mercer

Wasn't looking at it that way. Whenever I think of adaptable lenses, recent electronic AF lenses never come to mind. I'm always thinking about M42, like your Tak, or PL mount, or c-mount or old S16 Zeiss lenses. Love Super Takumar lenses by the way, I was planning on selling off my small and rather basic collection but then after using the 50mm 1.4, even wide open, on my FP, I remember why I bought them in the first place. If I remember correctly, didn't you used to have the Zeiss Flektogon 35mm 2.4? Or am I thinking of someone else?

That said... it's kinda moot because other than Pentax, nobody really makes DSLRs anymore... or better said... they don't release new models. For me, other than IBIS, the 1DXiii is close to my perfect camera. I guess the R3 would be the comparable mirrorless.

It's cool that you are figuring out your perfect kit, but after reading the reasons why, I am brought to the conclusion that mirrorless cameras, when you add lens design, offers little advantage over DSLRs for size. I understand that this may not affect you, but for a lot of folks, you can get a better balanced camera with a DSLR and a smaller lens. With mirrorless, it seems that the script is just flipped. Obviously, that doesn't pertain to everything. There are plenty of small prime lenses that work perfectly for these small, mirrorless cameras, but once you bring fast(ish) zooms into the equation, which are very attractive, the benefits of mirrorless become minimal... especially when you consider the cost for these zoom lenses. I often read that you can also adapt almost any lens to these mirrorless cameras, but it seems that a lot of folks that say that, usually only shoot with native lenses.

I haven't shot ProRes Raw, but with raw cDNG files you can correct WB in post via the Raw Tab on the Color page in Resolve. You should try to set your Kelvin Temperature as close in camera as possible or use the presets. And then once in Resolve you can change the temperature and tint on the raw tab. As long as you know what type of lighting equals what Kelvin temperature you should be able to get it close in camera, or change it in post pretty easily. In FCPX, there are a few options... you can change the temp/tint with the color wheels tool, you can use the Balance Color tool which is an automated process in FCPX, or you can follow some of Larry Jordan's suggestions... search for his channel on YouTube, he is pretty much the go to guy for FCPX questions and more than likely will have the answer for you. On a side note, which could be useful... with the GH7, I think you can have your WB set to auto and then customize one of your buttons to toggle on/off AWB Lock. Toggle off the lock for a couple seconds while the camera figures out the WB and then toggle on the AWB Lock. The S5iiX could do it and I found it to be pretty reliable with the ProRes files I was recording. That said, certain situations... like sunsets, AWB may not get the dramatic orange and pink tones perfectly and will adjust it more conservatively and you may have to tweak it to taste in post.

Speaking of camcorders... here's a video I found shot with an XA10 in "cinema" mode with a monochrome filter applied...

Especially in controlled areas that you can light a little and don't need a lot of dynamic range. The HD out of it is gorgeous. I've even seen a couple videos where people have been experimenting with its full hdmi and clean hdmi out to a ninja star to bypass the miniDV and get ProRes files... pretty cool idea. I miss camcorders, but I don't miss tapes.

That makes sense! Form and function working together creating a new visual style. You can grab shots from two different locations and match them in an edit. You can even shoot one side of a conversation if you only have one actor available and get the other angle another day. With shallow DOF, I can shoot inside a coffee house, on a crowded ferry and grab shots while I look like a tourist with a camera and nobody will come back and say that blurry counter is my coffee shop. So as much as I understand that it can be overused, there's also a very practical reason to use it for me. Just another tool.

Well, that much I knew. But there has been plenty of all-i codecs since and although they look better than their IPB counterparts, they still don't look quite as cool as mjpeg used to look... I don't know... maybe it's a nostalgic thing.

When I bought my first DSLR... the t2i... the exciting part was the ability to use shallow depth of field to help hide our lack of production and art design on DIY films. Those original Canon DSLRs lacked detail on wide angle, infinity focused shots but close ups with shallow depth of field looked great. Unfortunately, wide angle shots became very popular due to skateboarding videos and people's desire to go handheld, so people wanted sharper, more detailed images. With IBIS and AF in FF cameras, it makes sense why shallow DOF has become popular again. Like anything else, it's just another tool. I kinda miss tripod and slider shots if I'm being honest... I imagine they work great now with the great AF and motorized sliders that are available. That said, I was recently watching footage from my friend's old HV20 and was floored by how great it looked in that old Canon "cinema" mode. What it lacked in DR, it made up for in color and atmosphere... and no color grading needed.

Was the original firmware mjpeg and the high bitrate was added, or was the mjpeg hidden in the original FW and turned on via the hack? I had an old Panasonic point and shoot that had a CCD sensor and used the mjpeg codec and I just loved the image out of that thing.

There was also something nice about the use of the high bitrate mjpeg codec in those earlier Panasonic cameras... I think the GH1 had it, or it was added in the hack? I am not technical enough to say why, but there was something about the motion that just looked a little more cooler. It worked in the 1DC as well, I think.

B&H had a remarkable deal on Open Box GH6 starting last spring and it lasted until late this winter. I bought one last spring for $1299 and it was brand new. B&H does that some times... I guess they're clearing out inventory. Stupid me, I returned it. I was going to buy it again if it dropped to $1099. Over the holidays it went down to $1199 but I didn't bite. I really liked the CineLikeD and the monochrome profiles. VLOG was good, but I was trying to lean on the DR Boost which created some pretty harsh chroma noise in the shadows. At first, I hadn't noticed it until @BTM_Pixpointed it out to me and then I couldn't unsee it. I was so stoked about the DR Boost concept of the camera that I stupidly got annoyed with the cam as a whole. Now I am regretting it big time because although the GH7 is vastly better, I don't really want to pay the extra money for it. BTM also recommended the cheap Meike 25mm lens and it was a treat to use with that cam and I've always wanted to test out the Pan/Leica 15mm 1.7. If I can find a deal on a GH6, I may bite. Great camera otherwise! If not, I'll wait to see if the GH7 drops a little by the holidays.

To add, in this instance, the GH7, a smaller sensor camera, has a few major advantages over any larger sensor camera in its price range... internal ProRes Raw and ProRes HQ, 32bit float audio, a LogC curve, probably the best IBIS, and the best tilting/articulating LCD mechanism that I have ever used.

So... the GH7... yeah... a pretty cool camera...

Obviously, I must take the blame for this since it was my comment that started this off topic discussion. But my original comment wasn't meant to say that smaller sensors were inferior, just that larger sensors have some advantages. Sometimes those advantages can make comparisons slightly unfair. As I have already stated, my original comment was intended to give the GH7 some leeway in a video where it didn't fare so well. Everything I stated after that was probably an exercise in futility where I didn't speak eloquently enough or I was full of shit... Probably a little of both. But there's still a medium format look.

All part of the look. Can you prove it doesn't exist? Perhaps your style of photography doesn't lend to the look, so you haven't been able to adequately capture it? Valid point.

Then why spend tens of thousands of dollars, and hours, on a format that doesn't offer any advantage, if it doesn't exist? Anyway, the GH7 seems like a very capable camera. One thing I learned from that video, in the comments section, is that Panasonic changed their color science recently, is that true? It does make sense, when I used the GH6, it did seem to lean toward green a bit but then the S5iiX definitely had more of a magenta look to it and it seems that the magenta has carried over to the GH7. So the LogC profile could possibly work better with the GH6 since the Alexa is known to have a green bias straight out of camera.

I know you are but what am I? Hahaha. I should probably be offended but like me, you're just some guy on the internet. Actually... I feel kinda bad for you. Everything is so binary. You don't believe in a medium format or large format look, yet you own a MF camera. I can only assume you don't believe in movie magic or how a cinematic image can transport an audience into another world. You seem like the type that probably rooted for the government in E.T.

There is differing levels of shallow depth of field. You could stand in a wide open field at infinity focus with absolutely nothing in the foreground and on a larger sensor camera the image will look more vast than on a smaller sensor camera... even if you're able to match the field of view. If there isn't a difference then why would Yedlin shoot Knives Out with the Alexa 65? Why would Tarantino shoot the Hateful Eight in 70mm film? Why were the epic films from the 1960s shot in VistaVision when they all could have gotten the same look with a smaller sensor/film plane camera? You mention there not being a MF look, but one of the biggest statements made about medium format images is how 3D or lifelike it looks... like you can walk into the frame. As far as me using "the better phrase" ... why should I dumb down my comments to appease you? It seems like you are smart enough to know what I was saying. Believe it or not, I don't exist on this planet to be concerned about how you take my comments. Half the people on this forum repeat themselves and are annoying. And this is basically what I said originally until I was attacked with some pure nonsense claim. We could go back and forth about the difference between large and small sensors... I could say that the background is more compressed to your subject with smaller sensors than they are with larger sensors and you could use "science" as your argument and then I could say that if there wasn't a difference than why would manufacturers produce different sized sensors or more importantly, why would somebody pay $10,000 on a camera when they could have gotten the same image from a $2,000 camera and then you would probably say more resolution and then I'd remind everybody of the science and quote Yedlin about the facade of higher resolution... around and around we would go until the other person gets bored enough to quit... So whatever, I'm bored... you're the Jedi Master in all things photographic.

First off, I don't know why you're getting so angry? I'm just another dipshit on the internet. Who gives a fuck what I think? Secondly, I also wrote, "for lack of a better phrase" after I wrote "dumbing it down" and I'm sure you're well aware that you can shoot wide open in FF at infinity focus without having shallow depth of field. Honestly, I find it quite odd that as a medium format shooter that you're ignoring the spatial, 3 dimensional quality, a larger sensor offers. I made a statement on a forum and if you think it is such a "dumbshit" point... you could always ignore it.

The point was that the filmmaker in that LF vs. GH7 Arri LogC3 comparison test had to dumb down, for lack of a better phrase, his LF to get the two cameras close to matching. I mean, Jesus Christ, he had to set the shutter angle to 45 degrees on the GH7. For a color difference/matching test it seems like it wouldn't matter and my point was that even the slightest of differences in the frame could leave a perception that benefits the LF in that test, when in fact it was just a byproduct of the inherent differences in sensor size and needing to use two different lenses, with two different lens designs, to match the framing. The reason I even brought it up was because it was pretty obvious the colors didn't match too well until he tweaked them in post. One of the things I hate the most about new camera releases are the inevitable YouTube videos about how this new $2000 camera is better than the Alexa. This test clearly shows it isn't true.

Holy Shit... it has an advantage for that test! What the fuck does the C70 have to do with it? And I never said anything about shallow depth of field as being an advantage for full frame.

I didn't say it was moot, I merely said that the LF had an advantage. If anything, I was giving the GH7 some leeway in those tests. I mean, he had to stop down the 40mm lens on the LF to 5.6 and set the shutter angle to 45 degrees on the GH7 to get the shots to match. Obviously, he didn't want to pollute the test by putting an ND on the LF when the GH7 didn't need one. I agree, I am not knocking m4/3 or any shitty camera... I still shoot ML Raw on a 5D3. I'm planning on shooting a short film this summer on a 1" Canon camcorder. I had a GH6 last year and may buy another one, or a GH7 eventually. It depends on what you're going for and what impact you want your shot to have based on the story you're trying to tell. Everyone has different styles. Years ago when camcorders were used for indie films, we used to intentionally zoom in and frame something in the foreground to look blurry. All that said, I think there is more to larger sensors than shallow depth of field, there's separation between the foreground and background which invokes more of three dimensional element to the image. With smaller sensors everything is more compressed.

Now that you mention it, someone should tell Yedlin about Yedlin's test... if he had known about it, he could have shot Knives Out on a m4/3 camera instead of the Alexa 65...

The ifs only have a grammatical function if all else is equal, which they are not, so some aspect of the image, no matter how small will be different. I understand the optics element of your point. This argument has been around forever. What I am saying is the problem with your argument is that it requires all elements to be equal to be valid but they seldom are... if ever. Sure you can create a similar image with a crop sensor camera, but something in the image will be different. Or you'll have to make a compromise with the larger sensor camera to get them close to matching. Which you wouldn't do if you were using the camera/lens in a practical way. But even if you look at Yedlin's example, the subject's face is slightly thinner in the Imax and slightly fuller in the Alexa. Obviously, Yedlin went to great lengths to prove his point... that's the point of his article. And I am not saying you can't get it close, I'm saying that something will be different. As I said in my previous reply... use a fast 12mm lens on mft and then a fast 24mm lens on FF and tell me that they have the same separation. With that said... I thought it was clear, but my apologies. My point is that even if you use the same lens, on the same camera, and take a single step forward or backwards, you can hit a sweet spot of the lens and have more pop or separation. In the Yedlin article, it is clear that he stopped down the lenses to create less shallow depth of field. In fact, in one of the images, the bookshelf is almost in focus with the subject... so again not the same. In my original "nonsense" post, I was suggesting it was difficult to make these comparison videos because the LF would always have an advantage. Not only does it have a bigger and better sensor, better color science, it has a lens advantage as well... which is obvious since he had to stop down to f/4 or 5.6 so he could get a match with the lens on the GH7. That guy did a good job making them pretty close, but the GH7 looks more compressed and her face is slightly less angular. Is it enough to affect his test... not at all. You are correct though, I mistakenly referred to the 21mm lens as a wide angle on M43. I'm a fan of them as well. I haven't used the Super Speeds, but I had a small set of the Zeiss Rollei lenses which were supposedly modeled after the Standard Speeds from the late 60s. The 3D pop from Zeiss lenses is something else. Some say it's micro contrast and others say it is more obvious with larger formats... all I know is that it looks amazing when you pull that focus and hit it. Not moving any goal posts and probably not relevant, I was just curious if you were a believer/practitioner in his resolution theories.