watches one minute of your film. Of course, yeah it is hardly sustainable if you're trying to raise a family off it from day one. But I do feel you have the possibility of making more money than a rental fee variant... because quite frankly... nobody knows who Jonesy Jones is, nobody knows the actors in your film, so without press and reviews... who will pay to watch your film? The key to this, in my opinion... is cheap and fast. To have any sustainability, you need fans and without a catalogue of works, how do you build a fan base? So, make 3 or 4 movies over the next year and create a social media marketing strategy, submit to festivals, even small ones will give you the laurels to put on your poster, also there are a bunch of review sites that get a lot of traffic that you can submit for a review... some require a fee, but also guarantee a watch and review... but they do not guarantee a good review, the quality of work still matters. I would love to hear @Zak Forsman 's thoughts on this because he has sold a movie and has titles on major VOD sites.

I still think the Amazon Prime deal is pretty good. Especially once you realize that there are over 80 million Prime subscribers worldwide and you are getting money even if the viewer only watches 5 minutes of your movie. And since it's listed for free, most viewers will give it 10 or 15 minutes. How many places can your movie be listed right next to a Hollywood movie?

If we could get a GH5 for his 7-800 dollar budget, I'd buy 2.

Also I will add, after using Canon and Panasonic native lenses, you will be let down by the build quality of the Panasonic zooms. The 12-35mm version i is a relatively small lens and it produces a fine image, but is built like a cheap plastic piece of crap and a very expensive one at that; it's nowhere near the same build as your Canon 24-70mm. If you're looking for AF just to grab an initial focus, the 20mm 1.7 will work and is probably a fun little lens on the GH5. If you're looking for them for any type of manual focus... just use your Veydra. You probably have one of the cheapest cinema camera set ups there are. Just use your 1DX2 for AF, you'll be happier on those days you need it.

Interesting read, I do hope you do more tests comparing the two cameras, especially the 4K 60p of both cameras with similar framing and motion. I would think no matter what you do with lenses, the Canon will consistently better GH5 with AF. And if AF is your biggest concern, you'd probably be better off with the Canon and returning the GH5. If you want more video oriented options with a LOG profile, then the GH5 will give you that. Obviously Canon will give you better colors out the gate where you'll have to work a little more for them with the GH5. My biggest question is motion cadence. The mjpeg codec gets a bad rap, but I really like the motion cadence from its large, cumbersome files. If it were one or the other... tough call. But since it seems like you're keeping both... then just sit back and enjoy the best of both worlds.

Sorry, I just reread my own post and I'm unsure I was helpful at all. But apparently I do like to talk about cheap camera options. And with that I should add... since you do have a Canon background, you would probably find the 80D as a great option as well. Better 1080p than your t3i with its high bitrate all-i, great lens adaptability, the best AF around with Tracking and Touch AF that could rival a Hollywood focus puller. I know I probably shouldn't have said the C word around here, but I have recently found this video that was shot with the 80D and think it looks great and is just more proof that any camera, in the right hands, is probably good enough nowadays...

I'm not much of a pixel peeper myself. I went through all of the 4K cameras, I can afford, and found I actually like 1080p better. It really just comes down to features that are important to you. If IBIS is on the top of your list, then the e-m5 Mark ii is probably your best choice at that price point. And yeah, with the grip, that's a really good price. But I must say, although the image is nice, there isn't anything particularly special about it either... it's better than a lot of choices because it feels more organic than digital, but it's also a little vanilla. But in a good way. With my brief time with it, I was left feeling unsure about the overall image quality. I guess it wasn't an inspiring image and it didn't wow me like other cameras do. But that's really subjective because I have seen some great footage shot by John Brawley with one. The RX10ii is a lot of fun and there is some really good footage out there to prove it. If you don't need the 4K, sLog2 and cine profiles, or 120fps, you could save some coin and get the original RX10. It has the same lens, same build quality with mic in and headphone input. As I said, in the end I became spoiled by Full Frame Raw, so it is hard for me to get excited about other cameras... or to keep my excitement, which is why I keep bringing up the D5500. It's hard to recommend it because with video, it really is an utterly, stupid implementation by Nikon. But it also is a really nice video file in the Super 35mm format. The colors are brilliant with great dynamic range. And it will also natively mount some of the best manual lenses of all time... with some limitations and yet again... some annoyances as well. In the end it feels more cinematic than a lot of the other choices at its price point. Also, another factor is lens choice. Almost any lens ever made can be adapted to the Olympus, so that's a big plus as well. At this low budget, there isn't a perfect camera, trust me... I have tested 17 cameras over the past two years and weirdly enough, my two favorites are my most expensive purchase... and my least expensive purchase. I know you weren't asking this, but if I had your budget, I would probably get two cameras... the original RX10 (unless I could find a steal on the RX10ii to get 4K and the extra pictures profiles) and a D5500. With those two cameras, anything could be filmed. If I were choosing one, I'd obviously go with the D5500/D5600, or if IBIS was my most major concern, the Olympus can't be beat. And finally, if I wanted an all in one camera and lens, I'd choose the FZ2500 over the RX10 i and ii.

I just reread your post and I wanted to add that I have the D5500 and have considered selling it once a month for the past 3 or 4 months, but then I use it, or look at some old footage and I realize why I keep on keeping it. The Nikon Flat Profile is so nice with just enough latitude to handle some grading. The image is clean, with good dynamic range. However, it does not have a headphone input but the D7200 does and basically has the same IQ as the D5500 with a couple extra bells and whistles. I've also had 2 FZ2500s and the all-I 1080p out of that camera is really nice. Both times I've returned it, because I didn't think I wanted it or needed it and both times I have regretted it. It's seriously a little cinema camera with a built in lens. It has decent IS, a mic and headphone input, 4K and 1080p, high frame rates that can be recorded/exported at 24p. It has a slow/quick function that with the push of a button can go from regular speed to slow motion, or regular speed to fast motion, while recording for as long as you press the button. You can set the shutter speed to the shutter angle of 180 degrees so if you want to change to 60p or 72p or 96p, etc... it will always be in the proper shutter speed for cinematic motion blur, it has 3 strengths of built in, body selectable NDs, decent AF Tracking... not great but not bad. The small sensor and lens can be kinda annoying for shallow depth shots, but they are possible. For a travel camera or run and gun cinema camera, it is pretty cool. Dang, now I want another one... LOL. Thw Olympus I bought out of boredom one day because the price was so low. I was very impressed with the IBIS... it really is that good. The 1080p was decent, it just felt kind of redundant with my D5500 and 5D3, so I sold it. But it's small and well built with a good screen and as mentioned before, amazing IBIS. If you're into color grading, the RX10ii is a nice choice. sLog2, high frame rates, good audio, well built, decent image stabilization. I'm not a great colorist and in the end I decided against it. The GX85 is a fun little camera but it doesn't have a mic input, let alone a headphone input, so it may not be of interest to you. But the IBIS is good with manual lenses and the recent CineLikeD hack is really nice as well. And it's cheap. Anyway, I hope this helps and good luck in finding a camera that fits your needs.