Dan Sherman

It's to small for my tastes, I prefer a 7 inch model. Unless feelworld releases their rumoured lut supporting monitor soon, I'm probably going to go with an Ikan dh7-v2(has Lut support), now that my wife is back to work after the birth of our son.

I've already got those in my gh5 so for me that's not a problem. If anything, I'd prefer Luts over waveform, scopes, and RGB.

$339.99 here in the US. https://www.amazon.com/FEELWORLD-2200nit-Daylight-Viewable-1920X1200/dp/B07HH1RQSP That's not to bad considering it's a 7" display and has hdmi and sdi in and out.

Nikon & Canon treat APSC like an unwanted stepchild!

What are you wanting to compare about the lenses, and what cannons are you talking about the f/2.8s or f/4s? First you need to define low light, as that's a concept that's not the same for everyone. matching footage will require grading.

I agree, every hipster wannabe cinematographer will be saying how it doesn't work for their use case and is thus complete crap!

but you know what it's shocking how many people can't walk or drive properly! Technology is great, but regardless of what anyone says it's not the answer to everything.

This is what happens when you have to many hipsters running around calling themselves professionals!

In some of the close-up shots of the lenses, they looks like 3D printed mock-ups!

Sounds like entitlement to me!

I don't know, i don't work for them. If you don't like what they have, then don't but their products, it's as simple as that.

AF in video is more demanding, so it will always lag behind stills. encoding/processing video takes up a lot of cpu power leaving less for the AF engine. I would't say its bad, its just not what a lot of people want. I mean some of the tests people do are retarded, jumping completely in and out of frame, or moving towards or away from the camera quickly. Then in real world use, they just sit in front of it vlog style yet still complain because their extreme tests didn't work.

get up on the wrong side of the bed today did we. DFD has the potential to be better than anything on the market given enough processing power. The issue is all the cry babies wanting other new features that eat up the processing power. Since DFD involves knowing the lenses characteristics, given the processing power, it can actually be used to predict movement, and preempt the lost of focus. everything else can only react to a loss of focus. Hence the reason why DFD works amazingly well for stills, but less so for video. The video processing eats a crap ton of processing time.

Based on the videos on your channel, you don't need a flippy screen! Since your footage is so static, you would be much better served by an HDMI cable, and the cheapest monitor you can get your hands on.

You must not shoot much huh? The only people who really bitc* about DFD are video people!

IMO, if your into photography or videography as a hobby or a profession, you have an artistic leaning. Regardless, the amount of fretting shown show far based on still next to no information is ridiculous.

Jesus,what a bunch of whiny baby some of you are! It's a camera announcement six months before release, and you're crying, complaining, and passing judgement because they didn't give you all the specs in intimate detail. They probably don't even know what the full specs are yet, as a lot of development will happen over the next 6 months! every time a new cameras is released, I'm reminded of why I can't stand most artistic types, you all seem to be perpetually malcontent!

It's designed for hybrid use, not just video!

Comparing the diameter of the mount is mealiness by itself, as you don't know where the sensor sits in relation to it. You need to remember we aren't talking about a cylinder of light hitting the sensor, but a cone of light, so depending on the position of the sensor the, the diameter of the circle projected on it can have different diameters. Not to mention the aspect ratio of the sensor will play a big part in the equation as well.

I'm probably not the best person to explain this type of thing. This is a good starting point! http://downloads.atomos.com/support/HDR_Tech_Guide.pdf

That's correct, You get more leeway when you start with more dynamic range, because most nles work outside the constraints of a given profile. However, once you render out you are bound by the constraints of the color space you are rendering in. It might not sound important, but it is!

That's purely perception! If you are using a screen that follows the rec 709 spec you are not going to see more than 5 stops. Technically you have about another stop in the over exposed highlights and underexposed shadows, but the display wont show them. The only way you are getting more than 5 stops is if you are using a custom gamma, like REDGamma, but then again your display has to know what to do with it.

I don't use/own vlog, as i don't need it. However, it doesn't need to be tested, as this is a math/science thing not an artistic perception thing. when you do a color space transform, your dynamic range is constrained by the final color space. If you have footage with 15 stops of range, and you want to shove it into a color space with 5 stops, it is compressed down to fit into the 5 stop range, or it's clipped.

I find that hard to believe considering rec 709 only has 5 stops of dynamic range. You might have started with more, but you're not going to end up with more.

I use them pretty extensively, and don't have any issues. My biggest gripe is that while they gave us normalization, it's peak normalization, and that's all but useless for modern video. Thus, I have to use a plugin, and since you can't offline plugins it takes way to damn long!