anonim

@Kisaha I had to admit that so long I envied Olympus to have ibis with for manual lenses... because of added range of freedom to play, to lay down to the ground and shot, to jump at shot, to dance and shot... just as expressionist's painting... what so much enjoy me is the side of some life-wise lesson: that you have to have some "obligation to be relax" for suggestive using of such technique... That said, I'm also quite aware of that what Dave complained about unpredictable jumpiness of ibis Nice to have option as GH5s and, above all, its direction of color science evolving. (Although, frankly, I don't know where it could progress more.) Now, we have mimic Vermeer out of camera - but low light Rembrandt, in spite all marketing persuasion, I'd say, yet not Regarding to freedom in using camera, I've learned (at least I hope so!) so much from Matty Brown

Not always I find some wonderful location for my shots. Central Botanical Garden in my town and its witching, vast glass greenhouses - friend of mine is PR there, she will help me, but I have to shoot unnoticed with my children and hero actors crew, or I have to pay Garden's manager rent for using the space There's no chance I'll make it without ibis - even base gimbal called me professional instead of tourist... so GH5 is irreplaceable workhorse ... I wish I could afford or now justify GH5s also, maybe later, or maybe we will seen back of ibis sooner. But I'm playing with downloaded clips. As it seems to me, it is not at all hard task to highly match both cameras - in fact, it is, or it has to be marketing goal of Panasonic team. Some differences in accentuated color cast, sometimes better looking rollofs OOC from GH5s, or more detailed downsampled image from GH5. Yes, new sensor obviously has some brilliant mellow balancing ingredient, but images are in PP pretty achievable close, thanks to 10bit log flexibility.

No, I don't forget - that's because I wrote, and again, you are welcome. I mean, seriously - I'm really glad if you genuinely and sincerely loughs, no matter what/how you understand my word... or not. But calling in easily gruff manner someone's words crazy - I think that it doesn't fit to you. We have some experts in it here, but please, don't include yourself in such team.

Frankly, I also and simply, can't separate my eyes from looking to some last seen footages from GH5s - at least, at the moment, on my 15" computer screen.

You are welcome. Does lol-ing state of your mind always include calling someone's stuffs crazy, or it is just when you are under (Drugs-based?) inspiration of intrusively rude self-wiseacre?

@Clovis I dare to say so the same you know as well - of course, because it is not low light demand and no horrible NR at work. For my eyes, color is so subtle and - to say oxymoronic - somehow magically natural. @jonpais I did the same for Voigtlander 42.5

I have immediately conclusion about IQ and character.

Last one sample... to my eyes extremely nicely balanced level of details, non emphatic/distractive usage of colors/contrast, in word, identical to Canon mellowness and gentleness. I have no Vlog to compare with HLG, so I'm searching for respectable opinion, strangely how they sharply differ. From my pretty extensive experience with Panasonic realm, I pretty firmly can advice just one - if someone search for cinematic image as I above tried to define, than using of native Panasonic lenses is highly inadvisable. Maybe with exception of Nocticron. (Maybe that's part of reason why Panasonic don't include, at least as an add-mount-offer, m43 mount as crop usage for coming raw to EVA1?)

So it seems that opinions are highly devided? Paul Leeming, for example, wrote "For another reference point, I've found HLG to give identical dynamic range to V-LogL, but better distributed across more of the tonal range." And elsewhere "It's my favourite profile now, as it also uses more of the 10 bit space than V-LogL, meaning smoother tonal transitions." http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?359026-GH5s-dynamic-range-tests

+1 for such a reasonable price/specs ratio

I really don't know much about Drugs, especially not about distinction between Light or Heavy Drug in which, it seems, you are some sort of expert to - insomuch that you unmistakable find right place and topic to announce it. But if it crazy, but funny stuff that I wrote - probably yes, I'm a clown in front of such really experts that profoundly know how to superior lol-ing

I think that, before any remark, it is desirable that spectator try to precisely explain what personally implies or search-for as cinematic quality. For me - 1) that immediately observer's reaction don't be how noticeable an image is sharply cut/define into the combination of constitution particles - i. e. that experience of wholeness is not distracted by noticing edges of minuscule parts 2) that details are present and discernible - if we willingly pay attention to them, diverting attention from undistracted impression of wholeness, as explained in 1) 3) that colors are not at all emphasized (of course not in the case of special look) in the any of ways that doesn't correspond with our natural observation of color balance - again, by "natural" i consider spontaneous work of eyes to perceive wholeness, smoothing differences in contrast between nearby areas (contrary emphatic treatment I call as unnatural usage as of subtle inner ilumination resulting in artificially "pleasant" or similar, but calling-to-itself impression). To achieve such impression, of course it is necessary to have enough dynamic range of nuances at disposal. Etc, but not to be too long. So, maybe my definition of cinematic differs from someone's other - but, judging by it as reference, my answer is: yes, your footage looks to me cinematic by great margin.

Sorry, but no, I don't trust you that anyone wants to see wrinkles in their skin. Come on, we all know how great difference between HD and 4k shots is on sony a6500. For me, as maybe-buyer and video oriented user, is of great interest to know about that distinction. How look like 4k and how not downsampled HD footage. If it is so obvious to many of us that we need more independent reviewers to know IQ from them - on what bases I can make conclusion about achievement of this camera? For me, last three posted clips are very under of mediocre ones. Some footages from yesterday posted shots look to me very nice.

Of course it is so... I also upload on youtube and beg spectators for best viewing resolution But I think that sense of the Northrop question is something that also legitimelly interested me: what is exact looks of 4k videos, don't converted to HD.

Yesterday shot - portrait of an woman photographer, some shots with beautiful DR, some of the same subject smoothened - there I wrote exactly time code. 2nd one looks to me very disappointing - exactly the same as some of above mentioned: when bald guy talks, I can't see any wrinkles at his skin. The rest also seem vary plasticky flat to me and with mediocre DR, as being of the GH5s low low light sort

Does Tony Northrup have right when, at the end of his review, send question to Fuji advertising team - why they didn't include any 4k promo clip advertising 4k video camera? Is it true, and if it so, what could be the reason? I notice that strange question just because yesterday it seemed to me that exists obvious discrepancy of DR and details between shots in one of the promo - in which I very liked some, I'd say, succeeded shots.

No more just sad - and it's nice to know you feel need to point at, as matter of principle over hypocritical callings to calming with last word's coup de gras.

Shamelessness that just goes deeper. +

Yes, now you sound - at least to my ear and mind - as Really the best Emanuel to whom I already send question, and I'll do it again: Really... about those notion as Ego, оr pseudo-authoritative judges or first-provocatеurs (conscious ор unconscious) who has to count that someone, sometimes, is willing to answer to quasi-polite opinion-pressure aimed to feed vanity. Allow me to try and offer something meaningful to all of us (and nice to hear also) from my side...

Emanuel, really? Also, I have no problem with your direct accusation or my indirect as answer - all of that is not at all, I'd say, serious. I have no really problem if someone send me personal message slandering other members or using quasipolite words of threatening, imagining that I'm buddy of bad guy ... But I have problem when going-and-returning person, who send such messages, above all of that keeps trying to present himself as innocent/objective ruler. Why I have a problem, why I stay in the thread... I wrote earlier answering to one of the polite member and some of his remarks about character of world where his son has to live.

Matias, don't be such twofaced man - you have fully week to answer and said it was not slightly or more threatened words. It is obvious that you tried, even with PM to involved me in your conflict with someone else. Now you note someone's trying to involve you... To locked a thread is fastest way to clean your message with slandering content.

I think I understand first. But I'm afraid it is not that, that you like to, or can admit.