Arikhan

@Eduardo Portas Is there a technical explanation therefore? Are the fixed lenses on classical cameras/camcorder better "adjusted" for the camera AF system than any "loose lenses" for interchangeble lens cameras (aka DSLR), or is this because of economical consideration of Pana trying to protect their "professional camcorder" product line?

@Axel and @jonpais We were talking yesterday about AF on Pana devices...I had some months ago the dvx200 (GH4 sensor size, cropped 4/3 sensor) in my hands and have talked yesterday to someone using the new Pana HC-X1 (the same sensor and image processing like UX90 and UX180 - all these cameras are 1") for some weeks now. There is something I'm wondering about: Tapping focus on DVX200, Pana HC-X1, etc. leads to perfect focus transition without any hunting or wobble - same focusing accuracy like on current Sony devices. Trying to do this on current consumer devices (eg GX85, G85, etc.) ends in some cases in focus hunting. I believe, Panasonic could do a better AF on consumer cameras, if they would want to...But apparently they want to offer exact focusing via AF only on their more expensive camcorders... Take a look at this short demonstration, it corresponds exactly to my experience... Honny soit qui mal y pense... ;-)

@Yuan Nope...It's not about the more features of the A6500 (de facto "only" IBIS, touch focus and "overheating improvement") over the 6300, but it's about to get an idea about the Sony (IQ, high ISO / low light, wireless HSS, DR, handling, ergonomics, post production, etc.) ecosystem compared to Canonikon. And therefore a 700 Euro cheaper A6300 (cheaper than the A6500) does the job. If it's the "best system" in her eyes, she would buy a Sony FF, probably the A7R xyz. The A6300 is only for testing personal preferences and IQ... In this context (A7R xyz), Some interesting thoughts on the debade sensor size (MFT vs. FF/APS-C): Via diyphotography.net - a quite interesting point of view of a pro photographer pointing out his real world experience...

@mechanicalEYE Looks great, but at 0:22 - 0:26 you can see, this is NOT AF. This was manual focus...Or is your posting not in context of AF? Dynamic shots (moving mountain bike) are with one hand gimbal and AF? Thank you for response!

@jonpais I am aware of this fact, but the only Pana consumer camera I own is the FZ1000 (1")...I don't own a Pana MFT...BUT when you take a look at the "AF-Kings", they all are APS-C or FF (Canon DPAF, NX1, X-T2, Sony). So sensor size should NOT be an excuse for manufacturers to offer completly unusable bullshit AF. With small sensors of broadcasting cameras it's much more easy to keep the subjects in focus, yes. But technology moves on and there are manufacturers offering phantastic AF on big sensors though...

@jonpais Please wait for my footage...I can only talk on the results I got with the FZ1000. When considering, that your camera is much more younger and advanced than mine, I still wonder that many of your shots are out-of-focus. No clue what is going on, but I will try to explain my settings and usage for different shooting scenarios...

@jonpais @Axel I will make a video with these facts within the next two weeks. There are some more facts to consider, I've written them down. Example: During a concert in late August 2016, I made an interview with a band menber. It was a very bright, sunny day, the man stood (not sitting), the background was green (grass) and water. With standard AF it was impossible to get the artist in a constant focus with AF. The camera simply focused on background...Why? No clue... What I did: Though it was very bright (full sun and about 36 degrees Celsius, I remember very well), I put a LED light on his face. The hunting was gone... BTW: Distance to the subject (artist face and some of his chest) was about 65cm. During another run&gun interview, i put the FZ1000 very close to the face of my interview partner (hand held with Sennheiser mic on hot shoe). The interview was outdoor...The camera hunted like crazy on background...I got a miserable picture quality, it was pure garbage... The last "dramatic" situation was for me during an interview with a German bishop, I have loosed because I was alone and had to use AF...The camera hunted on background instead of focusing on bishops face (the guy simply didn't stand still - but this is the reality)...This was a desaster... After that I was tired of mediocre "AF footage", I begun to "study" the different scenarios and modes. I just wanted to get as reliable results as possible, not depending on luck when using AF. After some time of shooting and study, I got some good results: Quite perfect in focus footage of persons using AF in different modes (persons moving forth and back from camera, interview situations when subjects move a little bit forth and back). So far I am very happy with the results of my FZ1000. As you know, being perfectly on focus is one of the most important factors of my filming / photography. When possible I always use MF with additional control monitor (even when using a big shoulder camera), but when it isn't possible (unespectable run&gun situations, one man band, etc.) I need a reliable AF. @jonpais You shoot very much portraiture (faces). For this the two described methods (1. Face detection and 2. Specified area focusing) are quite reliable, in my eyes in more than 90% of situations). I will try to write down my experience and settings with the FZ1000 (but these settings are similar on all Pana consumer cameras) and will post some footage with excellent face tracking in low light. I will try being very precise in describing the situations, I used the different modes.... BTW: In cases with more than one face, it begins to get hard - because the camera can NOT know which of the faces you want to keep in focus (assuming you have Face1 about 1,5m, Face2 about 2,5m and Face3 about 4m far away from camera - subjects spread all over your field of view)... Please consider that I am not a experienced reviewer at all. I can only debate on practical facts I have experienced a lot of times.

@Axel I tested the Pana AF modes intensively (last time two weeks ago) with the FZ1000. The more you test different modes and scenarios, the more usable it will be for shooters needing a reliable AF in combination with MF. I compared it with the very good AF of the NX1. (Personally I consider Canons DPAF to be number one, some Sony cameras numjber two, NX1 and X-T2 number 3) The test: FZ1000 + NX1 both set on face recognition, subject walking forth camera, cameraman walking back in round about 1,2m distance to subject. Both cameras with F2.8. Results were absolutely comparable, Pana with no wobbling or hunting. The subject did a moderate walk (not slow, not fast)...I wouldn't have expected this... With "multi area" (eg subject turns face away from camera), the Pana is hunting, oftenly searching for more contrasty structures (background). In these cases (intensively tested too), it is very useful to determine a flexible AF area - the extent of the AF area can be extended - which can be moved in every direction and place you want. Using this method, focus never hunts (in static situations), even if background is much more contrasty than the subject: You just have to keep your subject within the predetermined focusing area. There are many complaints on the pana AF hunting (hunting for more contrast, "wobbling" etc. in AF) but I think, users should test more the different modes and adapt this to their preferences... I don't know (I never hold the GH5 in my hands) but to be honest, I don't expect an AF similar to the big "AF-Gorillas" (Canon, Sony, Samsung and Fuji as descripted above), but I find the Pana AF usable. I used it in quite "impossible" situations and in the dark (a night concert on a stage in Romania) and - despite the 1" sensor and crop - it did very well at long zoom (about F4). It tracked faces like hell, I was very happy - i never would expect it but this showed me how important it is to extensively test for knowing how to handle camera strengths and limitations...

@Mattias Burling Which adapter did you use for IS and AF support on the ls300 with Canon lenses? Thank you!

@Mattias Burling Thank you for the quick reply! My impression: The colours are quite "neutral"...What about DR compared with the NX1? In my eyes, DR looks much better...

@Kisaha As it seems you have some experience with the ls300, I hope you could answer some questions: Have you already used it with Canon lenses? If yes, how do you adapt Canon lenses to its MFT mount? Metabones? Which active adapter should be used? Does it support Canons IS when mounted to the camera? What about AF quality with Canon / Panasonic lenses? (I know AF is supported, but never saw a serious in deep test of it) What about low light? Comparable with the NX1 (which I know you are using exetensively) or better? Thank you!

@Flynn Thanks Flynn...but the Sigma has no stabilization...and many buyers currently have problems with the optical quality (not sharp at all) when using F 2.0 +/-. Sigma knows about the issue, but there is no solution till now. Googling on this topic (or taking a look at reviews of verified buyers - Amazon Germany) will reveal the massive problem (not all owners have it, but quite a lot)... --> Amazon site with reviews (German) <--

@josdr Oh, I know. I wrote in my statement above "I am aware of the fact that my experience might not be representative, but there is a bit of truth therein."... @Kisaha In my eyes Canon still sells "a ton of cameras" because a. Most "normal Joes" shoot JPEG and never care about RAW, post or any colour science. They take the colours OOC as given by Canon engineers b. Most people don't want to adapt to another system (menues, handling, etc.) - 99 percent of people are too lazy and comfortable to try something new c. Canon is still a great brand with a strong worldwide reputation and people believe their marketing morons or never think about changing the ecosystem d. They don't want to spend additional money on lenses of a new manufacturer, when changing the ecosystem @josdr She wants the a6300 because of A. eye detection AF (her claim: "when always having the eyes in focus, portrait photography gets much more easier...") and B. because of the phantastic low light capability of the A6300 (the a6000 is in low light not bad, but not comparable with the A6300 4K put in a 1080p timeline). Tripod? We have enough tripods, but she wants to buy a monopod ("light and suitable to carry...", "I need it only for occasional stabilisation of my shots..."). BTW: She decided to buy the 35mm 1.8 OSS because of the stabilization for hand held video. After holding the camera in a shop in her hands, intensive research and many videos (Gary Fong, Northrup, etc.) she is now convinced, Sony could be a solid alternative to our existing "Canonikon bricks", furthermore Sony would make much better and "modern" cameras for "women shooter". If she likes the A6300 after shooting with it till summer, she would buy a Sony FF, preferable a A7R m3 (perhaps announced till then)...lol...This would be very good, as if she buys into the Sony ecosystem, I don't have to spend my own money on good low light film cameras... ;-) @Kisaha She loves to shoot with my NX1 but she does not understand how I could buy a camera not supporting standards for wireless HSS (not master/slave priciple, but HSS with wireless transmitters...). And she hates the low light failure of this camera...I believe, my mom dreams of a camera without limitations, but this is not what she gets when buying the A6300...

@joema Because turning down contrast, sharpness & co. in a higher end camera makes it completely impossible to distinguish it's native footage from 720p coffee machines. Just try it the other way around...just deliver footage OOC out a 5d x (without ML) and let us compare between this footage and (let's say) a GH4 1080p. Every bet, that it can be distinguished.... 1080p is 1080p and there is not only "colour science". The Canon colour science is just ONE criterion where Canon excels - while it's failing in many other ones (measured at today's requirements and offers of competition). Look, the BMPCC delivers phantastic footage OOC and is NOT known for "oversharpened footage" OOC. And this little camera at about 1.000 EUR of a small company blows a "legendary" camera like the 5d iii in 1080p out of the water and competes with current "resolution kings" --> take a look... Before beginning with my films (during the last year, mostly political documentaries and interviews) I made a small survey by comparing OOC footage of the 5D iii with footage of the FZ1000 (!) - native 1080p. You think it's an inappropriate comparison? Nope...After asking about 50 "normal Joes", there were only 6 (!!!) who prefered the 5d iii footage. All other people told me to prefer the "clear sharp footage, realistic colours, contrasts, etc., etc." of the FZ1000. It seems the 5d iii is a "nostalgic filmmaker darling" without much detention of nowadays audience... There are out here many guys wanting the camera manufacturers to hear on filmmakers...Why do filmmakers not hear on their audience? In this forum there is much talk on DR, 4K, 8K and current and future standards like HDR 10 and Dolby Vision...On the one side...on the other side, some shooters seem to glorify 720p footage. My standing is quite in the middle - I would just be very happy with a "real 1080p" and some other useful features out of a Canon DSLR. Have you ever took a look to 5d IV and 1DX ii 1080p? It's much worse than on any current 500-800 Euro Pana hobbyist camera...Is this horrible and highly overpriced lack of 1080p quality the future of DSLR film making?

@Inazuma Handling, ergonomics and shooting experience are at the end of the day matters of personal taste, preferences and experience. The shooter has just to be okay with his camera and its limitations and flaws. As long as a filmer and his audience are satisfied with IQ of a camera, everything is going to be alright....

@hmcindie Please don't feel offended. My criticism is not about your cinematography, it's about the horrible Canon 720p. I am convinced your films would as good or better, when using a Nikon D750/D8X0 or C100/C300. The much more better basic IQ of these devices is not a handicap for experienced/talented filmmakers, it's an advantage because giving the filmmaker much more flexibility in aesthetic expression... @Ehetyz Doubtless, but that's not the point. The point is, without ML, the footage is round about 720p and that's far away from competition offers and IQ (please compare the generic video IQ, offline and resolution of the 5Dm3 with D750/D810 - Nikon wishes the floor with it). Canon's such called 1080p offers are 2009 and even then, they are 720p. It's not about "good enough for web" - it's about the fact that many competitors offer much better resolution, IQ and many more additional (useful) filming features and functions for DSLR user than Canon. Canon's reputation is based in my eyes more on nostalgy, than on real IQ performance when currently compared with prices and offers of it's competitors. We own pretty all FF and APS-C (and -H)...But no more the newest generation with begin of 2016. Vastly overpriced products of a ultraconservative company not hearing on his users. Overpriced "old style" products...And please, don't tell me something about built quality ("built like a brick"), I know it...But bricks don't deliver a good IQ...They are much more better for construction than for shooting films/stills... You know what? The Canon 5D ii and iii are somehow "filmic democratization tools" and the Canon 5D iii is surely a legend (not only in filming but also in stills). But Canon simply missed to carry forward the "legend" by developing state of the art DSLRs (lacking DR, real 1080p, zebra, waveform, etc.) at reasonable prices...The "legend" is fading away...Please consider, that Canon still prices the 5Diii currently (in Germany) at about 2.300,- Euro. It's simply ridiculous... ;-)

@hmcindie OK...I can send you some shots with the 7D (Canon marketers and their unpaid henchmen call this brazenness "1080p")...Please transform the 720p ugly, mushy and baked in pixel soup in sharp footage...Are you just kidding? You never can "bring back" inferior footage with lack of resolution and of any minimal quality. You would be the first person I know who can transform 720p in quality 1080p+...Please show me an example for bringing back the Canon 720p "baked in failure"...

@jonpais Again beautiful shots with balanced colors and without exagerated shallow DOF (obsessive "bokehritis" of many representants of the current filmmaker generation), though you are using fast lenses. Very natural...I've read on your website, that you worked for livetime in imaging production and processing after bachelor and master...Your experience and professional education becomes evident in your shots...Refreshingly well composed people and face studies out of the cam of an unagitated, modest person consistently working on his skills...We all could and should work on our technical and filmic skills, but pure taste and "feeling" is something not everyone has... To be honest, I am stoked and never thought before there could be images out of a M4/3 camera arousing my interest. Thank you!

@Marco Tecno Exactly. But as it lacks an individual image texture (tack sharp, puristic look), so people speak about "over sharp". When Canon declares their 720p mushy pixel soup as 1080p, C-Fanboys speak affectionately about "warmish and smooth outlines"...Resolution is nothing but resolution. 4K should be real 4K. After watching some newest RED footage on an expensive monitor in London, I would say, NX1 footage seems "mushy" compared with the RED one...As always, it's a matter of perspective...Tack sharp footage can be smoothed in post...BUT mushy, baked in pixel soap can NOT be sharpened as much...

I forgot something very important he adviced me too..."When filming motion, try to move!" he told me (moving the camera). If the subject walks away from the camera, try to move in same direction or change the bearing and move towards the subject. This would affect considerably the motion cadence feeling of the audience in lack of a "epic cinema camera" with a "native motion cadence feeling". I tried this and sometimes it works...I think, this could work even better with a much more experienced camera man than me behind the lens... @marcuswolschon You are completely right...what he meant was "normal guys" will never get the experience. He (and many other pro colorists) work minimum 10 hours per day on coloring / grading / correcting. Because of this, they can handle many color profiles of different cameras in a kind of way that small film production companies or one man bands will never get...Even when experimenting the next years...It's a big difference between coloring 50 hours a week or 5...When looking at pro work, 99 percent of web films appear like a wannabe "coloring joke"... There is a difference between a pro surgeon working 10 hours a day professionally in his job and a butcher, doing sometimes things he calls "surgery". It's not surgery, it's massacre... ;-)

@Axel I visited a pro colorist in London during last fall break to get some insights in the industry and methodology. I was really fascinated but the quintessence was: There is no good "wannabe colorist"...If one doesn't have thousands of hours of experience in coloring and with different cameras, don't color the footage. It will end in a massacre... Your statement on Pana footage is quite interesting, because I've discussed this on some examples in London. The guy likes the GH4 colors and said "many GH4 shots need appropriate lighting when shooting and some texture in post. He knew about the Noam Kroll settings and told me, they are quite nice and usable out of the box. In his eyes (depending on lighting or contrast), they are better than V-Log because of much easier to work with when expecting pleasant, balanced results in colours." He told me, OK the GH4 is far away from a pro Cine camera, but it a phantastic allround camera. He doesn't see as many problems with colour grade, but more with a "too perfect" texture of images and the complete lack of motion cadence. When talking about motion cadence, he adviced me - independently from which DSLR I use - to experiment with different rates of fps. With some cameras, this could work quite well to get a kind of "motion cadence" in the shots. @jonpais Motion cadence: That's probably one of the reasons, your Pana shots look so "filmic" - there is not much motion in your examples and that's why we (the audience) percieve the footage as filmic...it could be the feeling of a great motion cadence in these "chilled" shots...They look somehow like "slow motion"... Another reason could be the asiatic skin tones matching much more better the Pana colour science than shots with "pale europeans"....

@Elvis Peckeliunas I use the cheap K&F Concept EOS-NX adapter, it's 21,- EUR on Amazon. I use it very often, even with big tele lenses like the Canon 300mm F2.8 and it works perfectly. All Canon lenses are still stift after one year of use. I hope this helps.

@jonpais Beautiful, really pleasing...It's not the first time I like your shots because a overall balanced coloring and feeling, though NOT graded at all. Your shots prove that using and tweaking native in camera settings according to a certain shooting scenario, could be sometimes much more better than colour vandalism dilettantish/misunderstood colour grading...Less is more...

"Clusterfuck" is an inappropriate term for the 5D IV - this camera is just a vastly overpriced device as measured by current standards, modern digital imaging requirements and competition offerings. At 2.300 Euros (current price of the old 5D III) one could buy the mIV - not at current 4.000... Mr. Trump? Thiy guy just reflects the attitude and mindset of his voters. @his opponents: If anything, don't blame Trump, blame his voters - after some months/years giving DT and his administration a chance to show their judgement and political and administrative capabilities...Blame then - if necessary...

Talking about colour science...and claiming Canon is a leader - there are some other opinions too...Three examples: Example 1 I showed in my school 31 colleagues (aged between 17 and 19 years old) a portrait (2 stills) comparison between Canon and Nikon. Same subject, different colour sciences with original colours. 5 of them said they have no preference, 18 prefered the Nikon colours (in their eyes "more realistic") and only 8 prefered the "legendary" Canon skin tones... I showed the same photos 13 aged people (between 55 and 81 years old) and 2 had no preference, 7 loving Nikon colours. Only 4 prefered the Canon colours. Then I tested the same thing (same 2 stills) two weeks later with the same aged persons...And then 3 of them had no preference, 5 were Nikon fans and 5 liking the Canon colours. So, in my eyes, the quintessence is: Colours are absolutely a matter of taste, sometimes depending on a momentary mood of audience. The same person "loving" now Nikon colours, could prefer a week later Canon colours. Example 2 Last summer I shot 2 weddings as second shooter (with a 5Dm iii) to get more experience in real world portrait, event and low light photography. The pro wedding photographer (first shooter) used a Nikon D3S and a D7100 as second camera. After taking a look to the Nikon photos, they (bride, groom and some friends) took a look at some of my photos (original Canon profile)...Most of them said skin tones were "too warmish" / "unrealistic". Example 3 I showed 14 colleagues (17-19 years old) on a larger tablet one of the legendary "cinematic look" examples, hailed by thousands filmmaking enthusiasts. Only 1 loved the colour science, 3 gave a shrug and the other persons were downright shocked, asking if these were film sequences from the 70's. After telling them, that the footage was shot and edited 2009+, they asked, if the DOP was on steroids...some of them even saying, "the man is a miserable failure" needing to be fired... I am aware of the fact that my experience might not be representative, but there is a bit of truth therein. Most average Joes (= "non digital imaging" freaks) don't even care about colour science, it's only a obsession for geeks, enthusiasts and some pixel peepers putting their nose 10cm close to a HR computer screen. Completely irrelevant for 99,9 percent of audience...