kye

4 hours ago, jonpais said:

Monochrome Live View perhaps?

That helps a little, but I think it's the Peaking algorithm itself.

For instance, if I set the Peaking to High and put two objects the same distance from the lens, one with higher contrast edges and one without, and focus on them, I get the contrasty object with focus highlights and the softer one without.  If I was just trying to focus on the softer object without anything else nearby then the peaking wouldn't be any help.

If I set it to Low, then the peaking shows edges on the softer object, but unfortunately it will also show peaking on high contrast objects that aren't in focus as well, in the background perhaps.  Yesterday I went out and shot some test clips with my 14mm F2.5 and the peaking showed that the trees were in focus as well as the background but the footage shows the trees as being quite blurry and the background nicely in focus.

I suspect that it simply highlights if there is a difference between two pixels above a certain threshold, which will be true if a contrasty object is in focus, true if a very contrasty object is out of focus but has a blur that goes from light to dark, and isn't true if you have a soft object in focus (like skin).  Hmm...  I need faster lenses so the focal plane is shallower and therefore it's more obvious!

Does anyone have any advice about using Focus Peaking on the GH5 with vintage lenses?

If I set it to Low then it isn't accurate enough, and if I set it to High then I think the lens is too soft for it to think anything is in focus, so it's not much help.

Any other focus assists I can use in-camera?  I know this is something that a good external display would help with, but it would make my setup too big so I'm stuck with the in-camera features.

1 hour ago, Yehouda said:

The real question is "Can we use techs like autofocus or IBIS on a film set ?"

I live in France and I can tell you that many people are very conservative about that. They say that you can't use AF because movies are only made with cameras which have PL mount with manual PL glasses so for them it is literally impossible to use AF. Even worse, many people think it is forbidden!

There are many exemples of great movies made with DSLRs and photo glasses. If AF works why don't use it on appropriate situations? If IBIS is relevant on some case why don't use it? When I said to some peole it was a pity that P4K lacks AF and IBIS they replied "it is a cinema camera so it is normal if there is no AF and IBIS"... wow... It is time to break the old rules!

I guess that would be the question if everyone shot on a film set.  Which is part of the reason for these discussions - old timers who assume you're shooting on a set and can control the lighting and whatever, and then the unwashed rabble that have barged their way into the industry and film in their homes, parks, in the street, doing so in many cases with no plan, no control over the settings, perhaps no knowledge of what the settings mean, and unless they have a floppy screen they even film without even looking.  

It's no wonder people don't understand why some features they don't need would be useful to someone else.

I agree that it's time to break the old rules.  We're getting there.  If the current trends continue, the only step required in making a great video will be saying "Hey Siri, can you make a cinematic film of Spot playing with his ball in the backyard, and make it have happy music" and then just stand back and watch as the drones all spring to life, film from all the angles with AI-Dog-eyeAF, then dock and download the footage where Siri will edit and grade it, and then ask you where she should upload the video.

2 minutes ago, Thpriest said:

Be aware that on the GH5 the ETC is clean in 4K but in HD at higher ISOs it has a lot of noise.

Thanks, that's good to know.

I guess it makes sense as ETC doesn't have any downscaling to hide the noise, and those 1080 pixels are larger than those 4K ones when looking at the output files.

All the more reason to have fast primes!

I'm driven to fast primes anyway because the zooms are slower on crop sensors so getting that depth and separation is harder.

15 hours ago, Thpriest said:

I have shot a whole wedding on the 17.5mm to see what it was like and it turned out fine (GH5 with ETC mode you have a 17.5-24mm/FF 35-48mm, I think).

This is very similar to my thinking and good to hear you had positive results.  I shoot travel and family videos, and while not the same as weddings, they share a lot in common, especially getting the shot the first time and not directing or getting in the way too much.

I'm just putting my lens kit together for my new GH5 and figured that I needed a super-wide to capture those "wow" scenic moments, a tele for tight shots and a 35 / 50mm walk-around lens for the middle 80% of shots.  I'm tossing up which lens that will end up being, but with the ETC mode a 35mm / 49mm equivalent lens gives the two most useful focal lengths without having to change lenses all the time.  Just brilliant!

I haven't played with the digital zoom on the GH5 yet, but when I was considering an A7III I looked at the digital zoom from it and it was perfectly usable up to about 1.5X (and not good  beyond that) so there might be a bit more flexibility in there for us.  Depending on what format you're delivering in, and what codec you're using, cropping in post might also be an option.

1 minute ago, Goose said:

I had trouble using an adapter in my GX80 - I suspect the adapter had a speed limit but dont know.

I've tested the cards I have with and without each of my adapters and didn't find any difference but that was only up to the speed of the Samsung EVO which was my fastest micro card.

If the adapter has dirty contacts then that might make a difference perhaps? Some adapters could also be cheaply made.

Given sufficient quality, which is less than people think as @webrunner5 says, a video camera can be viewed as 25 fps burst mode (or even 50/60 fps) stills camera.

Why bother with trying to nail 'the decisive moment' when you can find that moment in post and extract a still.

You can say that is lazy, or you can say that it's using the technology to get better results, but you can't deny that it can work.

17 minutes ago, TurboRat said:

If you're shooting events, travel videos ,you don't want to be the guy who always lugs around his monopod or tripod. IBIS is not essential but try walking around and shooting places without IBIS. I've shot with cameras without it and with only lens OIS and I feel like the shakiness is too distracting to show to clients, friends, and family. And I wan't to be inconspicuous when I'm in a crowd and not to be the guy lugging around a monopod, tripod, gimbal, lens etc. I feel like people usually don't act natural in front of the camera - sometimes they hide their faces, look directly at the videographer, avert their gaze, etc that I can't get the shots that I want. Again, it always depends on the situation, and you can turn it on or off on most cameras with IBIS if you don't want it

That guy is me (in shooting travel videos anyway) and after not getting the stabilisation I wanted in some shots I bought a Gorillapod 5K (the largest one) and a phone gimbal for wide shots, but ended up not taking them out anywhere as my camera setup was already large enough for people to at funny around me, even in tourist spots.  At one location I noticed a guy with a tiny camcorder and a monopod and geez, the guy might have had a camera the size of a kit lens but the monopod made him stand out like nothing else!

I try and get shots of travel legs to use as scene change shots and I normally just get them with my iPhone, but even that attracts attention in train stations and the like, with people staring at the camera and making me wonder how much attention I'm getting from security and the like.

12 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

And I always find it pretty crazy that just about anyone will let you take a picture of them with a Cellphone. That is one reason they are so popular. Hey and guess what it works. IBIS, OIS or what ever it is and AF.

I go to a lot of spots where that's not even true anymore, but that's probably just coincidence.  IIRC @jonpais has said that in Vietnam people don't care, so I guess it varies from place to place.  Plus the new challenge of grown men with cameras around kids being automatically judged means that I basically can't record anywhere that people swim, many angles in parks, etc.

9 minutes ago, A_Urquhart said:

@kye As you can see, in context, I used the word 'many' in "many seem to agree". Also, "is this the way things are going" is also a fairly general term. How did you take this so personally? If you did, I have no qualms in apologising so, I'm sorry if you felt personally attacked. 

Thanks, but I read that as many people tend to agree that all people are too lazy.  I admire that you're willing to put in effort into your posts, but you're not quite there in getting across what you mean.  This is a common problem because people assume that everyone reading their messages has the same background, context, tastes, clients, or mood as they do, which obviously is a barrier to proper communication.

20 minutes ago, A_Urquhart said:

@kye My question was, are people who expect 'cinematic' images really too lazy to focus a camera or use some kind of support because these contribute to the 'cinematic' look just as much as IQ (and lighting). 

I think being "cinematic" is a fad, and that most people who attempt it aren't aware of the technical aspects that go into it.  So basically it's a lack of education.  Like most people who buy and expensive DSLR and expect that professional looking images will just collect on the memory card if they point the camera in the general direction of the subject and spray-and-pray on full-auto.

The other huge aspect of these discussions is that new camera features enable new genres of film-making.  There are people who earn a living shooting skydiving films.  If someone wanted to make those 100 years ago it might not have been possible because the cameras were too heavy, or whatever, and there they would have been jumping up and down about how light-weight cameras are critical, and all the people who made films on tripods at locations where trucks could drive to would have been saying "film-makers are so lazy right now".

Anyone who has a camera more modern than an original Bolex with 1950's quality film stock is:

• too cheap to pay for film,
• too lazy to get film developed,
• too impatient to wait for it to be developed and sent back,
• too fancy to use basic edits,
• too amateurish to sync sound in post,
• too lazy to get lighting to ensure the DR isn't too wide,
• too fake to write a good story without relying on VFX, green screens, or, you-know, COLOUR.
• etc etc..

The above list looks completely ridiculous to most of us now because we've come to see the benefits of things like in-camera audio, and the flexibility (and cost savings) of higher DR cameras, but when someone who makes tripod films with sets and controlled lighting says that someone making wedding films, adventure films, travel films, doesn't need the new features, then that's EXACTLY what they sound like to the people who use and value those features.

36 minutes ago, A_Urquhart said:

Calm down Kye I wasn't calling you lazy if that is what has made you aggressive. I was talking in a general term.

If you're going to talk "general term" then you should be specific with your language - try saying things like "Most people are too lazy to carry a tripod or monopod" instead of saying "People are too lazy to carry a tripod or monopod".  I tend to think of myself as a person, so naturally I included myself in the statement you made, which was about "people" and not "most people".

I'm personally pretty sick of other people on this forum telling me what I do and don't need on my shoots based upon what they do and don't need on theirs.  If you're going to come in and use language that applies to "people" without acknowledging that some people / situations / projects don't fit your statements, then yeah, you're going to piss me off (and look like an arrogant asshole to everyone who has ever had needs that were outside your sweeping statements).

36 minutes ago, A_Urquhart said:

I could list a few different ways you could have got that shot or something very similar without IBIS but that's not the point of the thread.

The phrase "IBIS" is literally in the title of this thread.  I would appreciate you listing a few ways for me to get a slider shot in that situation.

Either I learn something, or you learn something.  Either way I hold you accountable for your sweeping and half-baked statements.  I write my posts with consideration and admit when I'm wrong, I'd encourage you to do the same.

36 minutes ago, A_Urquhart said:

Sometimes limitations cause us to think more creatively.

I love it when people trot this old chestnut.  It's a crutch.  Sometimes the only tool for the job is the only tool for the job.

36 minutes ago, A_Urquhart said:

but then Im not the one making black and white statements that a camera is unusable if it doesn't have IBIS or AF.  

No, but you are the one making black and white statements about "People are too lazy to carry a tripod or monopod".

36 minutes ago, A_Urquhart said:

Im not here to pick on individual shots, yes IBIS and AF can be useful. I just don't think that a camera without them is unusable and the notion that it is kinda perplexes me hence the thread. 

I get it, there's lots of hyperbole and polarised thinking, but unfortunately you've offered up some here as well.  This seems to be a case of "he that dost protest too much".

1 minute ago, A_Urquhart said:

I agree, but it is based on a ridiculous statement which many seems to agree with. I'm just interested to know if this is the way things are going. People are too lazy to carry a tripod or monopod and too lazy to focus the camera but then use the term 'not cinematic' when judging a cameras image. Kinda strange to me.

Kye's points are also perfectly valid, different tools for different jobs but people in discussions expect a camera to do everything perfectly and have every feature under the sun otherwise it's not workable. 

I just think people are getting lazy. Like slowmo, it's easy to shoot nice looking slowmo so people are getting lazy and shooting everything in slowmo......

You don't get it.

Please explain to me how I am being lazy in the below situation, and how if I worked harder, I would be able to get a slider shot without bars in the foreground if I had more equipment.

By using my IS and shooting hand-held I was able to get a slider shot, something that was appropriate for the film I was making.

I guess you are too stupid to understand that situations like this exist, and that other people shoot in them.

I have heard that SDs could be better (more reliable perhaps?) because they've got better heat dissipation.  I'm not sure how true that is, but it makes sense.

Otherwise I'm not sure what other differences there would be.

I've just bought a Sandisk Extreme Pro for my GH5 to use in the 400Mbit mode, but will keep my Samsung EVO Micro in the second slot as a second card in case I run out of space on the first, or in case the first one dies when I'm travelling and can't replace it easily.  My Samsung only tests at something like 20-30MB/s for me so I'd have to scale back to the 150Mbit mode, but from what I've seen there is only minimal difference between the two modes and the 150Mbit mode looks pretty good to my eyes

8 hours ago, Kisaha said:

I used to work in advertising operating specialized high speed cameras, and as YOU mentioned on a little while ago, can't stand slow motion videos at all anymore!

Your comment has lead me to think a bit more about slow-motion.  The below isn't directed at you, just inspired by you

I think the topic of slow-motion is an interesting one.  I agree that it is over-used and especially over-used in camera tests and on YouTube where people are failing over each other to try and make their footage more cinematic instead of making it more creative / useful / interesting / etc.

I have my camera setup with three modes - one is 25p, one is 50p, and one is 180p.  I don't think of them like that though, I think of them for the aesthetic that they will give to the footage they will create.

I shoot home videos, and my goal is to make a video file with the aesthetic of fond memories.  This means things can be slightly warmer, softer, nicer, more flattering, and less real than reality actually is.  Also, because the brain doesn't process memories in linear time (think of memories of loved ones, a toddler running around, someone giving someone a hug, etc..  you can easily slow these down in your minds eye, in fact, often we slow and almost stop memories, like they're not a continuous stream of perception but little bubbles of moments) so speed and slow motion in my work are far more flexible, and far more compatible than most other genres.

I think of 25p as reality.  "Here's what happened".  Shots like this are about content alone, where the emotion isn't going to dominate.  I can slow these down in post but it's not as good.

I think of 50p as flexible.  I can slow it down to half speed or play it back at normal speed.  Normal speed will look like video, which I'm fine with, and slow-motion is slow and slightly dreamy but doesn't look fake.  Hollywood uses 50p for the shots when emotions are at the forefront, there is action, and they have music instead of real-life sound (eg, someone is sad and they're running away from their troubles, someone is happy and things are great, etc).  It's kind of makes fast motion gentle but doesn't look like a special effect.

I think of 180p as a special effect.  It's very obvious as a special effect, and even with modern cameras you lose quality so should only use this on things where you want that effect - it's not a flexible mode.  For me this would be for very fast action and because a 3s shot in the edit will represent less than half a second of real-life it's about moments, rather than a sequence of events.  I think of this as almost like 'moving photographs'.  This is where we think of things like a kid running and making all the birds take off, and a photographer would get the shot with the kid running, smiling and the birds going everywhere, in this mode we can use the same moment but we can savour that 0.4 of a second over several seconds in the final edit, along with nice music.

I'll reiterate that most people over-use it, and we should be critical of it being over-used, but the criticism shouldn't be that it's not needed, the criticism should be that it's being applied where it is not aesthetically useful to do so.  While this isn't as dramatic as taking the opposite stance of 'always/never' thinking, it's actually more cutting because we're not criticising the use of a camera feature, we're criticising the offenders ability to know how to make art, which is ultimately the most significant criticism that can be made I think.

I agree with most of the above, but the thinking is wrong.

Is super slow-motion required in 2018?  Not if you're shooting a doco, but yes if you're shooting a hair or shampoo commercial.
Is IBIS required in 2018? Not if you have the time, space and permission to take a stabiliser of some kind and set it up, yes if you're shooting in situations where a tripod/monopod/shoulder-rig/gimbal/etc isn't allowed or isn't practical.
Is 4K required in 2018? Not if you're shooting for a client that doesn't mandate it, yes if they do (eg, Netflix).
Is RAW required in 2018?  Not if the requirements of your scene will be sufficiently captured in a more compressed coded, yes if you need the flexibility or resolution in post (eg, green screening)
Is AF required in 2018? Not if you have the ability to manually focus sufficiently on set to track the subject in your images, yes if you don't.
Is extreme high ISO performance required in 2018?  Not if you are shooting a bright enough subject, or have the ability to light them sufficiently, yes if neither of these is true.

Anyone can ask the question of ANY parameter within photography and find examples of both yes and no, depending on the project.

ANY DISCUSSION OF REQUIREMENTS BEGINS WITH THE CONTENT TO BE CREATED.  CAMERAS ARE TOOLS FOR A JOB.  EACH JOB IS DIFFERENT.

Anyone who thinks they can generalise is too stupid to understand that other people shoot different projects, using different techniques, in different circumstances.

4 hours ago, leslie said:

i have the takumars  24mm f3.5,  smc 35mm f3.5, 50mm f1.4,  85mm 1.9, smc 100 f4 macro, smc 200 f4, and the 300mm f4 all m42 mount. also canon fd 50mm 1.4  fd 50mm 1.4 ssc  and the 35-70 f4. i have been looking for a 20mm either m42 or fd probably m42 smc,   as the prices are starting to jump up abit for either mount. i guess you could say i'm old school

Nice!  That's quite a collection!

13 hours ago, dantheman said:

That was shot in 2013, I particulary liked the skintones the em-5 produced but I often saw the codec fall apart with visible pixelation on high detail scenes while he was moving his camera but that was on the em 5 mark I which had lower bitrates then the mark II. His shooting- and editing style however made you forget about that

Very nice work.

I found myself looking at the style and editing and ignoring the IQ.  The style seemed kind of light and excited in a kind of gentle and playful way.  I think that was due to the smooth but hand-held camera movement, faster cuts, and lots of short macro shots.  It was a very long way from the very formal aesthetic of slower orchestral music with slow slider shots that you often see!  It was almost like he was interested in lots of things and ran around filming all the awesome stuff and then just cut it together.

I shoot home and travel videos for my family, but I love looking at weddings because they're about capturing what happens with a minimum of staging things, plus they're trying to make things look happy and joyful, rather than accurate or neutral, which is the same for personal work of loved ones.

13 hours ago, leslie said:

i agree, my understanding is the m42's are ff as well so the image circle should be ok but i hear that the bmp4k has a slightly larger sensor than previous but it's still same mount. so i'm thinking with crossed fingers that it will be ok. this video side of things is new to me and i lashed out on the bmp4k while its brand new and somewhat unproven. be bold or go home i say ? . i would be leaning towards a speed booster later down the track. i'm salivating at the thought of an extra stop of light and a little less crop . main issue at the moment is the waiting game. hopefully before or around xmas time i am informed  then can play with the lenses i have got. hopefully the lenses are fine. some suggest that they may not hold up to 4k. its all up in the air at the moment

Lenses and crop factors and speed boosters can be complicated..  if you have questions then just ask

What lenses do you have?

In terms of them "holding up to 4K" I think that's probably not a problem, here's why.  Firstly, 4K video is 8MP, which for a photography lens (which these will all be) isn't that high a resolution.  Secondly, lots of people think that 4K is about getting super sharp images, but not everyone actually likes those super sharp images, and frequently people find that sharp images look "digital" and softer images look more "cinematic".  Film has been pretty soft for the majority of cinematic history, and even more recently when film was of higher quality it doesn't look sharp, so soft can be a nice aesthetic.  

I think the BMPCC4K will prove to be an excellent camera, and already the images look pleasant and most importantly, it doesn't seem to have the digital over-sharpened look of cheaper digital video, so I think it will look nice with whatever lenses you put on it.

My personal view is that you shouldn't put too much emphasis on resolution, but think of it in terms of image quality.  For example, the 1080 from Canon DSLRs is no match for the 1080 in the C100 despite being of similar resolution and bit-rate (actually the DSLRs have a slightly higher bit-rate).  Most 4K cameras don't match the image quality of the original BMPCC despite it "only" shooting 1080.  In this sense, the BMPCC4K can be viewed as having high image quality and then just think that it will do a good job of capturing whatever the lens gives it.  If a lens is a little soft then you will still benefit from capturing it with a camera that has high image quality, right?  Then, once you've chosen a set of lenses, work out the most important part of the equation - what to put in front of the camera.

8 minutes ago, leslie said:

i like the look of your frame grabs, that gives me some hope that my m42's may be ok with the bmp4k time will tell no doubt.

AFAIK, the only difference is possibly the crop factor?  BMPCC v1 had a larger crop than true M43, but my understanding is that m42 lenses were for FF so image circle should easily be large enough.  The problem might be the C-mount lenses that were borderline, even for the original Pocket.

I'm using mine without a speed booster, so coverage isn't an issue at all.

3 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

You can mod the Zhiyun Smooth Q to take and RX100 relatively painlessly.

Some tutorials and examples here.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=smooth+q+rx100

Wow!  I stand corrected.  That is pretty darn cool.

I'm now sitting here looking at my GH5 and the DJI Osmo Mobile 2 that I bought and basically never use...  hmm.  In a sense, it looks like you just hack it until it's balanced really well.

I got a couple of vintage lenses today for my new MFT setup, and I couldn't be happier.  In fact I was so excited that when I discovered I'd bought the wrong adapter (who puts "M42-MFT" in the title of an eBay auction for a Nikon-MFT adapter - seriously!) that I cut a small section of PVC pipe to act as a spacer and tried a few free-lens style tests.

All frames are grabs from 4K 50p 8-bit 150Mbit HLG file exported to Prores 422.  

Hellios 44M-4 58mm F2 on MFT (2x crop makes it 116mm FOV)

Yashica yashikor 28mm f2.8 (2x crop makes it 56mm FOV)

and lucky last, just for comparison, my decidedly non-vintage native MFT Panasonic 14mm F2.5 pancake lens.

The vintage lenses look so much nicer.  The GH5 was on AWB so I'm not sure if the changes in the colour came from the lens or AWB or late afternoon sun.  However, notice the lovely elliptical bokeh of the Hellios, and the lowered contrast of the vintage lenses.  Also, the highlights have a bit of flare on the Yashica that look like a slight Tiffen Black Pro Mist filter, very nice.  That might also be due to the front coating being basically worn off on that lens

I haven't shot into the sun with these yet, so no idea on flares, but they look pretty darn good to me.  Even the files with only 150Mbit look so nice - reminding me a little of the soft but clear look of the original BMPCC.  This is what I was hoping for in the GH5 / vintage lens combo.

I've got a Nikon Nippon Kogaku Cine-NIKKOR-C 13mm F1.9 lens on its way that is a gamble about if it will cover the MFT sensor, and I will pick up an 8mm SLR Magic at some point too to round out the set, but very nice so far..  With the exception of ordering the right M42-MFT adapter, I couldn't be happier!  and considering you can't even buy a sensibly sized memory card for what I spent....

7 hours ago, mercer said:

On a different note, I assume this is impossible due to weight limitations, but I really like the design of the Freefly Mövi iPhone Camera Robot... it would be really cool if the iPhone mount could be modified to make an RX100iv or other small p&s camera to work with it.

I would imagine there's no hope of that - partly due to the motors likely being as only powerful enough to move the phone around, but also the centre of mass of a phone is within its thickness and anything you mount will be sticking a lot further forwards or backwards and wouldn't balance.

In terms of those handles with springs to smooth out vertical motion, I doubt they can be used at an angle, which would mean that you have to have the gimbal handle vertical for the whole shot.  This is possible, but if your shot requires any tilting then you'll have to operate it electronically instead of using the gimbal in a follow mode.  Also, will you have the room to manoeuvre if the rig is vertical?  You probably would, but just make sure.  One of the awesome things about a gimbal is that you can put it in follow mode and then run around waving it like a sword and get whatever shots you want, panning and tilting as you desire, and fitting through tight spots and holding it comfortably as you go.

@Sage I'm ready to buy but I'm not sure which WB to get.  I shoot in all conditions and use auto-WB.  I'm comfortable adjusting WB in Resolve if it's not quite right and I only do non-professional work so isn't completely critical.  Does it matter which version I get?

Also to consider is that there can sometimes be a difference between something being illegal and being treated like it was illegal and getting banned from a site.

I've seen a few examples of sites like YouTube (or PayPal) blocking users for some reason and then not responding to appeals.  Being in the right but locked out of your account until you take legal action against YT to force them to re-activate your account isn't a great position to be in, and unfortunately the MPAA / RIAA lobbying about copyright enforcement is continually threatening to change the law from being innocent-until-proven-guilty to the other way around, so these companies basically do whatever the copyright holders want - false positives be damned...

Having said that my impression was that large youtubers tend to use whatever they want and just demonetise a video that has a copyright claim.  Of course, if a big youtuber complains to YT then they listen, but the rest of us might not experience the same level of service.

In a sense it might be a choice between playing it safe or exercising your rights but having to fight a potentially unfair battle for them.

I will definitely use HLG for 4K25 10-bit.  Slow-motion modes are the question - HLG is only available externally for 60p or 180p but I don't use an external recorder so I must use an alternate picture profile.  @jonpais what PP would you recommend for 60/180p internal recording?  It seems like Cinelike-D was the favourite profile before HLG was released?

I think we have similar shooting styles @anonim - I want to configure the camera at home and then when I go out shooting I also want to be "sparing all precious time/concentration for evaluating composition of image" as you say

I am really looking forward to 10-bit images.  I found that 8-bit C-Log on my XC10 was normally fine, even to adjust WB and exposure in post, and I don't have as demanding shooting scenarios as you so I can be happy with more ISO noise and colour shifts, but extra bit depth certainly won't hurt 

Also, how much difference is there between the 400Mbit and 150Mbit modes for 4K25 10-bit?

4 hours ago, Emanuel said:

The whole point is BMD guys are slow to compete with hybrid features like AF and IBIS as for instance or even a different camera range in the same segment.

Hybrids arrived to a certain point Jannard's DSMC intended to be. Scarlet 3K for 3K, now lowered to 1K-1.5K (BMD realized that but they struggle to deliver hybrid features).

4 hours ago, jonpais said:

Just off the top of my head, the GH5 was a big leap in terms of codecs and functionality over the GH4; the X-T3 has a video prowess nobody imagined possible just a couple generations ago; and the EOS R introduced an on/off dial: hardly what I’d call incremental improvements. 

I realise that other companies are also no slouch at innovation, and I was half-kidding about wanting to be a BMD fanboy.

In terms of BMD being slow to compete with hybrid features, well yeah, we're back about half-a-dozen pages in this thread where I was basically shouting from the rooftops about it being a cinema camera....  but in a sense it has taken a half-step to being a hybrid as it does have some of the hybrid features, albeit weak implementations.  

I think it's trying to be a hybrid and failing about as much as hybrids are trying to be cinema cameras and failing.  Everyone wants the best of both worlds and as various manufacturers offer up cameras that get closer and closer to the middle ground between the two we're getting more and more confused about what type of cameras there are, what types there should be, and what types are best for us (and the job we have at hand..).

I am pretty stoked at how fast Resolve has come over the last few years though.  In that regard they're basically the only ones jumping ahead significantly.

3 hours ago, Kisaha said:

I can not identify, not even one BM fanboy here!

I can see a bunch attacking the P4K for something that it isn't (a hybrid camera), some that pre-ordered and finding it an excellent and cheap solution for their needs, and some (the majority I assume, including me) that are really intrigued by this release from -used to be- a small player that can easily fit many people's workflow, but we are waiting for real world reviews and to check quality and software issues.

I'd love to be a BM fanboy..  they're pushing out products that are big leaps forward, not the usual "it's 4% better than last-years model" that is so common.

I love Resolve, despite it being buggy and now so complicated it might be easier to actually fly the space shuttle, but they just don't make cameras targeted at me! ???

2 hours ago, Yannick Willox said:

If I want to save on storage, I could shoot the P4K at 1080P & prores LT. Now that would be an interesting comparison, the full HD of the GH5s versus P4K ? Amazing nobody looked at that angle yet. I thought one of the major gripes with current hybrid cams is that they are all optimized for 4K.

I agree.  We may find that the 1080 output (either 1080 RAW, 1080 Prores, or 4K to 1080 downscale in post) is a really cinematic sweet spot.  I'm looking forward to those tests.

1 hour ago, Shirozina said:

Which is why I'm buying one to complement but not replace my GH5 

I will make a judgement call on the image quality when I do my own tests but I am managing my expectations based upon that fact that using the GH5 with an HLG capture and Resolve Color managed workflow I'm not complaining about it's image quality at all.

It certainly would be a good compliment between the GH5 and P4K.  Both great cameras, but optimised for different tasks.  I think you have the right attitude - not the "which is better" mindset, but the "the best tool for the job depends on the job" mindset