webrunner5

Your statement might have been true hell even 5, 6 years ago. There were huge differences between Cine and consumer cameras. Today other than Raw on the top end stuff, and now we can do that with a 4 year old Canon DSLR, the output in 1080p, even 4k is to the average person that watches is pretty minimal. It is because the Codec's have gotten Way better on them. Yeah I will admit 8 bit is a little week, but that is all the Canon C500, C300, 1DC shot internal. I would call those cameras Cine cameras. Big thing is they had great Codecs. Guess what a Panny GH5 has a great Codec and 10 bit internal. So I guess it is a Cine camera for hell, 1650 bucks brand new open box. A Sony a7s in Slog 2 I would argue can look like a Cine camera. Plenty of indie stuff done with them. I would bet good money any of these good DP's of this era could make a feature movie with a lot of these cameras out today other than what Arikhan said, "heavy keying, VFX, extreme grading etc." Yeah we aren't doing green screen with a A6300 or a Transformers movie VFX, but for a lot of it I bet it could be done and parts of it is. You don't really think they are putting Arri Alexa's in those cars that crash, or buildings that blow up. So they are intermixing what you call shit cameras in with "Cine" cameras and you probably can't tell the difference unless you edited it. Times have changed in the "consumer" industry and damn fast. If I was making these high end cameras I would be worried as hell from them. They are Not that far off now let along 3 years from now. I realize most are made by the same company but thy are not going to be able to get 60,000 dollars from them when you can buy a Sony A7s mk V for 3,200 dollars maybe 3 years from now. IF they put Raw in these cameras, game over. Now I know they are not putting Raw in a camera as thin as a Sony a7 series, but they are allowed to make them a little bigger.

Gulp!

I think from what I have seen the GH5s does seem would I would call having a Sony A7s look to it. The original one. A more gnarly, grungy look than the GH5. I think it is a whole different look, which is not surprising that it is a whole new sensor, and has less MP's. I like the color science of it. I think is has great potential. And being 10 bit I don't see how it can be ignored for serious work. Yeah a 1DC and a Canon Kiss comes to mind.

Yeah I can see with doing heavy VFX there is no way 8 bit 4.2.0 is getting the job done. But there is few cameras that I could begin to afford that can, new or used. Hmm. What kind of resolution you need? 2.5k, 4k. You know you are looking at a damn near Raw camera output, BM comes to mind, that can do that sort of cheap. 1080p opens up some old good stuff, but 1080p in this day and age isn't worth putting big money into. Now 4k down sampled to 1080p, yeah. Blackmagic Ursa 4k and the mini 4k are getting damn cheap. I think they might get it done, but suck at low light. And the are sort of Tripod only stuff especially the original Ursa, Yikes it is heavy.

Yeah huge difference in Raw and JPEG. That is why the ML Canon 5D mk III stuff is so damn good looking. Shooting Raw video.

I would argue Canon Just Has to come up to maybe 10 bit and a damn better Codec on this new Mirrorless camera. The new body will be their platform for years to come. Same with Nikon's one. They both have to have something great to compete with Sony Panny. They just can't keep F ing around forever anymore. Hell now even Fuji is picking up the pace big time. So you have them, Panny Sony going hell bent, and I would not rule out Blackmagic throwing something in the Mix here soon also. Canon Needs to wake up and fast. They can't still keep the same crap going forever.

Yeah on the Photo side most cameras now are 14 bit. Very true.

Did you even look at the video kidzrevil posted above using the Fuji X-T2. Hell if this new one is 15% better looking output wise hell it will be great! I don't see how it Just being 8 bit makes it crap. Hell that is all a Canon 1DC, a C100, Sony A7s is. I sure as hell would not call those cameras crap! Yeah it would have been nice to be 10 bit, but I don't think Fuji is as Video crazy as Panasonic is, well hell even Sony has been Holding back, Maybe the Sony A7s mk III will be 10 bit, I think it pretty much has to to save face on the GH5. I was surprised as hell the A7r mk III wasn't 10 bit to be honest. But I sure as hell would take one. It is a Great 8 bit camera. Probably the best overall camera you can buy out there right now. My dream is a Nikon D850 in a mirrorless body with Sony A7r mk III video specs!! Now that would be some color output 8 bit or not. Come on Nikon hit a home run soon. All we can hope for from Canon on their Mirrorless is 4k with no crop or a Damn little one with a DECENT Codec..

Well we can use ProRes I guess, but in the output part of it what are people going to be looking at it with. Unfortunately most will see it in Rec. 709. https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202410 I am afraid we are in a transition period, and a lot of us if we are lucky will have TV that see Rec. 2020, have HDR specs from hell. We will have 12 bit cameras that are easy to use. Most Raw cameras are pretty much a pain to use or turn into usable stuff to output. Way beyond my thought process to how it will all end up down the road. But I would imagine if a person had some money you will be able to buy stuff we could have only dreamed of, for not a hell of a lot in not a hell of a long time from now..

Sure 8 bit will fit in 10 bit and, 10 bit in 12 bit, on and on. Is 8 bit better than 10 bit, no. And the graph below shows why more bits counts. Can we afford high bit rate cameras, well hell no, not a lot of us LoL. We might rent one, operate one, but.. Rec. 509 fit into Rec. 709, and it still does on old re runs on TV shot 40 years ago. But 509 ain't 709, and 8 bit ain't Rec. 2020. But you are right Kid it will all look better even though it is not true 2020. It doesn't make great output from 8 bit cameras bad. Fuji seems to have figured it out moving colors around. It is what we have been using for years. Until the GH5 it is all most of us ever have and can afford like I said.. Who the hell even heard of HDR a year ago, or thought we could ever shoot it. Now we can see it on a Cellphone. And sure you can have a wider color gamut, all kinds of gamuts. Hell look how many are in Photoshop, Premier, etc. but it can Only have 256 colors in them in 8 bit. You can bend them to endless configs, but not like 10 bit or up. 10 bit is a Hell of a jump in color possibility's. And 16 bit, well shit.

From Wiki. "Technical details Resolution Rec. 2020 defines two resolutions of 3840 × 2160 ("4K") and 7680 × 4320 ("8K").[1] These resolutions have an aspect ratio of 16:9 and use square pixels.[1] Frame rate Rec. 2020 specifies the following frame rates: 120p, 119.88p, 100p, 60p, 59.94p, 50p, 30p, 29.97p, 25p, 24p, 23.976p.[1] Only progressive scan frame rates are allowed.[1] Digital representation Rec. 2020 defines a bit depth of either 10-bits per sample or 12-bits per sample.[1] 10-bits per sample Rec. 2020 uses video levels where the black level is defined as code 64 and the nominal peak is defined as code 940.[1] Codes 0–3 and 1,020–1,023 are used for the timing reference.[1] Codes 4 through 63 provide video data below the black level while codes 941 through 1,019 provide video data above the nominal peak.[1] 12-bits per sample Rec. 2020 uses video levels where the black level is defined as code 256 and the nominal peak is defined as code 3760.[1] Codes 0–15 and 4,080–4,095 are used for the timing reference.[1] Codes 16 through 255 provide video data below the black level while codes 3,761 through 4,079 provide video data above the nominal peak.[1"

Even a GH4 would work. They are pretty cheap now.

Speaking of Casey, he is interviewing the Head Guy of YouTube February 12th. No holds barred interview.

Oh I know they are good. I have had a couple of the older ones. They, along with Olympus probably have the best looking OOC colors there is. And their body layouts are among the best also. I just never could justify the cost of the lenses when I bought mine because there was very few used ones around. I sure can't afford a new camera and a bunch of new lenses to boot. But I was pulling you guys leg on saying Fuji, Pentax and even the GR II was bad. I have owned all of them at some time along the way. And enjoyed all of them. It is that I am not going to buy any camera anymore that is not also good, well even great at video now and photos. And I would like to apologize to you guys for what I have previously said. Sorry about that.

Looks like it could be a sweet lens to have. https://***URL removed***/news/8972784981/leaked-sigma-preparing-to-release-14-24mm-f2-8-dg-hsm-art-lens

They will be Classic, old stuff I had years ago. Think 2018. You guys are proving my point.

That was a film camera. Film Oh My God! I must admit I never saw one or wanted one.

You are the oldest young person I have ever met. 2018, 2018. I think you are jealous, envious of the stuff people had my age years ago. Think Sony, Sony. Hey it was neat at the time, all we had, but it is old crap tech now. Sure I get to tell you what is best. You seemed to have lost your bearing, your train of thought, drifting in the universe, lost in space. I am here to help you son. Just kidding. I like the way you Roll as they say. Keep up the good work. You do interesting comparisons. Stuff I would have not thought about. Well, some I would like to forget I owned, but. You are a lot like I was when I was young. I had a lot of money so I bought a lot of stuff. Lots of it. But the best way to go is to have one great thing in each category and hang on to it. You never get good at at of it, and sometimes the newest thing is not really the best. An Arri Alexa comes to mind as having one thing that is the best. They are cheap enough to buy now.

Pentax 645 is shit in this day and age. Film is dead people! There is Phase One, Hassy, Fuji and Pentax in that order for MF cameras. And that is the order of how good they are also. Pentax is last just like in the DSLR market. And all those cameras in the Camera Store test all had the same disadvantage like people on here like to call it. Well guess what Pentax sucked balls. It was last. Good God the iPhone beat it in a few shots. Give me a break about how good it is. X-Tran is the worse thing they ever came up with. Their normal Bayer Sensors cameras look better than the wonky colors on the X-Trans ones. They are clown colors, not natural looking like a Canon or Nikon. Your test included a Sigma Quattro, probably the worse camera Ever made for colors and 1 shot a minute speed. By the way I like them. A Leica that well cost more than the rest of them combined, and has not been known for the best digital colors, B&W well yeah, and a Fuji. No wonder the GR won! All those cameras are the LAST ones I would wont if I Had to own one. They are all Old tech on the end of their lives as a camera company. Fuji Might survive. Only one. Hell most of those cameras don't even do video. Why the hell would I want a damn stills camera at all, let alone one that doesn't do video, or if it does, like the Fuji does, pretty piss poor video at that. You guys act like you are 90 years old living in 1970. If I want a stills camera it will say Canon or Nikon on it. Hell a iPhone 10 and a Samsung Note 8 make all those cameras LOOK like they Are from 1970. Like I have said before, there are some funny people on here. ehh this is 2018, repeat after me, 2018, 2018. You guys ought to get together and open a Antique shop!

Thumbnail, it was conducted using prints. I think I might trust The Camera Store conclusion. Pentax doesn't sell about 34 cameras a year for no reason. Ricoh-Pentax is a thing of the past. GR II was a good product 6 years ago. Pentax, well they are Pentax. Still in the 60's. It is the last camera in the world 98% of the people would ever buy.

Has this been shown on here somewhere?

Not according to this video. It was at the bottom with Pentax.

And their name? The Digital HERO released in 2006 (Model: SQ907 mini-cam) had a 640×460 camera and shot VGA definition 320X240 (10 fps) video for a maximum of 10 seconds. The Digital HERO1 had 32 MB internal memory without SD slot.

Yeah but it is pretty easy, and a Hell of a lot cheaper, to just copy something rather than invent it.

How are you getting a 4/3 14-50mm to focus on anything but a 4/3 Olympus body or a m4/3 Olympus Em1 mk I, or mk II body with any real success? That is a phase-detect AF lens. I used to use a 12-60 4/3 lens on my Oly EM1. Worked pretty good on it. Heavy as hell lens though. But a sharp lens. They are pretty cheap these days. Well and if you want to play with the big boys you have to pay like the big boys. No free lunch. Pretend Parafocal or real Parafocal. Most lenses aren't too bad, but a real pain in the ass if you are in a hurry or doing Run n Gun. It helps to be rich and do video.