kye

They may also use the third digit in the serial as an identifier of some kind, like if they had multiple production lines, or something like that. Of course, 100K cameras might be right too. It is a spectacular camera if it suits your needs. The problem with working out how many of these have been made or sold is that the typical buyer for something like this would basically be invisible. They are busy shooting real work, aren't visible on social media, or if they are then it's not to geek out about cameras, and when the footage ends up in something you'd never know. If every person with a RAW-shooting cinema camera bought two P4Ks then they'd sell a bunch of them and there would basically be no ripples to show it. This is the problem with the XC10, the people who wanted it as an A-cam found the fixed lens and high-ISO NR to be too restrictive. The people who use them for C-cameras or as BTS don't go online talking about it a lot, so it seems like they don't get used at all, but Cinematography Database YT channel kept seeing them in BTS pictures of big Hollywood productions and Canon said they sold more than they expected. The cheaper cameras that can create great images could be 10% of all shots in every movie and TV series and we'd never know. The GH5 can be made to look like an Alexa, the P4K should be able to match basically anything.

Ah, that makes a lot of sense I shot a pre-test-test today with a few of the lenses and it was interesting. I might be different to other people, but I find it difficult to evaluate lenses without having them in a controlled comparison. Other people seem to be able to see random videos shot with different equipment / different lighting / different grading and be able to kind of triangulate the attributes of lenses and even compare them. I can't seem to see past the dozen or so other variables, at least not enough to spend hundreds of dollars on a lens. So in that sense the direct comparison is useful for me, even if no-one else. I am trying to create a set of lenses for myself, which is why I'm testing the lenses I will definitely keep as well as the other candidates. I may end up choosing a lens I don't own, but I'd have to learn to work out how to evaluate without comparative tests, so I'm not sure about that. My test today compared the 14/2.5 Panasonic, 17.5/0.95 Voigtlander, 37/2.8 Mir, and 58/2 Helios on 0.7x SB. I was curious about the performance of the Mir (it's meant to be apochromatic), to see how the Voigt compared to a modern lens and a vintage lens, and also what character the Mir had. The results were all over the place, with each lens winning outright in some aspect. Both the Voigt and the Mir were modern in some ways, vintage in others, and both had better performance than the 14mm at some things (kind of making them more modern than it), and the Helios is no slouch either, even with my cheap Chinese focal-reducer. I think the complete test will be really interesting.

EF mount has a considerable flange distance, and there may well be mirrored lens systems with a smaller flange distance than it, which would mean that flawless adapting isn't possible. I'd be surprised if the largest mirrorless flange distance was as large as the smallest mirrored flange distance. This is the beauty of mirrorless, basically every SLR lens system can be used. I have non-SB MFT adapters for Minolta MD, Pentax PK, and M42, and a M42 SB 0.7x adapter. The Konica AR to MFT adapter is still in transit, and I bought a Nikon to MFT adapter by mistake because the auction title said M42, but unfortunately all the Nikon lenses have the focus ring the wrong way so I won't have any use for it. I started reading about lenses and worked out that M42 was a common mount, so I got the adapter and then started looking at those lenses because I had worked out how to use them. If you're buying non-SB adapters then they're really cheap, so it's an easy way to do it.

No idea. I don't pay attention to such things. The GH5 is mirrorless, so every SLR lens probably adapts to it. I just search ebay if there's an adapter and if there then I go ahead.

Considering that the stock market (and the entire capitalist economy) trades on confidence, this isn't an early casualty at all. It's probably only short-term thinking that has stopped things from already falling apart.

Ideally I'd have a great many more lenses, but practicality must play some part unfortunately!! I am actually not a fan of the swirly bokeh of the Helios lenses. They look fine for one or two still photographs, but using them for video is a little strange and using it as a general-purpose lens in a lens kit isn't really a sensible idea. Of course, these are FF lenses and I'm shooting on a MFT sensor, so even with my 0.7x SB I'm still only getting the more central part of their image-circle and avoiding the really crazy swirly effects Will my approach miss some crucial aspect? I figured that if I shoot RAW stills then the comparison is as useful across multiple cameras as I can make it, and there might be some interest from the P4K crowd too. There is obviously sample-to-sample variation, but short of having a lens testing machine this is the best I can do. However, if we are looking at things like colour rendering, bokeh, 3D, halation, etc then sample variation is likely not a significant factor. Also, if my test shows a lens to be unsharp then a quick Flickr search will show if this is normal or a faulty lens. What searching Flickr will not do is show two lenses pointing at the same thing for direct comparison purposes, which is what I find is most beneficial.

The only thing you have to give is time. Here's the recipe for learning to grade: Find a look you like Analyse that look and completely take it apart as much as you can.. look at colours, saturation, sharpening, noise, lighting sources / location / direction / quality, etc Setup a shoot and recreate that shot - use any camera that can shoot RAW stills Try and match your shot to their shot - try every knob or control in your software and see what it does and if it helps to re-create that look Do this enough times with enough looks and you will learn to colour grade. Bonus - you also learn lighting and composition too. Obviously, if you pick simple looks to copy then it will be much easier to replicate them, but it doesn't matter in the end - it's the effort to study the look and the effort to try and match it that is where you learn. I have found that you can learn more in a day than most people learn in a year if you set yourself a challenge and then give it your best shot. This is why I am interested in trying to match the P4K to the BMPCC and BMMCC - I will learn more from that project than I would learn if I watched BMPCC videos and chatted online about the BMPCC for an entire year. You will learn more in trying to re-create one beautiful image than shooting and grading 20 of your own images. Aim high and work hard. This one is also nice (and contains lots of famous people which is reassuring!)

I think this is the heart of the problem. Everyone has a different interpretation on what is going on. This has always been the case, but what has changed is that people have become disillusioned with authority and so have completely abandoned the idea of listening to experts. Instead we now have amateurs with completely no clue forming their own interpretations based upon ineptitude, fear, and outright lies from those with vested interests. Social media echo chambers reinforce delusional hearsay until it is commonly understood fact, and we are left with a global population that is making decisions that aren't in their best interests, but are too ill-informed to understand what will actually happen. It is very easy to look at the rise of nationalism and only think of them in terms of legitimate political debate and resist the idea that outright lunacy and lies might be part of such a trend. However when you see the steady stream of outright lies from Trump, newspapers and busses with outright lies written all over them, social media memes written in Russia to influence the US election, it raises a question mark about the decision-making process. But when you also look at the world and see the rise of the anti-vaxxer movement, the rise of the flat-earth movement, and the decline (at least in the US) of belief in evolution and science in general, you begin to understand that these political and social movements must have elements that completely abandon logic, evidence and common sense. As you say, people have a different interpretations, but these same people also have different interpretations of the shape of the planet, so don't confuse what is popular with what is true.

When you record a sound it gets digitised, and the quieter it is when it is digitised the lower the quality is, even after you boost the gain in post. So this would suggest that you try and keep the levels up during recording. However, sound levels jump around with huge variations, and if you clip a sound (where the sound goes above 100% or 0dB) then that data is clipped and lost forever, so that's an argument for keeping the levels down while recording. In practice, there's a sweet spot in the middle where the risk of clipping a sudden loud sound is low, and the quality loss is also very low. This is why there are rules of thumb like keep your loudest peaks around -12 or -6 or whatever. Hope that makes sense

I'm actually swinging in the opposite direction - the more I look at lenses the more I realise that "best" isn't a thing - there are only preferences and tastes. My plan is therefore to present each lens as it is more to allow others to judge what works for them. I am beginning to suspect that lens choice is strongly linked to camera choice. If you are recording 14-bit RAW and put on a modern sharp cinema lens then I doubt that many would complain that the lens is too sharp or that the picture looks too digital. However, if you are recording 8-bit / over-sharpened / overly compressed / overly contrasty then the overall result from a vintage lens may be preferable because the halation may soften edges and partly counteract the over-sharpening and the lack of overall contrast may counteract the contrast applied. In this sense you have to think about the lens as part of an imaging system, along with added filters, the filter stack in the camera, etc etc. In addition to all that are the creative looks you may want to achieve. Some projects want neutrality, but others may want the benefits of inaccurate colour rendering, softness, retro / vintage look, sharp / digital / gritty look, etc. More subtle still, lenses have varying degrees of 3D rendering (even at identical DOF settings) and this may be used intentionally for subtle dramatic effect. Every aesthetic aspect is a creative choice that will suit some projects, despite potentially being very niche, or even being very undesirable in other situations. Thanks! I just looked at the remaining lenses and discovered that supposedly the Petri 135mm was delivered two weeks ago and "left in a safe place" but a search of the front of my house didn't find it. I'm not so disappointed as it was a very cheap purchase (I was the only bidder) but the biggest loss was that the cost of postage was more than 3X the cost of the item! ebay is always a gamble anyway, so I'll take this one for the team ???

Yeah, that helps. I've really benefitted from the F0.95 of my Voigtlander and the F2.0 on the Helios (which now that I am using a SB with it is equivalent to F1.4) so there's still one or two stops difference. It's great to be shooting things like city lights at night and looking through the viewfinder and seeing the focus peaking highlighting the ISO noise and then opening the aperture on the lens and watching the noise disappear and the colours come to life with just the twist of a dial. It really looks like a nice lens, but it's also a little short on a SB, and I'd also be afraid that I would miss those couple of extra stops of exposure. The ~T1.5 (or whatever their T-stop actually is) lenses I have really bring out the best of the GH5 in super-low-light

Their colour grading tools are so limited that some might say you can only use LUTs in FCPX ???

There is a lot of love for that lens around the place - this guy for example: I may be in the market for a ~35-50mm CZ, but this one is too slow for me unfortunately - it's not a bokeh thing, it's a low light thing, otherwise I would have bought one already!!

I think you're right @leslie that your extension tubes must be a slightly different length to the instructions you're following. m39, m42, and EF will all have standardised flange distances so those are not variables in play. Grinding off a bit from one of the adapters sounds like your best bet, just be careful that you can still screw it together again and that you don't get any metal filings in anything. Looking forward to seeing some images! I've seen a few projector or enlarger lenses that caught my eye but the lack of aperture makes them impractical in the field to run-n-gun like I do, plus they all look really heavy.

Noted! When we try and make the BMPCC4K look like the BMPCC and BMMCC I will try those and see how well that works

FYI: Just posted that I'm about to do a lens shootout of a bunch of lenses on my GH5, so if you have any input to how I should test, comment over in the lenses thread.

I can feel a lens test coming on... I'm only waiting on three more lenses and then I'll do it and share with everyone. I haven't completely worked out how I should do it, any specific advice? I'll shoot RAW stills on my GH5 with each lens at a few apertures - probably wide open, f2.8, and f8. I find that the most useful lens test is at an identical aperture at least a stop from wide-open for any lens as the differences aren't to do with aperture settings or how sharp they are wide open, and f16 is getting into diffraction territory. The goal of the test for me is to compare the look of modern budget lenses vs modern high quality lenses vs vintage lenses to find the aesthetic that works for me, and work out which lenses I want to keep. Lenses: 8/4 SLR Magic 14/2.5 Panasonic (focus-by-wire) 14-42/3.5-5.6 Panasonic (focus-by-wire) 17.5/0.95 Voigtlander 28/2.8 Yashica 35/3.5 Takumar 37/2.8 Mir 40/1.8 Konica Hexanon (x2 - not shown - still in transit) 40/4 Lomo (lens from popular non-ILC Russian pocket film camera) 55/1.8 Takumar 58/2 Helios (x2) 135/2.8 Minolta 135/3.5 Petri (not shown - still in transit) 135/3.5 Takumar 150/4 Takumar 200/4 Takumar 200/3.5 Minolta And yes, I know I'm not winning any Instagram-worthy-photo competitions ???

No rush! There are higher priorities and hopefully what we learn here will be useful for a long time to come

LOL, I guess going from SPAM to Brexit to cow nappies and the literal interpretation of scripture is logical in some sense, but... In terms of the overall situation, I agree with @BTM_Pix that had the potential futures been laid out so people could clearly choose between them there is no way that this one would have gotten the vote. In more general terms, globalisation is scary and people are resistant to it. Everyone resists change when it happens too fast for them, so this is a natural human tendency. The world is slowly unifying as it has done for thousands of years, and will continue to do so. The only history lesson that is really relevant here is that we have made the progression from tribes of nomads to villages to small kingdoms/states to empires, simultaneously we have made the progression from hunter-gatherer to farmer to self-contained societies with specialisations to formal trade agreements and to global organisations. These progressions are often difficult and there is huge resistance and often some backwards steps but inevitably the progression moves forward. Yes, there have been many examples of the failure of empires and unions, but any argument that we live in a steady state and that this trend is not absolutely overwhelming in the long-term would have to provide many examples of large countries splitting back into the dozens of small kingdoms or hundreds/thousands of tribes that existed before the country was unified. History only makes sense if you actually talk about all of it, talking about only a few hundred years or a book that isn't meant to be taken literally isn't that helpful. Do regional differences and old prejudices still exist, sure. But they fade very quickly over generations, and this is the future that will come to exist. We've managed to avoid global destruction for long enough that it's reasonable to assume we're capable of it indefinitely, at least from a warfare perspective. Globalisation is the future because it is in everyones interests. Any resource not spent on war is a resource that can be spent on education, health care, research, or making a camera with DPAF, Canon colour science, and global-shutter FF 4K Besides, cows don't need nappies. They need AI drones that will collect the dung and manage it for electricity production and composting purposes.

I've only flown domestic in the US a couple of times, but they actually weren't too bad. I was travelling with a group and a couple of the group had physical disabilities with one in a wheelchair. I was carrying one of their carry-on bags through the airport and when we got to security they got whisked away to a special gate before I realised that I had one of their bags. So I figured it would be fine and went through with it. So of course it gets triggered for a search and the lady says "whose bag is this" and I say (using my wording very carefully) "it's with me". We go to a desk and she says "is this your bag".. "No, it's my friends, she's with the guy in the wheelchair, they went down there somewhere" I point in the general direction of a zillion people and they're not visible.. "Is there anything sharp in the bag?" ... "I have no idea". she gives me a strange look.. "but probably not" I add. She opens the bag and starts going through it, and quickly finds the removable hand controls for my friends electric wheelchair. She asks what it is and I explain. It would have looked like a huge mess of wires and a circuit board in the scanner. I make a joke about how it would definitely have looked strange on the scanner, and she didn't really react. She looks over it and it's fine. She asks the scanning guy and he said something else was in there too. She keeps digging and finds a big metal plate with a hook on one side and looks concerned. I explain that it's a tray table for his wheelchair, she looks puzzled but accepts it after looking it over. She gives me the all clear to go and I thank her and she gives me a smile. I think that I got some slack because I was helping someone with a disability, and she was firm but nice about the whole thing, but basically I was going through security with a bag that wasn't mine that looked like wires, circuitry and a big metal plate in it on the scanner. I had a good attitude and I suspect that the TSA lady did too because I did. I've watched those border protection shows and those people are digging around in bags but mostly they're watching how people react, so if you have no problem with them then they're most likely going to have no problem with you.

Isn't that the case with all new technologies though? Things take a very long time to get from the R&D department to the Engineering department to the Product Design department to the Manufacturing department.

Worst airport security I've been through with camera equipment was recent trip to India when we flew domestic internally. The Indian culture has a lot of the average person basically doing whatever the hell they like, pushing and shoving, trying to skip the lines or walk around like no-one else exists, and the authority figures having to constantly bark commands at people to pay attention and behave, so the officials are used to ordering people around without really applying judgement or listening to anyone, and you have to be quite assertive in general. Airports are a hotbed of this kind of thing. I lined up, did the normal thing of taking out my laptop but leaving camera gear in the bag, and lined up. I was then informed that I was in the line for the women to be scanned (metal detectors) and I had to go all-the-way-over-there to the mens line. I left my bag on the conveyor as it had already been put into several trays, I'd already become separated from it, and the rest of my group were women and were in the line next to the baggage scanner. When I went through the mens line and came back it looked like my bag had exploded. My wife was there guarding my gear, but they'd made my wife take the camera bag insert out of my backpack, and every item out of the insert. So there piled up in the collection area surrounded by a crowd of other travellers was my GH5, three lenses, Rode VMP, USB charger, cables, spare batteries, phone, wallet, keys, and sunglasses. Some items were on the actual counter, not in a tray or anything. The lenses looked like they'd been rolling around. I was furious but held it in because an airport is the last place you want to make a scene about anything these days. I've never been to another airport where I've ever had to even take the camera bag insert out of my backpack. Had I been travelling alone who knows what would have walked off by itself. Not sure what I should have done differently TBH.

If you're interested in what the differences are between 10-bit, 12-bit and 14-bit RAW video are, check the Magic Lantern thread and search for those phrases. We've had that conversation before, because ML has offered those things for ages. In fact, IIRC it's offered 14-bit RAW for ages and only comparatively recently added 12 and 10-bit variants!

Are you stockpiling food and supplies? I've read your Brexit comments with interest as I'm following the whole situation but you're the only person I know in England. My sister is in Scotland so she's in the same situation, but considering that Scotland has a different leaning and Brexit might well trigger another referendum for them to leave the UK and re-join the EU, she's effectively in a different boat than you. I wasn't really clear from your posts if you would end up staying in England or if you would head over to the continent. Your situation seems like there were pros and cons to both ???

This is very interesting to me, especially the Like2100 mode shown on the LCD. The reason I raise it is because I am not sure that the HLG on the GH5 is actually Rec2100. I often want to adjust exposure or WB in post and I tried the method of turning the GH5 HLG from Rec2100 to Linear, making some kind of offset adjustment, then turning it back from Linear to Rec2100, but couldn't match the results from raising the exposure in-camera by one stop. I shot a test scene at two exposure levels and tried matching one with the other via this method. Every adjustment I could think of resulted in complex non-linearities, and when I asked the question over at LiftGammaGain someone suggested that maybe the GH5 HLG mode isn't true Rec2100. I tried Rec2020 and other colour spaces too, nothing worked. I did a bunch of googling to try and find out what the GH5 HLG mode actually is and couldn't find any definitive answers, so I basically just concluded that it wasn't real Rec2100 and that I couldn't do an exposure or WB adjustment in post that completely matched having done it in camera. Any idea what's going on here?