kye

Same reason that they're not all screaming at Canon for lack of un-cropped 4K... Every brand has weaknesses, to expect otherwise is naive. I love it when Canon moves slightly, all the people that believe in pixies, santa, the perfect camera, unicorns, the company not driven by profit, and other mythical creatures all appear and emote all over the internet!!

Nice! Get a GH5, some half-decent lenses, and a smoke machine and you're half-way there already

Personally, I thought The Breakup with Vince Vaughn and Jennifer Aniston was so true to life that it was terrifying, but I somehow get the impression that's not what you're asking for.......

With only a week left to enter, how are we all doing? Who has films on the way? I have two lenses I haven't shot with yet, although one has an infinity focus problem that I haven't resolved, and no opportunities to shoot in sight... ???

I'm curious about why it has to be FF? I like the FF look, but with great lenses that is possible on APSC or MFT, and when you factor in the price of this camera, the best lenses money can buy aren't actually that much money.

Let the hype begin. ....meanwhile I'll be over here with my GH5, which even with a full set of Voigtlander f0.95 primes would still be cheaper ???

Well, I don't know about you, but if I was a college-age girl living alone on an industrial farm I would definitely keep a baseball bat next to my front door! You never know what the yokels will do when they get all liquored up!!

Yes, that holds up very well.. even with very subtle tones on her face there's no visible banding or artefacts (even on your upload).

Great tips - I binge lots of film-making and travel film-making on YT but these aren't tips I've heard before, so this is really cool. I like the idea of "intermediate" tips, most channels don't get past using a ND. Makes me wonder what you would consider an advanced tip!

Looks like something happened....

Good points. For the test I did for myself I shot 4K h264, scaled some shots, exported in h264 (at a higher bitrate) and then uploaded to YT in 4K, as that is my workflow. Obviously if you're shooting RAW and delivering in Prores HQ then your thresholds for what is perceptible will be different. I was simply doing it to see if it mattered to me, and how far I could push things in how I shoot, hoping that it would matter less and I could use digital zoom to space my primes further apart and cover more zoom range with the same number of lenses. Fun stuff.

I think satisfaction levels are about comparing what you have to what you want. I think everyone probably always wants more, but it's about priorities. Do I want a camera the size of a GoPro Hero 5 Session, lenses that perform like Zeiss Master Primes, output files that look like an ARRI 65, and the whole thing to cost $100 with free shipping? Yes. But the point is that all that happens in the context of all the rest of what we're doing when we shoot. I think most real shooters are concerned with the total package of what they deliver, and if the camera isn't in the top 5 issues that are holding us back then we're not focused on it, and if asked we'll say we're satisfied. Everyone wants more, we just differ by how much we want it.

Great stuff! I can see some cool lens stuff going on. These lenses work really nicely at night!

Nice! Great work

https://noamkroll.com/why-i-just-bought-the-new-sigma-fp-mirrorless-camera-for-filmmaking/

I'm considering posting a blind test where some of the shots are digitally zoomed to various amounts and seeing which shots people could identify, and how much zoom was evident. What sort of shots should I include? I'm imagining if I included things like close shots of plants with a back-light to highlight all the tiny hairs and textures? I did a quick test like that for myself (thus the reference to me doing more tests than I share here) and I found that large digital zooms were visible but smaller ones were not.

Unfortunately. Of course, the other place that the knowledge lives is behind paywalls or online courses, but all of that is paid too. We're lucky for what Juan has given us. I suspect that part of his motivation is to show how little the YT guys know by showing what real knowledge looks like, and it certainly worked for me - the difference is pretty stark. Juan should work with someone to offer a course - I'd be very interested in it!

Remember that you were seeing the set through a camera. I'd imagine the set was lit normally and the set lighting was just way brighter. He was doing things in (what looked like) 120p, so at base ISO you'd need a bit of light for that.

Real world use of the strange wide-angle probe lens....

Ah, that makes a difference. I guess there's always the Lav-into-smartphone and sync in post option. In theory spending a few hundred extra is a worthwhile investment, but taking into account the fact that most vloggers are getting paid under $1 per hour, I'm not sure that investment stacks up!

I think it's the old problem that the people who really know what they're doing are off doing it, rather than hanging around talking about it (or making videos, which takes way more time than even posting on forums).

As above - you'll either lose quality or you'll make huge files. However, you'll make them way easier to edit, so that's worth something. 4K h264 files are a pain to edit with.

I'm sure that the older models would vlog pretty well. Each previous model probably had millions of vlogs shot on them!!

Do they see better in the dark? I understand that the pixels will be larger and have less ISO noise, but in an oversampled image the downscaling has an averaging effect on random noise on adjacent pixels, working as a sort of noise reduction filter. I'm genuinely not sure which would come out ahead. Does anyone know?