kye
-
Posts
7,696 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Articles
Posts posted by kye
-
-
Does anyone use the 4:3 open gate mode without anamorphic lenses? This guy thinks it's a winner, and he compares it to a RAW photo, but doesn't compare it with the DCI 4K 400Mbit mode which might be just as good perhaps?
-
Thanks @jonpais - I actually watched his video last night!
I just wrote a big post asking how to set things up the way I wanted, but I figured it out. I now have C1 as C4K-10bit, C2 as 4K60, and C3 as 1080p180, with all of them in Aperture priority and auto-ISO. I couldn't work out how to set this up until I realised I could set a bunch of things in "Camera-M" mode but then save them to the Custom modes... I was in the Custom mode looking for movie settings that weren't available in the menus! A confusing start, but I think I'm there.
So now, 24 hours after bought it, I think I'm ready to record my first test clip! ???
I only have the 14mm 2.5 on it for the moment until next week when my m42 adapter and lenses show up. I'm anticipating another steep learning curve at that point
Of course, there will also be learning curves when: I pull footage into Resolve for the first time, I buy the V-Log update, I get the GHa package, etc etc etc...
-
I'm now an official member of the GH5 owners club. Spent three hours last night trying to understand the settings and set up the camera how I want it. I am so confused!!
I'll work it out, but holy wow, the complex interactions of the record format, record quality, VFR option, and system frequency settings are making my brain hurt..
-
Have you posted in the BM forums?
Those forums are good because that's where the real power users hang out but I've definitely noticed that it's mainly people helping each other, and BM typically fix it in a future release or just leave people hanging with bugs that don't get fixed over many many releases. BM are more focussed on fast development rather than taking their time to make every release polished and super stable. I guess that's the price for the crazy number of features they provide for the price.
-
13 hours ago, jonpais said:
A smartphone in case all else fails. ?
This is true.. and these days, it's not a terrible backup option
11 hours ago, anonim said:Camera and one of the Seneca's book being close, perhaps wouldn't be bad experiment?
(Of course, that just in the case you are not using already "dead" system.)
Good point! even if it took me a while to work out what you were talking about ???
-
4 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:
The Pocket 4K has a lot of interesting features, of course, but somebody needs to do a proper comparison of 8bit, 10bit, ProRes, LOG, RAW, etc. Because the image quality is closer between them than people realise, when it comes to the end-result.
I've had Blackmagic cameras in the past, and it's fun pulling around a raw file in Resolve and seeing all that dynamic range on demand, but then I have also had a lot of enjoyment out of 8bit S-LOG and Canon LOG too. Seeing how silky smooth, noise-less the shadows are in low light from a full frame sensor, being able to fluidly play it back and slap on a LUT over Canon 1D C footage - wow - you wouldn't know THAT was 8bit. Instantly nice colour and dynamic range. Same with Hybrid LOG Gamma from an A7 III, or V-LOG with the GH5 and F-LOG on an X-T3. Even the EOS R, for all its faults, has an amazing ALL-I codec with film-like colour - and it's 8bit.
We are trading a lot of things on the Pocket 4K for that RAW codec. 10bit too, but others offer that now, so it's not unique to Blackmagic. Out goes a large sensor, out goes decent video AF, out goes IBIS, out goes articulated screen, battery life, high quality body, weather sealing and more besides. So it is important not to over hype it, as some have been doing on this thread. I have nothing against the Blackmagic Pocket 4K, but it has to be seen objectively.
I do have a little bit of annoyance pent up at the company, for their lame availability and non-support of EOSHD despite the tons of work I have done over the years to bring people's knowledge up to speed on their cameras and Resolve, but I am not going to let that influence the review once I finally get one.
Still no luck on that front BTW.
1 hour ago, mercer said:As I previously noted, I was being hyperbolic with murder and obliterate but that doesn’t negate the fact that ProRes XQ at +700 mbps should look better than 400 mbps of the GH5. And in some ways it does but I don’t know if it looks almost twice as good.
After I posted those shots of the Philip Bloom pushed and pulled around I had the same thoughts and wondered how well other lesser footage would respond. So I pulled in a shot from my XC10 in C-Log and a shot from my 700D and applied the same push and pull. I expected both to not stand up, and of course the 700D footage broke so hard it looked like modern art, but the 305Mbit 8-bit C-Log from the XC10 looked just fine.
As I don't film like PB I didn't have a shot with similar tonal distribution, and then all my thoughts about how camera comparisons aren't done right (by basically anyone) so I didn't end up posting them.
I really like the look of the OG Pocket and this one hasn't given the same wow factor, but considering that BM release early and tweak, considering that we've not had many examples of footage that was well shot, considering the extensive camera tests that high-end cinematographers do with a new camera working out it's sweet spots and optimal settings, and the maturity of understanding with other contenders like the GH5, A7Sii, etc, we really can't tell what potential there is in this camera yet.
-
I'm interested in how much redundant equipment people bring in case of malfunctions.
I know it's not that common to take two bodies or duplicate lenses and that it's basically inevitable that people have multiple batteries and media, but who takes things like duplicate battery chargers, card readers, microphones, cables, and computers on set or when travelling?
I shoot travel so tend to travel light, but I'm contemplating buying a spare charger, card reader, and a few little bits like that to lessen the number of single-points-of-failure while I'm out travelling.
-
1 hour ago, BTM_Pix said:
It also has a nifty function where it saves the information about the monitoring LUT you were using in the metadata of the clip which is then picked up and displayed in the clip field in Resolve.
I like the baked in LUT function too but as an alternative if you need to turn things round quickly in HD while still retaining the option to have a more flexible master in 4K for future finessing then the option of being able to apply the LUT to the HDMI output is a very good reason to pick up a used Atomos Ninja Star off eBay.
Wow.. that will be such a great combo. I know that time is money for people who have to turn things around quickly as you say, but this could also be a way of getting proxy files to edit with but not having to wait for the computer to render them when you ingest the footage.
A good media management program (or even just a script like I have) would mean it's not that much harder to ingest the footage from two sources instead of one.
-
Indeed it is. I've seen lots of YouTubers do their tutorials in mixing sound and adding foley and it's truly amazing at how much latitude you have with making things still believable. and how much the sound really makes a difference.
I've heard people say that the picture is for the viewers brain and the sound is for the viewers emotions.
I think excellent sound and music is one of the reasons I like many movies. A few that come to mind is The Hours and Run Lola Run, and I'm also reminded of the cult Australian hit Hercules Returns. Highly recommended
-
2 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:
Yeah Raw is Always going to win with good grading skills. Look at the Canon ML results. And so is ProRes, especially with company's that have good Color Science. It is the better Codec because it is 10, 12, 14 bit and has a data rate out the wazoo. I have been seeing better grading from just what seems normal people than BMD themselves seemed to produce in the beginning. Kind of odd to me. So there is hope for this camera. But you better load up with recording media and a shit pot full of batteries. Sort of sounds familiar doesn't it. ?
Yep. and for those who are used to shooting in those rec709 profiles and throwing on a LUT in post it's definitely a case of "oh Toto, we're not in Kansas anymore!!" ???
-
11 hours ago, mojo43 said:
People think you are just some silly tourist with an rx100, which maybe I am hahaha
You might be a silly tourist, but in film-making terms you're definitely not! Truly nice work, and if the modest setup is limiting you then it's not coming through in the edit.
Makes me want to sell everything and buy an RX100 and just go shoot stuff, which is a sign of a successful film!
Subscribed.
- webrunner5 and mojo43
-
2
-
7 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:
By the way, I just realised the interview with Dave takes place between two ferns. Will have to invest in a better backdrop next time!!
Or just own it, and do every interview between two ferns!! Surely there are some fake ones you can buy that will come apart and fit into a tripod bag??
???
-
2 hours ago, newfoundmass said:
Hard to put a percentage, but a lot of the time you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between Olympus and Panasonic stabilization. It's really only when you push it to the limits does one clearly outperform the other. You won't notice much difference though in basic/typical handheld shooting.
Thanks, that's what I was thinking. I've read that Olympus helped Panasonic with the IBIS in the GH5 and that's why it's so good, but the difference seems to be more like 10-20% better rather than night-and-day.
1 hour ago, mercer said:Hmm, I know the GH5 has a ton more features but after using my friend’s E-M10iii, watching videos from that camera on here, and just spending a little while watching online videos from the E-M1ii, I think the overall image is just more organic from the E-M1ii compared to the GH5.
It looks like the Olympus has about a half a stop less dynamic range, and is only 8bit compared to 10bit on the GH5, but the colors still look nicer on the Olympus. And from what I have read, the Olympus has near 6.5 stops of stabilization and clearly beats the GH5. The G9 may be closer to the Olympus than the GH5 with IBIS. And in fact, I think fuzzy is right that the EM5ii has better IBIS than the GH5. Hopefully the E-M5iii will be released soon and best all of the above.
I also have a feeling that Olympus is the next company to watch and think they may actually be the first consumer camera company to offer Raw or ProRes on one of their cams. We’ll see.
Yes, ideally I'd wait, but I've run out of time before my next trip so I'm picking up a GH5 today.
In the end it was the 10-bit, 4K60, 1080p180, 29 minute limit and the noisy preamps on the EM1ii that swayed me. Even if the image and stabilisation is nicer, those are still differences I can't get past unfortunately. The EM1ii looks like a much better camera for stills, especially with PDAF and the 50MP sensor shift, but I'm almost 100% video so it's just not the right match for me.
-
11 hours ago, wolf33d said:
I think it’s mainly a question of resolution.
In most of the mentionned cameras we get upscaled 720p thus poor looking images. It’s true that the bitrate is also too low for Sony for example.
Of course.. I didn't think of that. It's like they're cheating lol
record 360p and upscale in camera to 4K.....
-
6 hours ago, webrunner5 said:
I think most of these newer cameras have got auto WB, auto Exposure down to a tee anymore. So most stuff is coming out popularly exposed. And heck they have more DR now than ever. So in essence it is getting harder to screw stuff up unless you goof up, are in a pretty terrible situation. Even these new Logs, C Log, N Log, F Log are not a crazy Log like say Sony S Log 3 is. So they are more forgiving, for most stuff, most people shoot. And NLE's have gotten better also. More auto correction stuff available. So it is just easier to get it right, right in camera. Is it as good as it can be, well no. But good enough for most viewers.
People with great editing, grading, coloring skills are Always going to shine on their output. But the gap is getting narrower every year, and the camera gap narrows also.. You could really take some of these new mirrorless cameras and put the guts in a normal Cine body and no one would be the wiser. They are getting that good.
I agree.
Lots of people are saying "this 4K RAW isn't that much better than our best H264 cameras, how disappointing" when I think they should be saying "wow, our H264 cameras weren't completely put to shame by this 4K RAW camera, how things have changed since the BMPCC, and aren't we spoiled for choice now!".
5 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:The problem with tests like these is they may as well be a review of the tester's grading skills.
Ever since RAW and LOG first came out we have had the same issue - are we watching badly graded footage or is the camera to blame?
I totally agree.
I watched the 2012 Zacuto camera challenge recently (doing it blind as they suggested) and ended up putting the cameras in three tiers, which I found out afterwards were basically sorting them by price! The only exception to that was the F65 which I placed in the middle tier instead of the top tier because I didn't like the grade.
I think there are two ways to properly execute a camera comparison - set the cameras to their flattest profile and show the files untouched out of the camera having only done a WB, or use a colour checker and have the NLE grade it for you using the full checker so it can linearise the luminance and adjust primaries and all that stuff. Otherwise, like you say, we're evaluating their grade and not the camera.
Has anyone compared the P4K to the BMPCC by downscaling the P4K to 1080 and then comparing? Sharpness and resolution have a lot to do with things being cinematic...
- webrunner5, MurtlandPhoto and IronFilm
-
2
-
1
-
That file that Philip Bloom uploaded is pretty interesting.
I have very little experience with grading high-end footage, but this seems to be really gradable and very difficult to break.
Here's a frame without any processing linked at the bottom of this post.
and the waveform:
If I adjust levels to use the full height then I get this:
and using contrast and pivot we can push it up or down a really long way...
There is a little noise there on the guys jacket, but it doesn't look like fixed pattern, and this is pushing it until it breaks. Crazy stuff.
Thanks to Philip Bloom for the file
-
49 minutes ago, MattH said:
I watched half of if before being compelled to write the comment. I will watch the rest. Maybe I should have said "I thought I was a big-shot cinematographer, but then I realised I was a one man band videographer". As technically in the age of digital there isn't a hard and fast distinction between the two. Its just that Reds seem to be used on big budget projects, tipically feature films, whereas he clearly makes talking head corporate videos. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but a high quality camcorder would do the job.
IIRC he said something about wanting to improve his outputs. I'm not quite sure if that was in output or in learning, but he's hardly the first to think that new equipment will help creatively.
Unfortunately it can be true sometimes, new equipment can inspire, or challenge you to work in a new way, or make you overcome new challenges and learn something useful etc.
-
2 minutes ago, MattH said:
Why the hell did he buy it in the first place? Surely you would realise all this before spending $20,000 dollars on something. Clearly more money than sense.
Really if he was honest he could sum up his video with "I thought I was a cinematographer but then I realised I was a videographer"
Its pretty ridiculous when you think about it. Its like a taxi driver buying a Ferrari and then posting an earnest video explaining all of the reasons why it wasn't right for his taxiing as if people would be surprised. Rich people problems.
Though you wonder why someone who could afford a Ferrari so casually would continue to taxi-drive.
Good points. He does talk a little about why he bought it in the video so I'd recommend watching it if you haven't already.
What is your definition of cinematographer vs videographer? Not being sarcastic - I googled this very thing some time ago and there didn't seem to be much consensus.
People have commented before that many people will buy the P4K and then get a shock and sell/return it and others have said that if it didn't do RAW internally then there probably wouldn't be the hype around it that there is. I think these are symptoms of it being a cinema camera and people not understanding the differences. The original pocket kind of taught the average person a bit about the difference, but I think this version will have quite an effect on people.
They will realise the file sizes are huge, they're not good all-in-one solutions like an A6500, and most importantly that RAW won't make them a better cinematographer. I've looked at RAW RED footage before and been surprised and disappointed because it wasn't magical.
I think the Ferrari is a good analogy, except if the analogy was that people were trying to take it off-road. It can do it, but it's really not the best tool for the job.
-
2 minutes ago, jonpais said:
Sorry kye, that’s not how I understood your comments, and you are a pretty articulate man.
But what I wonder about is how you come up with how AF suddenly doesn’t matter to you anymore.
Which bits Jon? I've said a few things
In terms of me moving away from AF, it's a complete change in philosophy. I'm moving from wanting a camera to record whatever shots I can see (and therefore being really flexible), to having a camera that I love the images of and then just accepting that it won't capture everything I want. In that sense, I think I want manual primes, and potentially vintage ones. Once I switched philosophies in my head I worked out what that setup would look like and it makes sense that approaching my work in a different way would mean the equipment would be quite different too.
I shot a few videos testing various elements of the setup and concluded that MF is fine if I get good focus assists. I shoot in MF for my kids sports games anyway so I'm kind of used to it.
6 minutes ago, Chrad said:Isn't the whole point of the big monitor that this is a pocket camera and you don't need an external monitor?
If you need to rig up a monitor to mount external power without some unorthodox rigging whatsit designed to prevent blocking the view of the screen, then the rear monitor is just a waste of space and energy.
Or are you saying this isn't a real cinema camera because they included a screen on the back?
Broken design: halfway between a cinema camera that requires rigging and a low form factor device, in ways that are trampling on each other. The least they could have done here is add a hinge for the screen and then this would be a non-issue.
You don't need anything - just put a lens on it and go. Sure, the battery doesn't last long, but it lasts long enough for some people. If you want longer battery life then put on a V-Mount, and if you put it at the back then add an external screen too. Rig it as large as you like, then it's like a normal cinema camera. My point is that if you get the brain of a real cinema camera then you can't even put a lens on it, let alone record any footage.
This is both a "pocket" camera AND a cinema camera. Most cameras this size aren't good cinema cameras rigged up, and no cinema camera is this size. They've designed it for both and everyone is moaning that it's not perfect. It's not perfect - neither is any other camera.
I agree that a hinge on the screen would have been nicer. But for a cinema camera, it's a bonus they gave us a screen at all.
-
2 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:
I have to say that my takeaway from it was wondering why he bought it in the first place because those list of reasons in his description were all there before he wrote the cheque.
I'm not sure it particularly validates the P4K either to be honest as that camera wouldn't move the story on significantly for him either in a lot of those criteria that he listed against the RED.
- * My clients don’t need or ask for 4K - So its no different there.
- * I don’t end up taking it because I’m worry about it getting stolen and it is so heavy - Obviously different there.
- * The batteries only last an hour, so I have to bring a bunch - So its no different there.
- * No autofocus (which matters more when you’re a one man band or are filming yourself) - Obviously different there.
- * I find the image is actually really noisy. - From what I've seen, the Pocket4K will be a win there.
- * Filming with it is just slower and more work. - So its no different there due to it sharing the same issues he lists in his next 4 points.
- * Footage takes a longer time to backup. - So its no different there (relative to the type of cameras he lists that he does want to use in his last point)
- * Takes longer to make proxies. - So its no different there (relative to the type of cameras he lists that he does want to use in his last point)
- * Takes longer to export. - So its no different there (relative to the type of cameras he lists that he does want to use in his last point)
- * No built-in ND Filters - So its no different there.
- * No built-in XLRs - Its singular but obviously different there.
- * $1750 for the module with a mic input jack + HDMI/SDI out - Obviously different there!
- * Really want to go back to using hybrid cameras (I hate packing two kinds of cameras for photo + video needs) - So its no different there.
I think the video could equally have been called "Why I Don't Need A 4K RAW Cinema Camera Irrespective Of How Much It Costs" as when it comes to the most important aspects the only difference between the two is where the decimal point is in the price.
Totally agree.
I think I worded that part of my post badly.. I should have separated the two points, that Caleb said the RED was a mistake for a number of reasons, and that MY interpretation of those reasons applied to the P4K.
Like @Mattias Burling said - this is a cinema camera. If you accept that it's a cinema camera then it needs to be understood in that context. Including the size... for a cinema camera it may as well be called the Black Magic Microscopic Cinema Camera!
It's another effect of convergence of technology. People who are part of the DSLR revolution don't understand how cinema cameras work (thus the complaining about the battery life, screen, file sizes, AF, etc) and so they compare it to cameras of the same price or physical size. Just like you wouldn't do any serious overall comparison between a $1000 iPhone camera and a $1000 DSLR because they're the same price (what do you mean the camera can't make phone calls???), or a 5D with a film camera because they're the same shape (why doesn't the 5D take Ektar???), comparing the P4K with A7III GH5 etc also makes no sense because they're built for completely different things.
10 minutes ago, Chrad said:Usually a battery is placed behind the camera on a real cinema camera, but you can't do that here without obstructing your view of the screen.
I wonder how people see the screen on the back of their real cinema cameras?
-
53 minutes ago, androidlad said:
Regarding HFR bitrate, it doesn't need to be very high because HFR footage have very small motion difference in between frames, which is highly efficient for interframe compression.
That's a good point, and also explains why some footage looks ok and other things don't.
Assuming you shoot with a 180 degree shutter then people running will be a lot easier to compress in HFR, but if you're shooting a waterfall then it's the opposite - the 180 shutter will blur the water droplets in normal speed but in HFR many more droplets are visible because they're moving a lot slower during each exposure, and so there's heaps and heaps of fine detail to fit into the bit-rate.
I guess the moral of the story is that consumer cameras are ok to film your cat in slow motion, but if you're travelling and want to film the town waterfall then it's got to be a cinema camera recording RAW ???
-
21 minutes ago, Anaconda_ said:
Philip Bloom has shared a small edit which he says is from one continuous shot. He’s also given a link to download the original file... it’s 22gb.
I'm downloading it.
If anyone has any questions or requests for things I can (quickly / easily) do in Resolve, just ask
6 minutes ago, Snowfun said:At least I’m not worried about battery life... my cFast card (128Gb £275) records for three minutes (UHD raw uncompressed 60fps). And I’ve got six Canon LPE6s so I should be ok.
Said in jest, obviously. I’ll never record uncompressed raw. And I have 2 500Gb T5s on order.
But the other half did seem pleased that she wouldn’t have to sit through more than 180s of my cinematic holiday films!
A three minute film is a good length.. just edit in-camera like first year of film-school and you'll be set!
-
That is fantastic footage.
In a way it's still a "trick" kind of like the bullet time effect by swinging it around your head on a string, but it's probably much more useful for the GoPro action camera crowd who want shots of mucking around by the pool or whatever.
The IQ is still pretty bad though, and notably all those shots are wide. Wide shots are better for these cameras as essentially you're cropping in to get a tighter angle so with a low bit-rate 4K codec anything tighter than perhaps 15-25mm is going to look like Youtube in 240p.
When these things get affordable 8K they will take over. Everyone will have a smart phone and one of these to video their family or whatever. Being able to hold it out in front of you while you're mucking around in the park and then be able to choose camera angles in post like every 1-shot, 2-shot, and group shot combination had a camera recording it is completely next level.
You can have a normal camera that records 16K RAW and it still won't capture the funny moment AND all the reactions to it. This will automatically record everything.
-
2 hours ago, jonpais said:
One technique I’ve used, especially when shooting with the GH5 and pointing the camera at a subject for as long as minutes at a time, is to intentionally sway the camera a bit from side to side.
The reason being, if I try holding the camera too steady for long periods of time, my arms would fatigue and I’d introduce jitter into the shot, no matter how good the IBIS. And a little side to side camera movement is more interesting to watch than a completely static shot anyhow.
And lo and behold, I was just watching an easyrig tutorial where the photographer recommends doing just that.
I did a bunch of that on my last trip actually, kind of like a fake sideways slider shot. It's harder to do at longer focal lengths but I had success in staying within the IS of my XC10 with perhaps 60% of the shots I tried.
I found the trick was to make sure neither leg was straight, hold the camera steady and "fix" your upper body so it's all rigid (but not tensed) and then after you slowly breathe out to just take your eyes off the screen, or just kind of let them go soft-focus, and then just move from one leg to the other while holding your upper body motionless. I found that if I looked at the screen then I was tempted to rotate the camera to keep an object in the same spot in the frame, and that means that your upper body isn't fixed and you're now slowly rotating the camera, which means that the IS has to sense you're now panning and all the shakes are likely to return because you're moving slightly. If you are looking at the screen then it will be motionless if you're holding it within the IS range, but if you go outside of that then you'll see movement in the screen, which will prompt you to try and move to compensate, and often that movement will mean you shake more, and it all goes downhill from there.
In any case, it's better just to rock back and forwards a few times, partly because it gives you a chance to relax and kind of practice, but also it gives you flexibility in post of choosing which direction you want the shot to slide in
4 hours ago, newfoundmass said:Olympus is the best but Panasonic is very close behind. Olympus looks more natural compared to Panasonic; sometimes you get weird warping with the Panasonic depending on the lens, etc. though that's generally only when you move / shake too much. They're both definitely tops when it comes to mirrorless ILC. I've never been impressed with Sony's ibis and never used The X-H1. I don't have any experience with iPhones, but the stabilization on my LG V20 is generally pretty bad, though it's acceptable when shooting wide.
I'd probably go with Panasonic if I'm shooting with vintage primes and using it more for video work in general. They just have more video features than Olympus, though if Olympus ever came out with a GH5 equivalent I'd seriously consider it over the GH5.
Thanks, that's useful. I did wonder if the GH5 was 90% of the Oly or 60% or how close it was. The GH5 has so much else going for it to take into consideration.
My iPhone 8 (not plus) has pretty good IS actually. I am frequently impressed with it stabilising when I didn't think it would, like if you're shooting and moving or if there's a gust of wind or whatever. Unfortunately these things are all relative - someone with steady hands will say something is great but those with a bit more movement will have no success with it, so it's hard to judge if people haven't compared both options over a period of time.
Panasonic GH5 - all is revealed!
In: Cameras
Posted
Thanks Anonim!
I've mapped the ETC and IS Video Lock to buttons. That IS Video Lock is really great - I just tried it for walking and it does a really respectable job - almost gimbal-like movement, and in a couple of places perhaps even a bit floaty for my tastes. Definitely something to reach for when I want more aggressive stabilisation, and of course, a static shot
I just setup HLG, but unfortunately it's not available in 4K60 or 180fps modes... what would you suggest for filming slow-motion shots? Cineline-D seemed to be the previous favourite? I'm ok in Resolve to match shots ok, but getting it closer to HLG would be nicer
I think I like the GHa conversion more for the highlight softening than I do for the colour, and the colour is pretty darn nice. I was contemplating a new thread about how much of 'colour science' is hue and how much is luminance, but that's another topic.
I have so much to learn and so much reading to do. With the XC10 there was basically no-one talking about it and no support whatsoever, and now for the GH5 it will be a matter of sifting through the content to get the good bits because there's so much of it around! Of course, better to have too much advice than too little, and I ingest information pretty easily, so it's definitely the problem I'd rather have.
I have done some tests with the 14mm 2.5 and all I can say is I can't wait until my other lenses arrive! Neither the f2.5 or the MF ring of this lens are really floating my boat, but the IQ looks lovely, and I don't even have a 400Mbit capable memory card yet, so I've only played with 150Mbit files.