kye

Interesting poll. I chose IBIS because I shoot hand-held, size and weight because I have to carry it all day and shoot in places that consumers are welcome but pros aren't. In terms of the top options (as they are now), I shoot GH5 and so I'm probably quite spoiled, but I don't feel I need more DR, the codecs I have are just fine for my needs, I have great IBIS, I don't care about NDs, price is good already, and I use manual focus anyway as I like the aesthetic. Great low-light would have been a good option to add to the poll, I think people care about that to some extent.

I agree. I bought the 18-35/1.8 for my APSC camera on the promise that it is like having 28mm 2.8, 35mm 3.8, and 56mm 2.8 equivalent primes, all without having to change lenses, and it absolutely delivered in that sense. When combined with Magic Lantern and its 3x crop mode, it made it into a 28-168mm zoom, which would be the perfect walk-around lens. I only went a different way because of problems with ML and the fact the setup had no stabilisation and I shoot hand-held. This lens is the same principle, but with the IBIS in the GH5. Had this lens been around when I swapped to the GH5 from Canon I might have just bought it and never looked back. Although I wonder how heavy it will be.... the 18-35 1.8 is prohibitively heavy for a hand-held walk around lens.

Wow.. that extra 100mm sure adds a huge amount of length to the overall size! and strange considering that the longer one is a 3x zoom and the shorter is 5x, which you'd think would be the other way around. Optics doesn't make sense to me a lot of the time! Ha!

That's going to instantly be the 18-35mm 1.8 equivalent of the MFT world, you can see it already. I like the fact they went wider at the wide end, 14 or even 12mm isn't wide enough I think, which is why I have an 8mm prime in my kit, and is either the 2nd or 3rd lens in my bag, depending on the situation, because nothing beats it for those 'wow' wide shots.

Indeed it is! TBH I'm a quite disappointed. I found his review to be more from the perspective of a YouTuber rather than a cinematographer. For someone who reviews things like Kinefinity, EVA-1, FS5, C200, Fuji MK cinema lenses, cine primes, etc (and quite well and thoroughly I have normally thought) he basically just tested the marketing claims of the GoPro and Osmo, and gave us a Codec and IQ 101 mini-class. He accepted the premise of the products (as action cameras) instead of ignoring the premise and testing how well they would perform from the point of a cinematographer. What was missing was all the stuff that we argue about on here: No talk about ecosystems and how they do or don't fit with basically any other equipment (recording time limits, mounts, audio, use on tripods, etc) No discussion of post-production except in the context of stabilisation or to examine the DR Really not much acknowledgement that anyone would use these cameras as anything other than action cameras Things we should have learned (that I already know) include that the X3000 has tripod mounts not GoPro ones, and has a 3.5mm audio in jack that doesn't require an extra converter, how good the low-light was on any camera other than the GoPro and Osmo, what the 3D flippy camera footage looks like (was it in there at all?), what they might be good for other than stabilising the footage you take with them, etc. Beyond knowing that productions with real budgets use GoPros and other prosumer/consumer cameras, I know very little about why they use them, how they use them, how they hide it, and what things I should be considering. PB knows a lot more about shooting than I do, but he didn't bring anything new to the table on this one, unfortunately. Speaking of things we didn't learn..... Imagine is the key word here, because it was notably absent. In fact I would sum up his video as the antithesis of the title - I think it was just another action camera comparison, just like all the others that grabbed as many small form factor cameras as they could, made a thumbnail, introduced the video as a huge camera roundup, then mostly ignored the others and only compared the GoPro to the Osmo and forgot that Sony, Yi, SJcam, etc even exist.

Interesting ideas. I'm familiar with repetition and evolution in music, but how would you do this kind of thing visually? Just thinking out loud here, but at a shot-level it would be kind of hard to create in the edit, but you could have little patterns in sequences like a wide-medium-tight at the beginning of each scene perhaps, or a certain rhythm in the cuts perhaps. I heard that in film school they talk a lot about layers, so you have these recurring themes that don't directly influence the plot but kind of weave the footage together on an aesthetic sense perhaps, like colour schemes, or set design, or language, etc. I guess the answer is probably all of these things. In a sense I have developed my own visual language with a title sequence that is similar for all videos, and I tend to do straight cuts when I'm cutting within a location or event, and use dissolves when I'm transitioning from one location or event to another one. I have noticed that other travel films have used a quick fade-to-black for scene changes which gives a different feel. I'm still working out how best to get from one location to another, if it should be travel b-roll or not, etc, but it is a repetition of sorts. I mostly just edit down the events I film in the order they happened, and I know that docos are often highly chopped up. It made sense to me how you could have a three-act structure (or other structure) in a drama, and also in a doco, but I couldn't see a link in-between my sequential editing and these structures, but I think I'm starting to understand how I could subtly weave such things into my edits. It wouldn't be obvious, and I already have a kind of emotional arc by using the shape of the music I include, but I can see that you could push things further with subtle things like edit timings, grading changes to make the film ebb and flow a bit more, etc. These techniques might be the way to give my films an ending without deviating from the chronology of how things actually occurred, which I'm keen to stick to, at least for the moment. Definitely something to contemplate!

Ah, I thought you were saying to use it on the new FF Panny, and I'm thinking "ummm........" ???

Isn't the 10-25 an MFT lens?

I'm gradually refining where I choose to setup. I've found that there's a fantastic angle about half-way between the coaches tent and the 50m line, which is here: However, it's so fantastic that every time anyone does anything of note there will be a player, umpire, water-person, etc standing exactly in the way, just for the critical moment. The number of shots I have where something cool is about to happen, someone runs across your shot, and as they exit your field of view you only see the aftermath of what happened... let's just say it's beyond amazing in its regularity!! I've learned not to position myself there, but normally try to be closer to the middle so the opposite end is closer and I've got greater coverage. It's especially fun to note the comment on the above image that the length of the ground isn't fixed, it's variable. Also fun to note is that unless the ground is used for games where there is a lot at stake, many of them don't even meet those (very loose) standards, so basically the distances are variable everywhere you go! Unsurprisingly, a country where "she'll be right mate" is a common saying as soon as you leave a cities inner suburbs isn't a country with precision and quality in its DNA. I don't know much about soccer, but apparently the grounds are smaller than ours (although our main grounds are on the small end of that scale, so probably comparable considering ours don't have corners): The 150-600mm did look like it would be great, but the Tokina 150-500 looks a lot cheaper and might be within reach of my wallet. I was looking at FD 100-300 lenses but they're not that much longer than my 70-210, but 500 sure is longer! Plus it has a tripod mount on the lens itself, which is way cool! ??? I have been studying framing of football action, in video as well as in photographs, and worked out I need to get closer. Most of the action happens a long way away and shots don't need much head or foot room in frame, and most shots are waist-up or closer, so the 500mm or 600mm does seem like the way to go. That video of paintball looks like fun, although it looks like you would be on the field with the players? There's a shot mid-way through where a paintball hits the camera lens, or at least a screen of some kind very closely in front of the camera. I would imagine that a cameraperson might make themselves unpopular by pointing at players hiding and revealing their locations, so learning the etiquette of the situation might be a thing. That video didn't seem to have 120p slow-motion, so I think your setup might generate a punchier end result, with the fast bits looking faster and the slow bits really revelling in those crazy split-second moments. There's the potential for slow-motion gold almost everywhere you look in that situation, everything from people firing, the balls travelling, people getting hit and the splatter, as well as the acrobatic elements and, of course, the elation of victory and the pain of getting hit somewhere it hurts! Edit: actually, just remembered that teleconverters are a thing, and it turns out they're cheaper than buying a new lens, in fact, so much cheaper I don't need funding approval from the CFO! ???

Am I right in assuming you mean that you shoot 1080p120 by default and only 4K24 for specific shots? I've just done some tests of different modes and now have an understanding of the tradeoffs involved. In my case I'm struggling to reach the action with a long enough lens, so I don't want to shoot 1080 because I can't crop into it in post, which leaves me shooting 4k50. Maybe I should switch to 1080p100 when the action is closer and I won't need to crop in post. EdIt: Or I simply live with the fact that I can't do 20% speed slow-motion but are limited to 50% speed slow-motion. It's not as epic, but... Damn the size of our playing fields!

Very interesting question. Maybe the GH6 will be similar in terms of specs, but just in the MFT format and GH5-ish body, maybe the GH6 will be lesser than this and it will push the serious GH5/s users to FF, maybe it delays the GH6 announcement, maybe it kills the GH6 altogether. At the point when people are talking about how it's hard to know how to talk about it, because is it a GH5 with better specs and FF for MORE money, is it a similarly-priced but differently specced camera to competitors, is it a feature-reduced version of a FF cine camera for MUCH LESS money... if this is how people are talking about it then I think we can't even guess what it means for the GH6 and MFT in general. I get the same experience with my GH5 - DR is fine, image is lovely to work with, low light could be better. I shoot MF so AF doesn't bother me, but it does some others. Still, if the S2H comes out in a couple of years time with 14, 15, or 16 stops of DR, or 4K50 10-bit HLG, or 4K100 I would certainly be tempted!

Framing in post is definitely a thing, but I could never learn to shoot wider than what I needed - my framing while shooting habits were too strong! The extra resolution definitely wouldn't go astray for you either.

Does it give the "tourist with huge camera" look?

My understanding is the ETC mode reads 1:1 from the middle of the sensor, whereas the non-ETC modes downscale from the whole sensor (6K? something like that, anyway). Noise is always reduced when you downscale an image, so this will kind of act as a kind of in-camera NR. The only way to improve the ISO noise and keep the same framing is to change lenses - either to keep the same focal length but get a faster lens (narrowing the DoF of course) to bring more light into the camera, or to go for a longer focal length and not use the ETC mode. I realise neither of these is terribly convenient, unfortunately.

I agree that Osmo Action will be a hit amongst YT creators quite widely, I'd love for it to be what I was looking for! The people who do this stuff regularly are basically shooting and editing machines. I see the good YT creators eventually talking about burn-out, creative stagnation and ruts, and taking time off followed by "where I've been" videos upon return. I think the pace is unforgiving well beyond what I can imagine. I remember Casey Neistat saying that he spent 4-9 hours editing each daily vlog, and he did that uninterrupted for something like 500 days. It's almost a good thing that social media is addictive or we'd all think of them as masochists! One lesson we can take from this whole thing though is that practice really helps. I know my project isn't big by other peoples standards. It was just bigger than I could deal with using my existing knowledge and approach, thus the request for advice. It's always good to stretch yourself and keep learning I've heard of docs commonly being 100:1 and blockbuster movies sometimes go well beyond that IIRC, I remember a ratio above 400:1 which is just madness! Plus with a doc you don't know where the story is and so until you work out what the story (or stories) are you can't even work out where the 'good bits' are. At least in my situation, as well as a scripted piece, you can review the footage and have a general idea about what you can cull on face value. Docos are only a couple of stops short of being given a newspaper and having to write poetry by cutting it up into individual words and rearranging them!

Been to India? I know the Og Pocket is a great camera and all, but after being enamoured for months and months with the soft painterly light in the video I posted I eventually went there and discovered that about 70% of the look of that film is visible with the naked eye and is caused by the horrendous air pollution. I couldn't believe my eyes when I first get there and saw it myself - it was like stepping into that film. You can look directly at the sun without even getting trails in your vision, I'm talking the actual sun itself and not just the bright area around it, and not even limited to sunset, you can do that at 5pm. With diffusion like that even an iPhone happy-snap looks like a high DR cinematic beast!

Just doing some casual browsing for zoom lenses that go to 400mm and noticing that they're all slow (5.6 or more), and wondered what that really means in terms of DoF. At 100m, here's how the DoF comes out (from DoFmaster) : My 135/2.8 has 64.5m DoF My 200/4 has 39.3m DoF My 70-210/3.8 at 70mm has "infinite" DoF My 70-210/3.8 at 210mm has 33.4m DoF A hypothetical 100-400/4.5-6.3 at 400mm has ~15m DoF A hypothetical 100-400/4.5-6.7 at 400mm has ~16m DoF A hypothetical (and expensive!) 100-400/4.5-5.6 at 400mm has ~13.4m DoF A hypothetical 100-400 would only have to be f13 at 400mm to match the 33m DoF of my 70-210/f3.8 lens Interesting example of how aperture behaves at long zoom lengths. It also kind of answers the question about those 18-400/3.5-6.3mm lenses in terms of them being pretty shallow DoF at 400mm, but zoomed out a bit to 200mm it's likely to still be close to f6 and that's not nearly so shallow a DoF at around 60m.

Yeah, the low light from the P4K would be lovely on the GH5 Completely agree that it's about tradeoffs in getting the shot. I'm up for the comparison, but grading it is much easier than shooting it (and I don't own the cameras, so...), which is where it's currently at. In good time Indeed it does! It's good to see people sensibly trading things off against each other instead of just going for the latest thing. And speaking more generally about older tech still being good, tradeoffs in size, accessibility, and usability, I thought I'd re-share this 720p video.. ???

If it's any help, Resolve automatically treats image sequences as clips, so converting them to a video clip can be as easy as dragging in the image sequence (which looks like a clip) to the timeline, then hitting the export button and choose a preset and it will export. IIRC you can't export more than UHD with the free version, but it's an option for converting if you don't have anything better at your disposal. Plus if you want to colour grade then it's the best colour engine in the business. One caveat is that I don't know what RAW image formats it understands, so that might be a stumbling block potentially. Good think I volunteered you then!! I'll keep you in mind for everything else I see wrong with the world ???

Yeah, that lens is a pretty good match for that situation. The lack of fast / cheap / stabilised lenses is what pushed me from the P4K to the GH5, and while that lens isn't fast, it's probably the best compromise I've seen for that purpose.

Yeah, odd. You'd think that it would be a pretty standard kind of app - it's not a complicated problem "I want high quality sunset timelapses" or a difficult challenge technically (a quick burst of multiple exposures with heavy exposure bracketing every <interval> and a combine algorithm). I'm sure @BTM_Pix could do with another project?

I agree that a great number of travel videos aren't well made at all. I typically end up with videos in the 3-6 minute range, but these are for friends/family only. Making a video that is nice to watch for strangers is a completely different challenge and I'm not sure I'd be much good at it TBH. I have thought that I could take some of the more interesting trips I've had and make a 'public' version, but I haven't gotten that far yet. In terms of longer travel videos, I really like Kraig Adams on YT who seems to have pioneered the Super-Vlog genre of long form travel videos. His Japan one is particularly good, and he has also made some BTS videos too which are quite informative.

Which is ALWAYS welcome in my book!

Seems unlikely it's related to the new cine camera from them, but price reductions normally accompany new cameras, right?

iPhone or Android? I don't know if it does everything on your list, but ProCam on iPhone is the app with the most features that I know of.