kye

This isn't something I do much, but I know that if you get a hollow sound then it's likely to be phase cancellation. Phase cancellation works based on the wave-length, and lower frequencies have a longer wavelength so tend to cancel easier / under more circumstances, which is why a hollow sound is a common side-effect. I'd suggest that using the in-built features might be useful because either they will get it right and you're done, or if they get it wrong they might get it almost right, then you can zoom in and just fine-tune it by lining it up by eye. Happy to hear from others if there's a better way though!

When they work out how to un-blur images in post IT WILL BE THE BEST THING THAT HAS EVER HAPPENED TO FILM-MAKING. We can record in 1080 and then un-blur to get 4K, or 8K. All those police shows will come true where they take a blurry video and just keep saying "enhance..... enhance..... enhance..... enhance....." until you can tell where he ate dinner by looking at the individual molecules in the crumbs on his chin. In IT, once information is gone, it's gone. That requires much better ISO performance than we have currently, plus it would require that the next exposure start immediately after the last exposure stopped, otherwise you'd get gaps in your motion blurs. I get that with a high enough frame rate and a bit of AI you could close those gaps pretty easily, but I'd prefer IBIS and the fantastic low-light performance. Also, this high-framerate plus AI processing doesn't seem to give the smaller-camera plus better battery life that @Snowfun was talking about

If you have a gimbal then why not leave it on there the whole time and not need IBIS? It means you don't have to bother mounting and unmounting the camera from the gimbal, and it also gives you more options in what camera to buy.

That's why I like the IBIS in the GH5 - it stabilises my fully-manual vintage lenses. Fast, cheap, great MF, great ergonomics and stabilised is a combo that only IBIS provides. This is something that I think people don't understand... OIS and IBIS stabilise DURING the exposure of each frame - Electronic stabilisation stabilises AFTER the exposure of each frame. If you're shaking the camera at all, the fuzzy light-trails and motion blur in each frame can't be fixed by electronic stabilisation. Every camera with electronic stabilisation is designed for very short exposures - action cameras. As soon as you want a 180 shutter or work in low light then electronic stabilisation isn't much use. It means that you throw away all your ND filters, or always use the camera on a gimbal. [Edit: this applies to any motion of the camera or any motion in the frame]

6K requires at least 6000 pixels across, so in a 4:3 sensor that would equate to ~27MP. Alexa shoots 3.2K and upscales to 4K, which is a 1.25x upscale, which if Canon used the same logic would require a ~17MP sensor. If it's true, which sounds feasible, then it will be interesting to see what they do. There's a famous saying "yesterday is the best predictor of tomorrow" so I wouldn't bet on a surprising move from Canon.

What do you think makes IBIS obsolete? Isn't it simply OIS but applied to the sensor? And please don't say electronic stabilisation has replaced it!!

And actually, if @zerocool22 went with a good quality 1080 camera then maybe he could get two bodies [edit: for the same money by buying second-hand] and have a lens on each and swap between them for different shots. Maybe a 24-70 equivalent on the camera on the gimbal and another with a fast tele prime for extra reach and 'hero' shots with crazy bokeh or whatever. Also, having two bodies means that you've got complete redundancy in case something goes wrong.

I see both sides as well. The way I view cameras is as a combination of features or attributes, so any camera will be good in some situations / for some types of work, but bad in others. If you happen to do work that the camera is good for then the camera may be a good value for you, but if it doesn't align to your requirements then it wouldn't be a good value. People are critical of Canon cameras, but they provide a set of features and traits that are valuable enough to some people that they're worth the money and Canon makes a sale. I maintain that the reason people get so critical of cameras or of the choices of others is that they don't realise that the other person or camera has a different set of priorities, and people underestimate how different we are to each other. I find my GH5 to be a good fit for me because the weaknesses of the camera aren't high priorities for what I do, but if you have a high priority on AF then it won't be a good choice for you and acknowledging that means I don't need to get upset when someone chooses differently to me.

I think that we're not too far away from Resolve / PP / FCPX offering a feature that will review your footage and create a 'rough cut' for you. Maybe some kind of wizard where it does face recognition and asks you who are the most important people, maybe has some preset types of video so it knows what types of shots to prioritise (happy highlight reel, travelling with people, all about the location, etc) then it creates a timeline with the edit in there, maybe in some form that's easily editable. I think the first film-making job to be completely replaced will be the Assistant Editor positions who catalogue and edit and tag the footage and create daily and scene assembly timelines ready for the senior editor to work on a final edit.

If this can be done in a 'legit' way - ie, with some assurance of quality of workmanship and support from someone that customers know and trust then this is quite a cool thing. Having options for customisation is quite cool.

Great stuff, and truly exciting to see a company pushing forward with such a leap forwards in technology. It will start expensively, but trickle-down always occurs as the people who value it most repay the R&D and then the quantity in the mass-market will drive the price even lower. The 1/120 is an interesting thing. I wonder if there is some kind of time component that prevents it from working over longer exposures?

I'd suggest anyone stacking filters try different orders and see which order gives the least reflections. Setup the camera on a tripod and shine a light source into the lens to really accentuate the effect and then compare images and see which has the least undesirable side-effects.

It's not for everyone, but if you're not familiar with what computation can actually achieve then you might be surprised. In terms of what "the best part of a photo" is, you'd be amazed at how things like facial expressions can be universal, how complex things can be analysed with the right mathematics, and how improvement over time can make huge leaps in a technology. It's a whole new world and it will be surprising to many how far this technology will come.

Cool shots. The first one looks a little higher exposure on the skin tones than the others, but that's easily fixable. The GH5 is a real gem, still relevant many years after its release, and even has features that some new release cameras do not (eg, 4k60, or, you know, not overheating). The 10-bit is a pleasure to work with, even if you don't nail exposure (which I definitely don't). I really like mine

Agreed. Until he's told us a bit more, we can't even rule out an early RX100!! Give me one of those and no specific shots to nail and I'd create an awesome highlights reel. That would be heaps of fun actually

I remember reading about this when it was first introduced, and maybe I'm remembering incorrectly but I think the iPhone 5 had some. My iPhone 6 Plus definitely had some - you would take a shot and then take a burst, and if you compared the single shot it had far less ISO noise than each frame in the burst. It lowered the ISO noise by taking a burst and combining them to average-out the ISO noise. People have criticised Apple for not competing in the megapixel wars but I remember reading that Apple were putting the horsepower into the image processor instead of the sensor because they were looking at photography in a new way. The original way is: one exposure from the sensor -> save straight to storage (eg, film) The old way is: one exposure from the sensor -> colour and image processing (colour science, lens distortion compensation) -> save to storage The new way is: many exposures from many sensors -> colour and image processing of each exposure (like above) -> processing many images together to create a single image -> save The future will be: many exposures from many sensors -> colour and image processing of each exposure (like above) -> processing many images together to create something more than a single image -> save. (this may be combining images into a 3D environment, a VR output file, a file that lets you choose focus point and DoF in post, etc) The processing may also do things like combine multiple images together to find the best moment from a facial expression perspective ("peak smile" or "eyes open"), or more sophisticated would be choosing separate exposures and combining them together to pick the best frame for each person in a group shot so everyone is at peak-smile and no-one has their eyes closed. Cameras that learn your style from giving you many options and you choosing one will come, this will be a precursor to you not needing to hit the shutter button or even engage the camera - once they can analyse a scene they will know what a touching moment looks like and will just be watching the whole time and will just save (or flag) the best bits, creating little sequences for you. Pair the Apple Glasses with the Apple Watch and your iPhone and the watch will know when your heart rate is up and hear your vocal intonations to know if this exciting moment is the applause for your kid in the school play or a car accident, the Apple Glasses will be sending high-speed image sequences, and your iPhone will be processing and storing the whole lot. It will create magical memories from your life, it will save all the steps in how you made that recipe so you can make it again, it will create BTS videos, it will automatically log who you met with and what you spoke about so you can network and manage business and sales opportunities. It will be monitoring what you buy, it will be analysing and categorising and diagnosing you, and it will be talking to Apple about what you might want to buy next. It will be magical, people will queue up around huge city blocks for it, and the privacy warriors will go absolutely bananas.

Hooray!! Drinks are on you!

Looks like there are lots of considerations and it also looks like this conversation isn't clear because we don't understand what your requirements are. Questions: Why do you care about the aperture? Is it because you want a shallower DoF for separation? or is it because of exposure? If it's because of exposure, then you must also factor in ISO performance - for example the A7iii might have better low-light with an F4 than a GH5 with an F2.8 Also, an F2.8 on MFT has a DoF equivalent to F5.6 on FF, so a FF camera with F4 would have more separation than the MFT/2.8 combo What about AF? If you're on a gimbal, are you going to have a follow-focus? If so, what cameras support that function? If you need AF then you have to match the DoF to the cameras AF ability.. an A7iii will be better at f2.8 than a GH5 might be at F4 (I'm just guessing here) but an OOF shot is probably a wasted shot How many shots do you HAVE to get (eg, you have to include certain specific moments) vs is it a quantity thing where you just need enough good shots for a 4 minute highlight reel If there are certain key moments you have to get (eg, at a wedding you have to get the kiss, but you can afford to miss part of the first dance due to AF issues) then how are you going to make sure you nail them? If it's follow-focus or AF or deep DoF then you need to think about these. If you have to get key moments then having a longer zoom will mean you have framing flexibility and don't have to swap lenses and re-balance gimbals etc. Reliability and speed to get the key shots might be more important to you than having a lovely lens that misses the key moments. What shots do you get? You should be able to tell us that you need a super-wide, a mid, and you need close-ups but at a different time when there's time to change lenses. If you don't have clarity about what shots you need, when you need them, and how much time you have to setup for them then you don't know enough to buy a camera/lens combo for this work yet. What format and resolution are you delivering in? If you're delivering 4K then you'll need a 4K camera. If 4K, how many shots can you get away with including of 1080? maybe if there's a few quick inserts in 1080 scaled up you can get away with it? Do you need slow-motion? What frame rate? 4K60? Do you need 120p? If you need vertical video then you need a portrait camera rig, or you need to shoot 4K landscape to crop out a 1080 vertical slice If you're shooting 4K for 1080 delivery, then this impacts your lens choice as you can engage a crop mode on a 4K camera to get extra range. A GH5 can give a >2x digital zoom in 1080 ETC mode, which means a 12-35mm can deliver 1080 in a FF equivalent from 24mm to around 200mm. If you need to deliver 4K and can't include any 1080 shots then you're limited to FF 70mm equiv with that lens More likely is you can afford the odd 1080 shot (just extra sharpening in post) so could get shots in the FF 70-200mm range in 1080, but are the shots you need the extra zoom on the ones you can afford to deliver in 1080? Maybe not. Tell us what you're trying to achieve, what final video you need to deliver, how you shoot it, and what your style is and we'll tell you what equipment you need.

I disagree. The future is 360 VR and 3D, and depending on the potato, it can have multiple eyes on all sides!!

A few thoughts for consideration: I did a test where I zoomed into 4K footage by 150% and then matched it to a 4K shot with similar framing by putting on some sharpening, and it didn't take much sharpening at all to match, so taking a vertical slice from a C100 (without rotating the camera) would give you 608x1080 and scaling it up to 1.77x would give you a 1080x1920 and adding sharpening might be quite usable, especially after the client gets you to over-process it and then it goes through the compression algorithms of the various social media sites. You could do a test with your 1DX where you take a shot vertically in 4K, then go horizontally and frame it up with the same vertical FOV. Downscale both to 1080, then take the horizontal one and crop/scale/sharpen it to match visually, then upload both to YT, Insta, FB, etc and then play them on an iPhone, iPad, iPad Pro and see if you can tell any difference. It's a laborious test, but it will give you certainty on how flexible the resolution is. Following on from @Djangos comment about an external 1080 recorder, that might give you a high-quality screen and choice over bitrates and codecs that gives you the right quality and file sizes in post. Shooting directly to Prores (for example) may mean you can get high-quality files that you can edit directly without needing a powerful computer or to render proxies or render cache files etc. Also, if you're shooting Prores HQ for example, it would mean that your quality from the vertical-crop/scale/sharpen would be much better, as well as ability to pull and push the image in post. The variety of rigs you can use to help you cradle or hand-hold a setup is almost infinite, and by thinking about how to keep three points-of-contact but keeping the range of motion you want for your shooting style, you will be able to customise one (or more) rigs that will work for you, even if you have a monitor or external EVF rigged up on the camera. In terms of where to go when you want 4K, I'd leave that to the future, considering: We don't know what Canon will do (although we can guess, they are still guesses) Scaling up video is a thing that people are working on - Resolve has an algorithm that people speak well of and there is now talk of AI-based upscaling (and Resolve already has AI-based time-stretching algorithms so they're already in the AI game), which means that you may get extra life out of a good 1080 setup before you feel the need to go 4K I suspect the business model of video vs stills is still changing, which means that when you get there there might be other considerations or other business models that become feasible due to market changes. VR, 3D, interactivity, and the disposability and shelf-life of media may change what is required or in demand, and you may find that the position within the market of your business, your clientele, or the range of products/services/market-sectors you work in may have changed. All this could not only influence if you go 4K with your existing lenses or not, but also what type of camera, who you work with, and perhaps even your business may be different by this time. I think a C100ii (with external recording if that's going to be of benefit) is a safe option for the moment. The equipment will hold most of its value over the next few years, you'll learn a bunch, and the market will develop somewhat, so it's hard to see how this would be a bad move for you. Even if in 6-months you realise you need to go bigger then it won't have cost you that much really.

Just thinking out loud here, but could you run two audio setups? One that goes into a recorder and one that goes into the camera? If the camera one is wired and doesn't require external power then the camera one would be a reliable backup that should always capture audio regardless of you remembering something, that way you have a backup? Bad camera audio (with some processing in post) would be far better than not getting any audio at all.

Buying the mot expensive camera in the price bracket and then trying to buy the rest of your kit with the change.

Happy to be of service!!

The GH5 has many many modes with different frame rates and bit depths, those are just the ones I chose. The 200Mbps 1080 is great because it's ALL-I so is much better to edit with. The GH5 also offers a 400Mbps 4K ALL-I mode, but it requires UHS-II SD cards that are ridiculously expensive, so I don't bother with that mode. But as you say, 200Mbps 1080 is overkill, and for what I do so are many of the modes. I guess that's like RAW for most people as well. I know that getting a C100mkII wasn't what you really wanted, but given Canons market strategy, it's probably your best bet. I think that you may end up changing to Sony or Panasonic in a few years time when your needs are likely still not met, but you can cross that bridge when you come to it, and a C100 is a good interim option. You may have to experiment with how well the 1080 scales up for vertical video for social media (and what resolution is required for vertical video - 1080 x 600 might be sufficient). Should you still want to get a higher resolution and need to rotate the camera I would suggest that you invest in Area-Swiss style QR plates and have them on the bottom of every piece of equipment and on top of every mount so they are all interchangeable. By doing this, you can get an L bracket and put two QR mounts on it and you will quickly be able to take the camera off the tripod, put the L-bracket on the camera and put the L-bracket onto the tripod and quickly be able to rotate the camera for any vertical video shots that you need for social media. I'd also suggest hiring one and doing a mock shoot and see how well it goes and how the footage grades for you. C100 footage is fine but if you want to push-pull it a lot then it might require a change in how you light in order to get it closer in-camera to how you do things now with RAW image processing with your stills work.

Small LED lights like the Aputure AL-M9 aren't expensive and put out a high CRI light, so maybe a few of those might be good if you need to stay ultra-portable. Obviously wall powered lights would be better though.