John Matthews

First, let's get the naming right! It's GX80... I mean GX85... I mean GX7 mark ii. If value or bang for the buck is what you're after, this is it. The other cameras you mention probably all have significantly better EVFs... probably due to form-factor. The IBIS in the camera is stellar. The 4k crop will be less than the GX8 and GH4. At the end of the day (Brit expression), it's most about which feels best in your hand and how important portability is for you. For me, it was THE reason for me to consider MFT. The other cameras are all bigger than the GX80.

When I first got a RX100 a few years back, someone recommended using 5dtoRGB. Does anyone use this software? It's supposed to retrieve a maximum amount of information out a 8-bit file. I tried it for fun on a GX80 file, but I really couldn't see much difference.

I'm really happy with the GX80 that I purchased over a month and a half ago. The community for this camera and the activity around have been great on EOSHD. Like all systems and cameras, they're going to have faults, but this one is great for photography and video. I'm sure the GH5 will continue the tradition.

Thanks for the response @hmcindie. Cameralabs does pretty good work and I think Gordon would have gone through the right process for his shots. He could have made a mistake though... He talks about the balls in his article and the difference in size and their shape (the speculars were not round to begin with)... he doesn't give a reason though. Maybe, I'll just ask him. But are you saying it's impossible to have such a difference at F2 from one lens to another regarding bokeh balls? Is F2 always F2 regardless the lens or how wide of an aperture it starts?

Not my point... read my comments before. I was simply stating that the flange on the G-master lenses was large compared to some of the DSLR offerings. I'm hoping that this Hasselblad would not fall subject to the same problem...

So, I watched part of their livestream and they're definitely promoting these cameras for their small size. The 2 lenses they're putting out there are a 45mm F3.5 (notice they don't show the hood on the marketing material) and a 90mm F4.5. I wouldn't regard these lenses as "fast." I wouldn't consider them really pancake either. I'm beginning to wonder if, indeed, they will have the same issue as the G-masters. That said, I'm sure they'll be amazing still cameras... I doubt it for video... not unless Sony gave them a whole bunch of tech.

I'll let you judge for yourself: http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Panasonic_Leica_DG_Summilux_12mm_f1-4_H-X012/ Then, come back and tell me what you think as to the reason for why this is. I said front element, but I'm not 100% certain.

Please explain this then: why are the bokeh balls almost double the size at F2?

Is it possible that Sony's e-mount was originally made for APS-C, but then they realised that they could put a FF in it? Those G-master lenses are the state-of-the-art from Sony- the absolute best work they have in 2016, yet they still have that huge flange on them. Why isn't Sony producing wide, fast lenses for the mount, ones that don't have a massive flange? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think they can. Also, don't they need a bigger mount for the IBIS? That sensor needs to move around in there. The rebuttal shows images of an older Fuji camera and a big lens. Let's try putting the Fuji's 16mm f1.4 on a modern Fuji body and see how it looks... just saying. Back to Hasselblad, I just thought they people should know the "pocketable" medium format camera isn't right around the corner- that's my point.

There was a rebuttal to that article. It's here: http://petapixel.com/2016/04/05/defense-sonys-pro-mirrorless-cameras/ In it, even mirrorless owners agree that mirrorless is not about size. I agree that people love the features about the A7 series (when they work). But how many of them bought these cameras thinking they would be lighter and smaller? I'm thinking there were many.

Yes, small camera, but big or slow lenses. Am I wrong? You still need to cover that sensor. People often say mirrorless is about size, but I think it's mainly about features (EVF, adaptors, etc.). Sensor size is about size. For video, I doubt this camera from Hasselbald will provide what you need (readout and feature set) for your next IMAX feature... then again, maybe it's the step in the right direction people have been waiting for and it's going to sell like crazy.

Thank you for your post and reading 22 pages worth! The GX80 crop is 2.22. Your 14mm will become a 31mm in 4k. In 1080p, it'll a be 28mm.

I just hope it doesn't run into this type of situation. Three FF cameras to scale: notice the mirrorless one has an enormous flange. I think it's just physics. Petapixel had a whole article on this here: http://petapixel.com/2016/04/04/sonys-full-frame-pro-mirrorless-fatal-mistake/

The body looks nice, but don't people think it's a bit silly to carry a bunch of lenses, each with a huge medium format flange? I don't think they're getting around the physics. Same thing happened to the Sony A7 series cameras. Upon adding a G-master lens, it's the same size as its DSLR counterpart... the only difference is that the DSLR user will only have ONE integrated flange on the body to carry around.

Ok. I get it. Just to give some of my experience with it... I've noticed that the blue channel seems rather noisy in the shadows (nothing like my old RX100 though). Red channel seems to evoke a sort of blurring/glowing effect. Green, as always, is a champion. If someone could tell me how to get the best results from these channels, it'd be very helpful. I was planning on doing some tests myself this week. I think one of the most difficult things to do with 8-bit signals is to get accurate memory colors (like skin) in shadowy areas. So far, I've been using the standard profile with reasonable results.

That was a mistake, right? Haven't tried this, but I'm certain you'd get inconsistent results doing so.

I think that's about right. 2.22 times crop from 35mm.

Thank you for responding. I'm genuinely interested in the reason for why that is because the difference seemed huge (almost double in size) between the Panasonic f1.4 and the Olympus F2! I know you can change the shape of the bokeh by placing a dark piece of paper with it cut in the shape you want in front of the lens, but I didn't know the front element size determines the size of the bokeh ball... interesting.

OMG this discussion seems pointless. FF vs. MF vs. phone vs. etc. That's not what this post was about. Let's move on... next. Guess what... "You can't convince someone against their will." Someone's grandmother once said that.

I really don't see the big deal in syncing... During the shoot, I would spend about the same amount of time setting up an external recorder versus a wired or wireless option. Throw the files on the computer. Ok... this takes the most time. Depending on the file size, it could take as long at 1 minute for a big 24-bit audio file. Syncing in FCPX: Select both files. Right-click and select: "Synchronize clips"... 15 seconds later... voilà... works like magic. In the timeline: Expand audio. Select audio from camera and press "v" to disable audio. Adjust your levels and you're done. 10 seconds. So, what we're really talking about is 2 minutes (maximum) of extra time, but you get a fantastic audio file and it costs much less. If your time is worth that much, I'll argue that you wouldn't have asked the question on this forum. If fact, the only "hard" part of this whole thing is keeping track of which audio file goes with which video file. The only real negative that I can think of to this method is during the recording. You can't adjust and monitor an external recorder (placed next to your subject on-set) if the sound becomes too loud... audio ruined. So care needs to taken when setting the levels.

Ha! Thank you for enlightening me about that Ford... looks really cool. I'm a little confused though about the pricing on it. $400,000 for a Ford designed by Ferrari? A Ferrari (new) is in the $250,000 price range. Why would I want that? I think Ford might have got this the wrong way around... this is ONLY for the Ford brand... not to make money. One of those, "Hey. look what we can do" type moments. Going back to the lens, we don't know if they're in limited quantities, but I bet they are. True Leicas are priced WAY higher than this lens. Take off the Panasonic name, make it in Germany in a Leica factory and you've just multiplied the price of this lens by 5-10 times. Now, is it overpriced? Again, if you like the look, there's no price for that... period. Not saying this lens has a great look, but telling stories is about art, not science. PS: Please don't ruin this thread by talking about lens equivalencies regarding full-frame... (directed at everyone, not you)

I'm going to say that it's not quite comparable. First, that lens has been on the market for some time. The list price is $999 when it first came out. This Leica has JUST come into the market. Second, I know Fuji makes great lenses and I'm sure this one is wonderful, but could there be more value in the "designed by Leica" made by Panasonic brand? I'm not sure. I bet this lens will come down in price a little within the first 3-6 months... especially if no one's buying it due to cost. I think Panasonic got hit with a heavy design cost by Leica and now they have to make it up. Perhaps, they gave it a "premium" price to get more pros... just an idea. This branding strategy is a little strange and contradictory in a way. It's like making a Ferrari designed Ford or something. How much would you pay for that? I guess if it looks and drives like a Cobra- that's cool. However, if it looks and drives like a Mustang with a Farrari engine- less cool. Not sure if that makes sense, but that's kind of how I see it.

Actually, I'm a little confused about why the bokeh balls are bigger at F2. Does the size of the front element decide that?

I'm not sure an EVF like on the EM5II is actually technically possible. Gordon Laing was talking about that on the About the Gear episode for the GX80. Space being the primary concern... maybe that hump is there for a reason, even with an EVF? I don't see the color-tearing problems that some talk about. All I see is a great way to frame behind tons of useful information like a histogram and zebras. Is the image great? No. Is it God-awful bad? No. I'd say it goes with GX80's nature- really practical. IMO this camera was really meant for shooting with the LCD primarily- it's fantastic, even in bright sunlight. It has a fantastic touch screen- one of the best in the business. Top it off with several customisable buttons and I'm quite happy with the interface and handling. Comparing it to the A6300 and the RX100, I definitely prefer the GX80. Again, not perfect, but good enough for me considering its size.

So to sum up: ergonomics and EVF... I agree that those might be its weak points. I feel it's quite a step up from a GX7 though... So many more features than the GX7. For me, the GX7 had one MAJOR annoying thing: the placement of the grip-side camera strap. For that reason alone, I wanted the GX80 and I would easily change the grip size for that. Also, the GX7 looked strange when you have the popup flash out and the EVF up- Frankenstein camera! Why didn't you just sell the EM5II and get the G7? Seems like it would have been a better fit for you.