BTM_Pix

I'm travelling at the moment so haven't got those files with me to look. I've got the lens with me though for the job tomorrow so I'll take a few frames with it and put them up.

I haven't used it extensively or tested much with it but I haven't had anyone from the agency saying "What the fuck have you shot this shit with?" about stuff I have submitted with it. So on that basis ve got no complaints about it thus far!

That log stuff I put up was with the 18-55

That would explain a lot actually.

They all need to just stop fucking about to be honest. Just sell us the sensor and processor in a housing and let us buy two different body shells to slot it into. An SLR type and a film camera type. Have an esata interface so we can choose to attach a memory card interface or SSDs so we don't get ripped off by external recorder manufacturers for wanting to record RAW or ProRes. Put every single capability they've got in it and let us wake the features up as and when through paid add ons from the controlling smartphone app. Let us do it monthly, annually, permanently or even daily if we want to. It's 2017, people are used to these type of subscription and add on purchase models. And if this all sounds a bit like what RED were trying to do well it is but they never really followed it through properly. If they want to make more money from us, fine, sell us some accessories. Starting with a field monitor again stops us having to line someone else's pocket. And the big one is a gimbal. Who wants to have the hassle of importing some unknown device with no support when you could buy one from the manufacturer that would DEFINITELY work with your camera and provably more effectively because it would be fed data from the cameras own IBIS system. A manufacturer that does this will clean up. Blackmagic could do it (and the micro looked like it could be a shot at it) but the path they seem to be on is the same as everyone else and just making different versions of the wheel. So it'll have to be a startup or maybe an offshoot of RED that remains truer to what most of us believed they were going to do. I hope someone does it as I'm sure we're all fed up having to buy a bunch of surrounding electronics over and over again just to change the functionality. It's like having to buy a different smartphone to use as a calculator and another one to do a spreadsheet on when we all know the underlying structure is the same it's just the interface that changes.

Its difficult to say one way or another but of its constant then that would suggest a problem but when you do have OIS on for low shutter speed do you see the same problem? The only way to be sure is to put it on a tripod and use a shutter release cable (or the app or self timer) to take away that variable and shoot a page of text that fills the frame. Repeat that at shutter speeds from below, above and way above the reciprocal (use ND to keep aperture and ISO constant) with OIS on and off at each speed and also using both OIS modes. That way, you should end up with 9 samples and at 35mm for example I would go with the following 1-3 - 1/15th with OIS Off, On continuous and On Shooting only 4-6 - As above using 1/125th 7-9 - As above using 1/800th Because of the suspected cause of the issue perhaps being the timing of where the OIS is in terms of its measurement cycle when you press the shutter, I would say that you should probably run multiple passes of 8 and 9 as these are the most likely to fail. If you test it in this way then it should eliminate the lens itself having an issue as you will be running it in perfect conditions off a tripod and with a remote release. It will also aid your case in getting a straight replacement if there is a fault as you can demonstrate it easily. If there is no fault when running the test then for your own piece of mind, I'd remove it off the tripod and try the same test handheld as if doing that brings the fault back then you should be able to see the point at which it's happening. My guess is that that point will be test 8...

The usual rule of thumb is not to use it unless your shutter speed is below the reciprocal so, yeah, with a crop sensor that would be 1/80 at the long end of the 18-55. At 640/f8/200 iso that you shot that then you are obviously well above that threshold where OIS would be required and it can certainly have an effect on sharpness. But its not always the case as it seems to be timing based on where the OIS system is in its measuring cycle when you press the shutter, which is why there seems to be conflicting reports about it. One thing that does seem to have an impact though is if you set the IS mode to 'SHOOTING ONLY' then it will only engage it on a half press or shutter release as opposed to it being continuous. So if you are going to leave it set to ON on the lens then setting the IS mode to 'SHOOTING ONLY' in the 'SHOOTING SETTING' menu should give you a bit more of a chance. My problem is the other way in round in that I have to remember to switch the OIS to 'ON' on the lenses when I'm doing video as I very rarely use it when shooting stills as its always fast shutter speed stuff.

Here they are dealing with someone who's asked for a mirrorless D5

I was leafing through this in a bookshop last week and found it pretty interesting. I held off buying it because there is a new edition due at the beginning of next month so I'll be picking it up then. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Filmmakers-Eye-Learning-Cinematic-Composition/dp/0240812174/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1492802217&sr=1-1&keywords=the+filmmakers+eye

I'm tempted to register there just to reply to him that the only way we'll definitively know if Canon are ripping us off is if we have to pay by Western Union and Canon tell us their mother is posting the 5DMKIVs back.

I'll give you fair warning that this thread will probably not be most, if anyone's, cup of tea ! And will probably be of zero interest if you are working on narrative projects where you have more time and control and have a broader artistic vision. But it might be worth a look if you are a hack like me and considering doing some vlogging or other quick projects. OK, so, I've got some projects coming up over the next few months (that quite large bicycle race they have every year around France being one of them) where I'm going to be doing a lot more video stuff and the nature of most of it means it needs quick turnaround. I've been doing a lot of testing recently in preparation for this regarding cameras and ancillary packages and workflow etc and one of the things I'm butting up against is trying to find a balance between an image that I'm happy with and getting it out quick enough where it won't have be re-packaged as an historical documentary. Obviously, I need to sort out where the bottlenecks lie and I've been doing some testing today to nail some actual comparison figures down that will hopefully force me to make a definitive decision as its so easy to get bogged down and have paralysis by analysis. The requirement I have is to be able to bring footage in that may not have been shot in ideal circumstances - whether that be to do with location, preparation time and/or just plain incompetence - and make it look decent within time and my own correctional ability constraints and have it be consistent enough to be repeatable to be able to do day in day out whilst traveling and without overtaking my primary gig at these events which is shooting stills. The other requirement is that I'll be shooting this stuff on small stuff like GX85/G7/Mavic/Osmo and X-T2 so there won't be a lot of RAW going on here or even LOG to be honest so this is where it starts to get me bogged down as on the one hand there isn't massive latitude on the way in and then often way too much potential on the way out to go down a rabbit hole time wise trying to polish them a bit. Added to that is that I'm not going to have a massive amount of computer horsepower on the road so whatever I do is going to have to be done with FCPX so, again, I'm trying to minimise the potential for endless fiddling about for that reason as well. Which also brings me to the other issue which is that having everything in H264 coming off these cameras is adding to that pain as well. My options then are : 1) Use a flat profile in the camera that requires a corrective LUT from the get go 2) Use a standard picture profile in the camera 3) Use either option 1 or 2 but record them externally in ProRes Option 1 gives me the most scope for correction but also for time loss, option 2 gives me the best route for speed and consistency (by forcing me to 'learn' the profile and not be reliant on fixing it in the mix) and option 3 makes whatever one I choose a lot easier to shuffle around inside of FCPX. The downside of using the external ProRes recording option is that its bulky, power consuming and eats up hard drive space. The compromise option to keep the ease of use within FCPX is to transcode the camera files to ProRes before they get there and in the case of option 1 add the corrective LUT at the same time. What I needed to do though was see exactly what the comparative times were like using the different options so I can find the sweet spot. Or the least worst option as the case may be. So I shot a 10 second clip on the G7 both in a Flat profile and a standard one (Cinelike D to be exact) internally to the card and then with the same profiles out again to the Atomos Disco Inferno * All files were then copied to a regular USB3 external work drive. I took the Flat and Cinelike D H264 files through a few typical journeys through FCPX, which were 1) Straight through (with the corrective LUT applied in the case of the Flat profile) 2) With a basic exposure and colour balance applied 3) As 2 but with an additional Sharpen and addition of a 'style' LUT applied 4) As 2 but with an additional Sharpen and FilmConvert process applied I then did exactly the same passes after converting the in camera H264 files into ProRes using EditReady (with the correctional LUT for the Flat file added in the transcode) and then the same again with the externally recorded ProRes versions. For a bit of sport, I then went for the absolute fastest path possible which was to plug in the SSD from the Atomos and edit the ProRes files straight off that. If you are still awake, you can see the results in the spreadsheet I've attached. The results are not in the least bit surprising as - spoiler alert - ProRes files with minimum fiddling absolutely cane H264 files that need massaging but its informative to me at least to see the extent of it quantified within how I would use it. What's interesting is that the H264 files do OK at the beginning but this is largely because the copying and/or transcoding time of the ProRes files goes against them before they've even got into FCPX but once the heavier lifting comes in they are soon overtaken by the ProRes versions. And the cumulative effect of the multiple corrections needed to be applied to the Flat version also add up dramatically, especially when FilmConvert comes into the equation of course. And then finally when creating what would largely be my target output format of 1080p rather than the 4k timeline, it ends up being even worse. Its worth bearing in mind that this is only a 10 second clip so its not difficult to imagine how alarming that 60 times real time render would feel like on something a bit more substantial. Yes, of course, it should be expected that it will take a while with FilmConvert on it but its sobering to see thats already 6 times real time without anything but the required correctional LUT on it. In comparison, the Cinelike D H264 version is half the time and only begins to be drawn back to it when FilmConvert is applied. And the conclusion? Well the gold standard in this test in terms of getting the fastest throughput is the externally recorded Cinelike D ProRes read straight from its own SSD so thats no surprise and would be the way to go for me in terms of shifting stuff if I master the profile and retain control of the shooting situation (or the serenity to accept that I can't) and don't mind lugging around something that is significantly bigger, more power hungry and unwieldy than the cameras its attached to. The other non surprise is that the Flat profile whether in H264 or transcoded to ProRes is the worst performer. Bearing in mind that this test just measures file transfer/rendering time then the additional time in finessing the Flat profile (which would be substantial in my case) makes this an order of magnitude worse. Which leaves us with trying to find the sweet spot which in this case would be split between Cinelike D in H264 if it was only going to be lightly touched or a transcoded version if it needed more work. There is a balance to be found between the two because whilst there is a time and disk space penalty to the transcoding, it does pay off even if you don't go to heavier correction because FCPX plays much nicer with ProRes files full stop. My conclusion for these summer projects then is to stick with an in camera profile, work within its parameters instead of changing them or ignoring them and take the transcoding time hit at the beginning of editing. And buy more hard drives, obviously. * Yes I know its Ninja Inferno but its just stuck in my head as Disco Inferno now and I'm ceasing resistance.

Should be in the official Quick Start guide that.

I can just picture him sat there reading the sales info for that adapter. "Allows you to connect any B4 lens to your micro 4/3rds camera"

Steady on. It will be dull test footage all the way. I'm even thinking of buying a cat specifically for this purpose. Currently browsing for a PL adapter and might even go mad and pick up an old B4 lens as I'm determined that the much vaunted flexibility of this camera that I've got myself so keen on is going to be taken to the limit by attaching any tubular object that has glass at either end of it! This guy sets the bar pretty high though when it comes to mounting B4 lenses on MFT mount cameras.

Spec wise undoubtedly not but until they bring out the lenses and the rest of the package then I'd still say that for the job we use it for then we still have the better tool for that job. To paraphrase Muhammad Ali....The sensor can't capture what the lens can't see. Float like an optically stabilised 400mm f2.8 and shoot with a D3* *Yes,yes,but D5 didn't rhyme

You'd be surprised how many I still see kicking around. They've mainly been gracefully moved off the front line to serve as remote cameras behind the goal etc but they're still a very competent camera low light wise so they still see duty with short primes on for wider perspective shots (or when players come over the ad boards over your head celebrating!) as without the grip on they're compact enough to be sat on top of your bag to be grabbed if needed. I've shot weddings and boxing on the same day a few times. Often at the same event

Unfortunately, resting on the gear is becoming more and more prevalent as its getting increasingly difficult to afford to replace it. We can take images today that we couldn't have taken 10 years ago without the technology but I'm not sure its the case to say thats the case from, say, 3 or 4 years ago. The last eyebrow raising lens that came out for sport was Canon's 200-400f4 with the switchable 1.4TC. Its an absolutely fantastic lens and for quite a number of Nikon shooters that I worked alongside who were at an upgrade point, that lens and the 1Dx which meant Canon had caught up low light wise tipped them into switching over. But that was 4 years ago now and nothing has really come along since that anyone has really gone "yep, game changer. That'll make my images better". So, as we are on this plateau and money is tight, people are going to sit tight as they've got bigger challenges than being able to get the right images with what they have. The images are the least of the problems! The opportunity is with people like me who are approaching a crossroads as there isn't enough gaffa tape left to hold their gear together and the prospect of spending £12-15K on a body and lens isn't hard to stomach both financially and emotionally! Thats why I think they've made a bit of misstep here because its not cheap enough and the rest of the system just isn't there yet. Far from forcing Nikon and Canon's hand into an instant panic response as they presumably thought would happen, they've probably bought them more time by coming in at this price and without the rest of the eco-system to go with it. Having to use adapters even to use their own brand of lens and relying on other manufacturers to produce adapters that will let you possibly use Canon lenses more slowly and maybe without being able to use TCs ? Its not even bringing a gun to a knife fight to be honest. It just reminds me of Neville Chamberlain on the steps of that plane waving that piece of paper that guaranteed peace in our time. Only this time, its a spec sheet. And this lukewarm reaction to it is coming from me, someone who is mad enough to be actually actively pursuing using compromised mirrorless systems for shooting sport professionally! Imagine what the cynical ones amongst my brethren think about it. But as I keep saying, though, I bet it will be a fine camera.

Well, well, well... I have just managed to buy an absolutely mint condition used LS300 for just under £2K and will take delivery of it next week. I'm mildly excited at this development.

This might be of interest Jon as he's just shot all the GH5 profiles with charts and scopes.

'Current EOS 5D Mark IV camera owners can have the Canon Log feature upgrade installed for $99 at any of the Canon service centers across the U.S. starting in July.' WTF?? Looks like Canon have noted Panasonic's "we'll send you it in the mail" approach to log upgrades and gone "Nah, fuck that....lets go utterly retro and make them actually physically bring the camera to us to have it done". Strikes me as a bit suspicious that you have to take it to them. Is this their sneaky way of getting a firmware and hardware mod on that locks Magic Lantern out of it permanently thereby ensuring no one gets a free ride from buying future Canon cameras whilst simultaneously making them $99 a time for the upgrade and saving them that darn $2.99 on postage into the bargain? Fiendish if so.

For completeness, here is a (very) short compilation extract of a couple of the shots as they were recorded to the Ninja Assassin using the ProNegStd -2/-2 profile in 4K ProRes 422LT https://mega.nz/#!dj5AWagD!_TgG79KA4Z21eJHTMoUPj3cYBQ2HNb60oLRE6m79dxU

The ProRes advantage for me isn't necessarily quality based (I suspect that it will be small) but to just be able to connect the SSD and get on editing without transcoding. Thats another advantage in terms of throughput to using the ProNegStd -2/-2 if I'm not having to add the same number of corrections. I was baulking at the price in comparison to the BM Video Assist 4K as its not far off double when you hustle for a deal on the BM but the 4K60p was a differentiator (I'm not just using it for the X-T2 and you never know with Fuji they may add that with firmware!) as was the much more comprehensive metering and the brighter screen. If I was just using it for the X-T2 then, yes, I would much prefer a 5 inch screen but the PIX-E5 is almost 50% more again and doesn't have the 4K60p capability. If I get a chance I'll do an internal/external comparison with ProNegStd -2/-2 at some point.

Yes, it will be. As I said earlier, it was exposed to 100 deliberately to see what could be done with that in mind. Did you use the Fuji LUT in combination with any of your corrections ? I found that using that and reducing the saturation in the highlights was slightly more effective but it is an awful lot of work - for me at least - to get back to where you could have started already by just using the in built profiles. For what I'm going to be doing with it where I'll need quick turnaround (and because I always end up down a rabbit hole with colouring) having ProNegStd (-2,-2) ready to go in ProRes is the more useful function.

If I was them and trying to build a flagship that was trying to knock the other two out of the water, I'd have turned up with all guns blazing. As it stands, even if they want to appeal to hybrid shooters by emphasising their video chops, by leaving out 4K60p they're already been outgunned by one of them. Strange decision.

Sorry, they (Sony) are so far off my radar that I actually didn't realise that their two long primes aren't native mount for this camera. Is there not a known AF speed hit using that adapter and will it still do AF-C? With regard to the Canon shooters, my view would be that the more general photojournalists are the more likely to transition while still using their Canon glass. Sports shooters would need an awful lot of convincing regarding using adapters, particularly when adding TC's in between them as well. The amount of tolerance for any reduction in AF speed would literally be zero. I think for those - and many other reasons such as interoperability and accessories such as speedlites and remote triggers etc) if they do go it will have to be lock, stock and barrel as an entire system. Which is why I still think my money is on the two current dominant brands to win the mirrorless war when they eventually pull their finger out and make one. But if I was a Canon shooter, rather than a Nikon one, doing what I'm doing now which is trying to buck the trend and go mirrorless in sport then I'd be very interested in trying it out to use with my existing glass but it would have to be about half the price to warrant the risk!