anonim

@Kye Little bit or little bit more thinking about 3d, microcontrast, blur, creative effects etc. Of course, for video usage order of values might be different. (Story telling greatly benefit from interesting 3d separation.)

I'm just intentional dreamer (I have yet to find better way to oppose to so often nightmarish surrounding) Not strange at all, my problem with gimbals and glidecams is bulkiness, although there are the must for some narrow usage. I firmly believe that most important and successful element (and advantage ) for indie artistic direction is possibility to more completely melt into scene and vision, to forget technical burden and calculation. With high budget we can achieve everything but at the massive budget expense and expense of endless negotiation. That's, I think, a question of specific balance between spontaneity and preparing. Of course, it's not everyone cup of tea - I'm just trying to provide and reinforce what I feel as my inner preference (or "quality"): as mush as possible fluid stream of unrestricted imagination, letting to it to find best forms of its adaptation. (And there's a secondary gain: stronger and refreshing feeling of existence of some other center of gravity-being than boring reason in myself... but of course, it is some kind of mystical philosophy :)

Yes, totally steady walking shots is hard to achieve, maybe closer with UW lens as, say, Laowa. (It even be more natural in Dogma manifest sense.) But, further evolving previous post, I'm close to conclusion that IBIS actually is not at all replace for gimbal (I even see it more as vice versa attempt - gimbal as unperfect substitute for perfect ibis :) - it has its own original using signature, because of psychologically higher level of unlocked free movements. With gimbal I'm still aware of instrument and I'm still greatly depending of its dictating rules and positioning limitations. IBIS is far more to the serve of free gestures, some sort of shooting calligraphy. Of course, to my feeling and eye, which are so often prone to be in mistake

Yes, what I'd mostly wished to point out is how subtle, slightly more freedom in moving, provided with capable ibis, may totally redefine whole shooting and then aesthetic approach. Always depending on tripod forced us to think at one direction in construction and resolving task. Being able to easy lay down, sway, move with camera not being afraid of unusable shaky footage open gate for more freely probing and some, to say so, more kaleidoscopic visual as whole. So, IBIS is not just add-tool, but carefully crafting its usage it may become different instrument in conveying ideas in poetical way. To OP question, just suggestion over regular in-camera settings - I think that GH5 with its 10bit quality+IBIS combination provides some yet unbeatable benefits of our own movements and bodies-in-time/space as stylistically original composing frame.

Something more to appreciate in GH5... Recently I had to shot (very fast as always in micro or no advanced budget circumstances) scene of dynamic dialog with two cameras, so I used GH5 and GH5s - and how much I regretted that I had no just two GH5! Reason is, at first glance, the simplest: fast change from regular to lock IBIS function. Ability to move fast without tripod and with confidence lock 3-5 or more second of steady shot on subject, had, for me at that moment, the most precious value.... Applied to upper quote, the same function provides great possibility to make fake two cameras angles - because of so fast adaptive position, without too much bothering actor or testing patience of volunteer. (And people yet claim that IBIS is not useful from professional point of view or that even just ruin shots... For so many more complex or uncontrolled occasions usable IBIS is imo really godsend. Just learn or develop way to make full creative usage of it.)

Probably I'm wrong, but every rumor about higher capable camera actually affects me in a strange way - to ask myself: am I really overgrew my existing tool regarding opportunities to use it, or am I even made usage of its values to full potential, for private creativeness or for real business/competitive market? Sadly, I must admit that at the moment it seems that answer is - no. (If just somewhere exists rumors about more opportunities for me to escape in camera shooting realm...)

Price of GH5 at autumn 2019

Some of the samples I collected...

Genius! You are really tireless fan

Maybe, but I, personally, don't think so, or at least I can't approved that nostalgia effect in myself. Simply argument? I watched Tarkovski's Nostalghia 100 times (btw even wrote big 3-parts novel with same title and motto from that movie) - but I properly enjoyed just in last restоration of it, which is, actually, pretty sharp and detailed The same goes with 3 movies from Parajanov that are, finally, very recently restored/saved out from too soft, muddy look. Or, maybe there's some false hope for me, maybe I'm still not too old?

Well, I sold two gimbals waiting for price drop to buy Olympus Em1 II for that rare walking shots (Although, in meanwhile I bought gimbal again and wait it to come from UK Yes, without doubt example at which you point is impressive, but it is achieved with 12-100 lens and surely with inner ES (maybe even with touch of work in post). I had some impressive examples of walking shots from Em1 II from net, that's why I wrote - nothing revolutionary, but just in comparison with already remarkable EM1 II.

@kye So nice, never heard of Russian Doll (I had no TV last at least 20 years), now I've just found serial and will watch. Out of curiosity, if I'm not mistaken, you are from Australia, so do you know if anybody made adaptation of Patrick White novel "Voss"? That book is marvelous stylistic achievement and it would be truly challenge for an Malickian visualisation... So to maybe simplified connection - especially for "painter"-like inner creative impulse, it seems to me that organizing equipment collection primarily around lens choice is good-to-think direction. Why? Maybe because manual focusing better/deeper connects shooter with live visual presentation of world as media, as alter-ego, not just as narrative elements. In that regard, old school lenses are also far better for capturing some sort of characteristic "soul" of impression. Actually, I found that modern lenses are often imposing and falsify reality in harder way than so-call "lens with character": human eye (with soul behind) also doesn't view object in such sterile way, so it is also fakery of objectiveness and computative-selective precision. Having said that, I come back to Fujinon zooms or Veydras or manual Leicas, Voigts etc as possible referent points: some of them aim to be reflective glass in purest neutral form but always checking subtle deformation of eye-perception (that was philosophy of Mandel), some so excellent simulate more subtle emotional "abberations" that, actually, belongs to unevitable psychology of humane eye in process of viewing.

Maybe as somehow interesting topic for further thinking, during time I made one conclusion - that people that are genuinely (I mean, from some deeper intellectual foundation and motivation) attracted to filming are mostly divided into two (of course very often intertwined) categories: "storytellers" and "painters". Maybe Hemingways and Faulkners, to say so in anglosaxon's language frame. For "painters", lenses are fingers for touching the world, for "storytellers" far more less so, more just tool for crafting story and secondary to "speaking tool" that are cameras. Because "storytellers" are primarily tend to present great, intriguing, moving story, "painters" to spread and disclose/integrate inner human being with universe. One begin with "I told you story about fabulous world", other one "I show you world as story through perception". What is relation with OP question? I don't know, I just hope there's always some minimal chance that in my words exists some sense.

Please, could you elaborate it for more mortal users: I'm very interesting just from simple stupid perspective - how much comparatively usable so-call stops it will provides in 24-ish p? Thanks in advance...

But examples of IBIS from that review unfortunately don't look too revolutionary compelling for me.

I can just share experience and point of view, not at all advice. So, from my narrow perspective and goal of usage, I learned that my decision primarily and mostly come from lenses, not from cameras. I learned that I'm so fond to old school manual and cinema lenses, that I can't really find enjoy in modern, electronic, plastic ones without precise MF. For some reason that maybe origin from my character or education, I simply can't use autofocus, although it is great add - maybe I don't like helps and adds. But, I also learned that, unfortunately, I don't fully enjoy in permanently usage of adapters. So, my totally narrow experience say: choose first lens(es), then system. Cameras comes and go, bettering each other, lenses may stay with us for a long time. Having said that, it seems to me that both Fuji and Panasonic (and BM) today are extremely attractive. Without doubt, we can match them, but why complicate matters and do so? At the moment when I started to be more seriously engaged in video/movie shooting, Fuji had no enough competitive characteristics. Now it is different, although still not quite. If I'm starting now and have XT3 in hand, maybe I'll wait and see coming of XH2 - it seems that it will be greatly rounded tool. But, I will not choose that if I don't firmly know about most important lens that I'd stick with it - it is Fujinon MK zoom. I tried Fuji XF lenses, but I was not fully satisfied with them, as also with Panasonic, Sony, even also and Olympus ones. But now I think that SLR Magic or Makinon or so make old school Fuji primes and there are also Veydras that give wider angle to APSC sensor. It seems that new Nikon cameras have to have adapter for using old beautiful Ais's. Pity, but maybe I could digest it. In general, it seems to me that FF cameras are not yet enough reasonable choice for my narrow usage. I had few Sony ones. The most important reason for still staying with Panasonic is, of course, again lenses. But I'll not name them

I'm not sure that example of equivalency is the most appropriate Actually, in regard to upper announcing post about S+Ninja V future (paid) combination, maybe it is even more realistic to say that one nice day FF will be good enough for saying that practical advantages of M43 in video shooting field become very little (codec quality) (Let's to forget for a moment minors, as time limit here, of overheating problems, RS or IBIS there...) But I really can't totally understand reason for that sensor size endless discussion and prophetic trying, especially from people that, luckily, could afford to buy and change cameras with not too much budget-suffering effort. What is so exciting in perpetual claiming that something that obviously works excellent once will be dead, what sort of quasi-competent satisfaction is hidden in guessing what will exists 3 years after Blackmagic bigpocket raw camera becomes affordable at the begining of 2020?

Actually, I've read that also (pretty used to be reader) and controlled it as variable. After that, I think I never shoot above ISO 800 I felt in love with Voigtlanders - I recognized them as my choice, albeit pretty little and compact, they are proudly constructed and smoothness capable, so to say if you understand...

I had A7SII - and yes, as far as I could see, you are right! I just regretted why I had no similar efficient mechanism in my mind: to see through darkness as it is romantic daylight.

Ok I'd bet you know much better than me that there are million pro et contra words all around, coming from guys with highest master degree of Physics to serious moviemakers. Once upon a time, my truly humble amateurish attempt after reading thousands of opinions was: I made a several shooting experiments simultaneously with m43 and FF camera (Pany and Sony) with same aperture and same other values. Result: clips had always same level of brightness Sun of T1.4-2 shines here the same as correspondent T1.4-2 there. Differences and quality? These ones depended of used products, their sensor generation, used lenses. When UW angle, lowlight lack-of-noice performance and especially zoom solutions are concerned - in theory it is much easier to find combination of solution with FF cameras. In practice, for pro(sumer) video shooting FF struggles and lags in other areas. Just video/movie shooting. Blackmagic is very serious Joker that produce very serious and earthquake like lessons - but: if they want, they easy can make m43 camera that fully will compete or be better tool than UMP. Simple reason why not: bigger sensor, bigger money. Panasonic also: why not new m43 pro-camcorder? Surely not because of any lack of resulting moving picture quality... Even that is not consensual conclusion because of strong color shifting and noise reduction as variable in every iso above 1600.

As you can see, today (as never before) so many (mutually compensating) technical variables are in the game... So, I'd say best rule is that there's no strict rule that will mean tomorrow all in all the same as today... and no reason to be fan of any sort of product or company name - too different cases, attempts, approach, cameras, products. And It is obvious that you are not a pro, but more or less lovely enthusiast, depending of someone's taste (Unfortunately I'm not lovely at all and to nobody.) But than I think it is nice to assume that there are people with at least equal experience, level of devotion and enjoy that have different conclusions to which they are fond - and there's no reason to easy call anybody silly and an ignorant person to be tired of. (For example, I could be tired of your perpetual attempts to convince everybody that Canon EOS R image is "more pleasing" or "more cinematic" of all existing similar offerings... but I actually respect it such as a case of passion and elaborate angle of viewing or aesthetic.) About Blackmagic team... maybe it is safer to say that they are sometimes, or often, extremely lucid and innovative Jokers. Sad joke, for example, am I

Again, calling other people silly and noob, assuming, affecting and pretending that you are tired pure professional - only speaks about comical level of your self appreciation and funny appodictic arrogance. Are you also in the same state of mind and tired with similar burden of professionalism when call Blackmagic team a "joke"? Besides, I think there are many noobs with exceptional results (again, I'll be glad to see any of yours as foundation of professionalism) that think different on concerned matter - sensor gathering/spreading light ratio - I'd say even starting with the owner of this site. So, no, it is not simple, but your truth - I'd say characteristically simplified or vulgarized, and actually also easy to be called extremely fanboy's and noob-ish one, because of so easy non including many relevant variables. (Although the smaller lens only transmits 1/4 of the light compared to the larger lens, the larger lens has to spread that light over 4 times the area. This is exactly the same reason a 2x teleconverter causes a 2 stop decrease in maximum aperture, because it doubles the size of the images by spreading it over an area 4 times the area of the sensor. Sensor size doesn't have an effect. Pixel size does though, since increased resolution means there are more pixels sharing the same amount of light entering the camera... Iso performance is a different story. Three main factors effect ISO performance; sensor quality, image processor quality, and size of pixels. The first two don't depend on sensor size. The third doesn't either. The third is related to how large each pixel is on the sensor. This relates to how many pixels per area or pixel density and then the size of the sensor compared to that density. Smaller pixels mean they will gather less light then larger pixels, and in turn less information per pixel and more noise. Noise is the camera trying to compensate for lack of information at a given pixel. Smaller sensor does not mean smaller pixels. Reduce the pixel density on a smaller sensor and the pixels grow.)

So arguments of others are silly because you are surely aware that you are aware and no one couldn't be aware as you with different conclusion. What I really can't understand is - why you must call arguments of others "silly" or such? Maybe there's some way to give some weight to words: please, show us exact examples where you, say, see that M43 glass always lacking when compared to full frame. Please, show us your utter examples of quality and lets prove that others are silly in their judgment.

I have Voigtlanders, had SB's... But, please, Mr, when you start statements with "The new order will be"... or "BM is joke of company" it seems to me that it is not quite logical to expect answers - because you are so sure you know everything and in advance make impossible any exchange of arguments. (Moreover, I must admit that, personally, I'm especially sensible to such attitude in conversation - but, of course, that's my own problem and I'm sure someone else will applaude to such tough-definitive close-the-door words. Unfortunately, I'm so tender, soft, even meek, so always ready to recede in front of such authority... )