kye

Of course, after all this, does anyone actually pay attention to this figure anymore? I mean, in most situations you're using an ND anyway, so throwing away the vast majority of the light. Then in those rare cases when there's no ND because it's low light (scene lit by candles, outdoor night scenes, etc) we simply adjust aperture / ISO settings (according to the priorities of the production, equipment performance, and artistic direction of crew) and then adjust the NR processing in post to match amounts of grain. Even in cine-lenses, I'm only looking at the T-stop and thinking "the F-stop is at least that large" to try and understand what DoF the lens will have when wide open.

Of course he didn't.... he typed a search query into the Search form (which is strangely called Start New Topic on these forums), hit Post and waited for a few hours for the hits to start showing up ??? It's common practice - everyone knows this!! Searching for "t stop vs f stop" and hit "I'm feeling lucky" and you get this: https://petapixel.com/2016/12/30/f-stops-vs-t-stops-difference-explained-plain-english/

Fair enough. I thought you were saying that they can afford the camera because the ad revenue from the videos is significant, which didn't really make sense, but the idea that they have so much money it doesn't matter makes much more sense

Makes sense. That's potentially a difference between Tonys audience of photographers who love razor thin DoF and cinema where the idea is to direct attention using focus (and other methods) but not make it seem like they're in a parallel universe where the air somehow limits visibility by blurring everything

I'm curious to know what you mean when you say that the F8 was a game changer, as in, what did it allow that previously wasn't possible, or what thing was made very significantly easier? Genuine question - I'm not a sound guy so I don't really know. For my suggestions of the GH5 I think it enabled professional results in a huge range of situations in a single lightweight package. I know people were already doing the things that the GH5 is great at, but it pushed a decent amount in many many directions, like I can now shoot 100% hand-held without my films looking like I'm on a boat or shooting an action film, but also low budget doco makers could reliably shoot whole productions for TV from a suitcase thanks to the 10-bit internal, people that needed great slow-motion could get it, the anamorphic modes made scopes accessible for much less money, etc. I also mentioned the early BM cameras as they put RAW (and therefore cinema quality results) into the hands of people for radically less money than it was previously available, essentially giving access to professional distribution channels (and their quality standards) to huge numbers of people that didn't have the funds to utilise these previously.

My point was that just because they're making money doesn't mean they can automatically justify spending it on new equipment. Firstly, because the differences between this cam and previous ones probably doesn't matter to a lot of people, and secondly I was saying maybe they're spending all the income paying rent and bills and trying to save for their kids education. Having a high revenue business doesn't equal having large profit margins, and even large profit margins doesn't mean that the business case to spend lots of money doesn't have to be made.

It means less light gets through. Same bokeh though. If you're wondering how less light can go through an aperture the same size then think about coatings reflecting or diffusing some light, the glass isn't perfectly clear (although it should be quite neutral) etc. In todays world of great ISO performance I wouldn't worry about it. T-stops were much more important when people were filming on film and needed to match exposures between lenses so they could swap lenses without having to adjust their whole lighting setups, so that's where it comes from.

This is a fascinating video.... What's fascinating about it is that while he's talking about how no other FF camera has autofocus like the EOS-R and DPAF, I'm having a hard time listening because the glorious DPAF is completely screwing up the whole thing with these strange jitters and what looks like hunting pulses. I understand his sentiments about HD, but man, that AF meant I couldn't finish watching the video. Wow. I guess the moral of the story is that even DPAF isn't good enough for a 50mm f1.2, which I would have thought it should be, especially by the way he was talking!

Interesting... I was half expecting another 24mm equivalent FOV, but 14.4mm is crazy wide, so that's pretty cool. I'm assuming the lens will be fixed focus, but I guess you can't be sure - the Sony RX0 wasn't fixed, and that is the other significant "larger sensor / action camera size" contender, although with the 24mm equivalent lens the RX0 is a very different offering. 100Mbps h265 5K video is quite interesting. I was actually thinking when I saw the "modular action camera" promos that it would be truly modular in the sense that you could put one module facing forwards, one backwards, stack the extenders, have ones pointing sideways, etc etc.. you know, actually modular, but obviously not. Still, interchangeable camera modules is a start.

@DaveAltizer agrees with you on that... EVFs are fantastic, I use the EVF on the GH5 all the time. Partly it's for shooting in full sun, partly it's because it's slightly higher res than the screen, and it also gives you that third point of contact for stabilisation. Of course, it makes getting more creative camera angles much less convenient. Back in the day EVFs were bad because they were too slow and stills shooters would miss 'the decisive moment' and I wonder how much the die hard DSLR shooters still think that OVF is better than EVF and just haven't caught up yet. I highly doubt that. You'd have to be living in a one-bedroom apartment right next to a race-track to be able to regularly feature supercars in your videos, otherwise $7K will get eaten up pretty quickly when you factor in transport, hotels, and all the other things involved. Most of these channels are either run by trust-fund-kids or kids who are couch surfing with a laptop. The people with families and rent are doing sponsorships, which pays so much more than ad revenue that some channels don't even enable ads on their videos. I second this! I have it on my list to do a 4K 10-bit h264 vs 1080p RAW comparison to see how that goes. Of course, recording 4K Prores HQ would be pretty nice!

Hooray! They'll finally have to invent smell-o-vision!! ???

Of particular interest to me was this section: and one thing they forgot to mention - declining rides to people who have been blacklisted. The point that ridesharing starts being offered by automated vehicles is the point when your ride might show up covered in whatever bodily fluids were put there by the last passenger and there was no driver to realise something was wrong... maybe I should buy shares in manufacturers of those sensors that detect dust and fluids because there will be so many of them they'll basically be weaving the fabric and carpet out of them!

Agreed. Although Canon fans aren't the only ones here, also of note is that Marquis Brownlee (MKBHD) shoots 8K RAW for his projects (IIRC). Go Red!

Good plan. Please share your findings. Someone commented in another thread that the transition to 8-bit files wasn't a pleasant one, but then again I see great footage coming from them regularly, so I guess it depends on the situation

I was making a joke about the A7Siii release date not being in 2020.... obviously not a good joke though!

Interesting, thanks for the info. The article I got the MFT lens charts from is this one: https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2018/03/finally-some-more-m43-mtf-testing-are-the-40s-fabulous/ In it they say: So, assuming I read that right, they're testing the optics only?

Sounds like he's talking about movies that are most appealing because of the cast, rather than anything else. I seem to be in the minority amongst my (non-film-making) friends because when I ask about a film they are inclined to tell me who is in it, whereas I tend to want to know what kind of film it is and what it's about. I do this even to the extent that I respect people like Johnny Depp not for their ability to act but for their taste in choosing scripts to work on. Many of the films and TV shows I have liked were from no-one famous in-particular but I was attracted because of the genre, or favourable reviews. Many a good movie was made by unknowns, and many a bad movie was made by a dream-team of cast and crew. I suspect that this doesn't extend as much to box-office performance, and I'm pretty sure that it definitely doesn't extend to getting distribution for a film. I've heard stories that the way to make a film is to get / write an idea / pitch / treatment, cast your leading actor and have them above the line as both cast as well as executive director, then have them help you pitch to distributors and writers (in whatever order makes sense) then once you've got some level of interest and commitment from a financier then actually write the script. "Did you see the latest Scorsese film?" "I love Denzel" "Robin Williams is absolutely hilarious" ... but not so much "did you see the latest rom-com?"

Hang on.. isn't the question about how to FILM the doc, not edit it? If it's a case of FILMING it, then my suggestion is to: work out what are the things that are important to include (history of the location, history of key people, people's opinions, where is the drama?) include these key points in the interviews you do work out how you're going to show these key points - are you interviewing the right people, will you get shots of certain locations, do you need historic materials or footage, etc then work out what your constraints are, what is the most difficult aspect of the project? Is it a person, a location, the weather, scheduled events like festivals, certain natural phenomena aligned with the seasons, etc plan / schedule how to get your most difficult shots, and keep the easier ones as backups For example, if you're shooting an inside and outside film then you might be limited by the weather, so you can film outside on days with the right weather and inside when the weather is bad, or at key locations when they're available and interviews with people who are flexible in the gaps, etc.... Remember that you don't have to shoot things in order, and to keep your mind open and utilise the unexpected when it occurs.

Good points. A note about the above charts - my impression is that they're tested by lensrentals with a specialised piece of testing equipment, not just by connecting a camera and looking at the files on the SD card. Here's an article showing their setup and talking about it, but I'm not entirely sure how it works as they don't appear to explicitly state that: https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2018/06/developing-a-rapid-mtf-test-for-photo-and-video-lenses/ This is a later article on the subject: https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2018/11/using-rapid-mtf-testing-how-we-test-monitor-our-lenses/ However, regardless of how they perform the tests, you're not going to get better results than the charts indicate, unless a manufacturer has worked out how to up-res an image, in which case, woohoo! I'll be filming in SD, saving heaps of storage space and battery life, and I'll deliver in 8K to get the best YT quality

I think that there are three levels of AF involved in film-making: Can the AF focus quickly and reliably? Can the AF choose the right thing to focus on reliably? Can the AF transition between focal points in the most aesthetically pleasing way? Most of the AF conversation seems to be focused on the first one, but in reality it's split between the first two (and sometimes the third with older CDAF systems). PDAF / DPAF are great at the first one, and CDAF isn't too bad now (with the latest Panasonic cameras for example). Face detect and eye detect (and animal face/eye detect) are great advancements in the second one. The third one is also somewhat supported with the firmware offering some control of focus speed. So for example, Canon seems to be pretty good on their DPAF cameras - they normally detect a face and focus on it and not the background. With multiple actors in a narrative scene this may not work so well, but broadly it's not too bad. They also seem to offer a more organic focus transition too. Panasonics like the GH5 are actually relatively good at the first one, but seem to have issues with the second one - the out-of-focus shots you see in vlogs and lower-quality-more-disposable content aren't actually out-of-focus, typically the background is very well presented and looking lovely, it's just a pity that the presenter was a big blur! I also see some very mechanical transitions to acquire focus occasionally, like the focus mechanism is directly taken from a stills camera where it seeks at full speed, hunts for a bit, then locks on. Very unpleasant. My MF performance isn't that great at the first one, and I'm somewhat let down by the low-resolution of the focus peaking available, or by screen brightness if I'm using the LCD outdoors. On the other hand I have zero problems with either the second or the third. At no point do I ever find myself not listening to myself in terms of what I want to focus on! I'm pretty good at doing the third one, and certainly if I'm not rushed and it's not a difficult focus pull then I'm fine, and I have no limitations in doing a slow focus pull during a shot and then immediately after that doing a fast-as-possible focus pull to catch something else that might happen unexpectedly. With one of those menu-based settings things you're limited by the current settings and it takes a long time to change them. I also find that the aesthetic suits my style of film-making, but that's a creative choice and wouldn't be shared for many productions.

Yes, but so are most lenses. You have to be very careful with these things - there is a fundamental flaw with lens tests. We tend to test lenses at 5.6, 2.8, and wide-open. This is a trap because there are many lenses that are wide-open at f1.7 (for example) and that lens is sharper wide-open than the Voigtlander is wide-open, but here's the thing, that's comparing one lens at f1.7 and the other at f0.95 so it's not a fair test. The Voigtlander is sharper when it's at f1.7 than the other lens is, but no half-baked lens test will tell you that. You have to be sure that you're not comparing apples with oranges. Here are some charts to show you what I mean.. Voigtlander 42.5mm So, you can see that by f2.8 it sharpens right up. For comparison, here's a Zeiss CP.2 at T2.1 - the Voigtlander is sharper across most of the frame when it's at F1.4 than the Zeiss at T2.1, and these lenses are radically more expensive. Here's the Samyang Xeen cine lens, with it's absolutely terrible performance wide-open at T1.5....... and here is a Zeiss Super Speed, one of the classic cine lenses (a set of them sells for over $100K) with it's very poor, but hugely desirable, softness wide open... These comparisons aren't exactly fair considering that these other lenses are full-frame, but to dismiss a lens based on softness wide open is just stupid when you understand that most lenses are soft wide open, and also take into account how much faster the Voigtlander is. So let's compare the MFT competition too... Here's the Voigtlander at F1.4 and F2.8 for comparison: This is the Panaleica getting crushed wide-open: This Olympus is about on par with the Voigt at f1.8 This is the Panasonic not really beating the Voigt: This Olympus PRO lens not really looking quite so PRO in comparison to the Voigt: And the Panaleica f1.2 also failing to beat the Voigt: So basically: The Voigt is sharper wide-open than many of the classic / industry standard FF cine lenses The Voigt is of similar or better sharpness as the competing MFT lenses when they're wide open, and it opens up further, so you can use it stopped down or you can open it up further to get more light in Many of the people that like things like the Zeiss Super Speeds actually like the softness of the lens wide-open because it's like having two different lenses - vintage when open and more modern when stopped down, so the softness of the Voigtlander is actually a desirable thing for some. Now, is the Voigt perfect? No. They're expensive, they have a colour cast when wide open, I've heard they're not built to be repaired and they're only MFT so who knows if they're a good long-term investment. Are they the sharpest lenses available? No - the Veydras are much better performers at equivalent apertures. But should we cast them aside because they're soft wide open? No.

Make up your mind...

I solved all these issues by buying a GH5 and bought the Voigtlander 17.5mm F0.95, Voigtlander 42.5mm F0.95, and Laowa 7.5mm F2. Spending ~2.5K on lenses seems to freak everyone out, but think about how many bodies you've gone through.... So, I have 4K60, 1080p180, 4/5K 10-bit internal, no recording limits, incredible IBIS, and the FF equivalent of a 15mm F4 / 35mm F2 / 85mm F2 in cine packages with long focal throws and de-clicked apertures. The only "price" I had to pay for all this is to move to manual focus, which I discovered I prefer the aesthetic of, and I spend 0.00000% of my life silently screaming at the camera to focus on the right thing while the moment goes by and is lost. Welcome to the club. I think you're not a fully fledged member of these forums if you haven't made a list like this. By the way, you forgot to add: Gimbal-like IBIS 16 stops of DR dedicated buttons for all functions internal NDs mirrorless to adapt all sorts of vintage lenses 10-hour battery life pocketable / under 200g $100 or less retail price ????????????? Not a chance. Not even after Sony say in a press release that the entire line is cancelled. Not even after Sony stop making cameras. Not even after the entire company goes bankrupt and closes shop. Look at the following the NX1 still has. This will be a generational thing - like when people fight in a war and the level of fantasy / trauma means they never completely recover....

P4K, P6K, and now the P8K... collect the whole set! At this rate the P8K would come with a PL mount for that BM camera complaint trifecta: battery life, that it's still called "pocket", and the lens mount!

I agree with the desire for simplicity and also having one set of lenses, but there are some significant challenges to this approach: Having a single set of lenses that will work across multiple sensor sizes is difficult as the crop factor difference makes the lenses different focal lengths. If you're planning to mix footage from the different cameras then you'll get different 'looks' from the same lenses (the smaller crop factor will reveal the resolution limitations on the glass and the larger sensor will reveal the problems on the edges of the image circle from that lens). Even if you aren't planning on matching footage from multiple cameras, it still makes it difficult to get an ideal set as there aren't many rectilinear FF lenses that are wide enough to be a wide on a crop sensor (a 16mm is a 20mm lens on the GH5 and that's with the 0.64x SB so will be longer with any other configuration) You seem to be attached to face detection (you listed it in your post) but the GH5 has poor AF and BM have no AF-C etc.. Reading between the lines a bit, I suspect you're like the rest of us in that you want a camera that does everything, but unfortunately it just doesn't exist. Almost every discussion on these forums is about this issue - either us getting annoyed at the manufacturers for not making it, refusing to acknowledge that it doesn't exist, refusing to compromise, buying more equipment out of a hope that it will somehow magically side-step the issue, or talking about what the various compromises are that we have made. I'm no different. I started out wanting great AF and lamenting Canon for not having real 1080, and I shortlisted many cameras and did all sorts of testing and evaluation before realising what compromises I was willing to make and what priority each factor was for me and how I shoot. I ended up with a GH5 and native fully-manual lenses because that was the combo that suited my preferences best, but the A7iii + 24-105mm F4 lens was the runner up option and I was only able to come up with a better option by dropping AF completely. My advice is to accept that no perfect camera exists, prioritise what you want then work out what equipment fits that the best. Or, if I put it a little differently, work out your priorities BEFORE buying the gear, because I can guarantee you that if you buy the gear without doing it then you will still do it afterwards. and here's an observation for consideration - you're rejecting video from the GH5 and the A7iii as a hybrid camera. Both of these are in the top 3 options available for the situations you're using them for, and many would argue that they're the best in their categories, so I'd suggest that rejecting them is more about your expectations than it is about what is available in the marketplace.