kye

I agree it will be bigger, but it doesn't have to be huge. The XC10 has a small 1" sensor and no IBIS, but it does have one internal ND, a fan for cooling and a pretty powerful processor inside, and it's still very compact. If you compare the XC10 to the RX100 (both 1" sensors) then you can see there's a reasonable size difference: However, if you add that size difference to the A7SII then it still wouldn't result in a terribly large camera: TBH I think they could do a lot worse than to make it similarly to the XC10 because the ergonomics of that camera are absolutely fantastic (especially note the size of the grip which contains the battery), and it's still really quite small in the grand scheme of things. Here's the XC10 being dwarfed by the 1DX (which actually is a large camera). Even if you added the XC10 to the A7SII it would still be smaller! Of course, in the longer-term, these things will all get smaller too. Go back in this forum and I'm sure you'll find people talking about 720p cameras and claiming you'd need a tripod to carry the camera that could do 1080 at HFR, and now we have the iPhone and it's 1080p240 and 4K60 in it's sub-$40 camera module!

And the technically proficient and discerning user might also shoot a test scene with a bunch of ISOs (controlling exposure via SS) and then compare, select the nicest curve, and then build a set of curves that turn the lesser tone curves into the good one. If you're careful and organised such a thing would only take a few hours to do from start to finish.

Actually, I think this question will get easier to answer over time. It used to be that a cinema camera had lots of features (NDs, dedicated buttons), connections (SDI, XLRs), and high IQ (resolution, codecs, DR, colour science). So when hybrids got good, it was confusing because they also had much of the high IQ and some of the features. Once hybrids have all the IQ and features, then it will be down to the connections. This is as it should be, as no-one is going to run a 20-person crew with a hybrid and rely on the HDMI out - they will pay the extra and get a camera that can integrate into the wider architecture of a professional film-set with multiple monitors showing multiple grades to different people, audio mixing and wireless sends, etc etc. If your film set is $20,000/hr then the difference between hiring a $5K camera and a $50k camera is negligible. Unfortunately the product lines from most manufacturers seem to indicate they are clueless about this. I don't think they are clueless about it at all, I think it's the middle-managers playing corporate chess for survival coupled with organisational cultural inertia that's the real reason behind it.

Now I've gone MFT, I plan to eventually get a nice lens around the 15-20mm mark as my walk-around lens for travel and home videos. In combination with the ETC mode on the GH5 that makes it a ~35mm lens and ~50mm equivalent lens - the two most flexible focal lengths. My criteria are: nice MF ring aperture control (manual aperture ring or electronic control from the camera are both fine) faster than 1.8 nice 3D rendering neutral or on the warmer / nicer / more flattering side I have other wider and longer lenses to compliment it, but as I think the ~35mm focal length is the most useful, I think I will do most of my shooting with this lens. As such, I'm saving up and will have a bit of budget. The options I've found are: SLR Magic 17mm T1.6 Olympus 17mm F1.2 Voigtlander 17.5mm F0.95 (winner in the Hurlblog comparison) Panasonic 15mm F1.7 (looked ok in the Hurlblog comparison) Rokinon 20mm T1.9 (borderline fast enough) Sigma 16mm F1.4 Panasonic 20mm F1.7 Speedbooster + Canon Nikon etc fast prime?? Adapter (not SB) + Canon mount ~16mm fast prime?? Adapter (SB) + nice ~28mm vintage lens (eg Minolta Rokkor 28mm F2.0) Eliminated options: Veydra 16mm T2.2 (not fast enough) Olympus 17mm F1.8 (in the Hurlblog comparison it looked flat and lacked contrast) Speedbooster + Sigma 18-35 F1.8 (too large / heavy) Adapter (non SB) + vintage wide angle (I couldn't find any wides fast enough or that weren't fisheyes...) Please help!! Ideally I'd love the Voigtlander 17.5 0.95 but if there's a better deal then I'd love to know. Otherwise its a case of saving up.....

Makes total sense Luckily the internet is awash with people that can't shoot or grade very well!

I agree about size and heat dissipation, but that contradicts the idea that all the cameras in a given lineup had the same body? It's a strange situation to be in because if they push their video line-up and make a new body (that would obviously be larger due to cooling fans) for it, then it would make sense to use the opportunity for adding things like NDs and other things that take up space and they couldn't before. If they did that and called it the A7SIII then it would confuse the A7 lineup completely but capture all the PR from the A7SII customers and reputation. If they decide to slot it into their cinema lineup and call it something like the FS3, then most A7SII customers wouldn't understand it. It's going to be a tough gig to make it better than the competition in performance, large enough to have cooling, and still fit the general form-factor of the A7Sii line and customers existing gimbals and other rigging that they'll want to keep using.

Of course.. that makes the list something like: G m43, perhaps with a hi/lo philosophy, as the basic hybrid line GH successor as a proper small-factor cinema camera, with emphasis on video operability while retaining most of GH5/5s stills capabilities S as FF contenders against Sony and Canonikon with 8K ---OR--- EVA as 4K with much larger form factor with dedicated buttons etc Varicam as pro cinema line, including FF sensor and no-compromise operability Even if we started to add their fixed lens cameras below the G series, their entire lineup would still make sense and be useful to almost all film-makers who need A-cam / B-cam / crash-cam options. This clean hierarchy really doesn't seem to be common amongst the other manufacturers, who completely ignore parts of the market, or have large gaps in IQ between their consumer cams and professional cinema lines.

Ironically, if I bought the BMPCC4K instead of GH5 then I'd already have the expensive media!! I don't think they're fast enough for 1:1 RAW at 60fps, but they're usable for every sensible mode. See below - they test about the same as a SSD HDD.

@Andrew Reid is right - badly graded images tell us nothing. If we see a bad grade, how can we tell the difference between it being a great camera and bad colourist, or a flawed camera that the colourist wasn't skilled enough to correct, or a broken camera that no-one could get a good image out of even if given years to do so? The answer is that we can't. Unfortunately, when you give a camera to a pro and get a great image back, you may be seeing the result of a camera that is really easy to work with and a very simple but effective grade, or you might be seeing a camera that takes skill to work with and the results of an experienced colourist, you can't tell. However, at least you can tell that the camera isn't fundamentally flawed. I find Philip Blooms camera tests very revealing both in what they show and what they don't show. He shows what works with the camera, and to be fair, he normally does stress test them a bit. But every now and then he'll release something like his iPhone 120fps video which makes the iPhone look like a wonderful camera until you realise that every shot (almost without exception) is pointing into the sun. What's the moral of that story? The 120fps mode needs a metric shitload of light, especially in 120p when exposure times are so short. Its an omission, but it's one that is noticeable if you pay attention. As Andrew said, only a skilled grader or the RAW files are of any use.

That makes sense @UncleBobsPhotography and would explain why I'm not getting 50MBps in the GH5 on a card that gives 80MBps in the computer I must say though, I went out again today and took some random test shots and the 150Mbps modes just floor me. Even the FHD 180fps mode looks great. The phrase "digital film" keeps coming into my head when I look at a clip, either fullscreen which looks soft and with wonderful colour subtlety or zoomed in hugely where it just looks like film grain. My vintage lenses will be helping with this, but even the 14mm F2.5 still gives that impression too. It's a mile away from the brittle and digital look most 4K mirrorless cameras shoot these days.

Cheaper than the cards for my XC10. https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1067863-REG/transcend_ts256gcfx650_cfast_2_0_cfx650_flash.html and that was just to get 305Mbps 4K!

From what I understand it took a number of firmware updates to get the BMPCC to where it is now. I'd imagine the newer one will be the same? If so, just think about it like you're buying a software subscription with free upgrades

One of the ways that I like to think about it is in terms of "tiers". For the average Joe, a G85 might take pride of place in their setup as an A camera. Their GoPro that used to be their A-cam might then be the tiny / crash cam in their setup. For some, a GH camera might be your A-cam with a G camera being your B-camera, perhaps if you're shooting weddings for instance and need backup angles for coverage and don't need GH quality across the whole kit. For others still, the EVA (or 8K S1?) might be their A-camera and the G or even GH camera lines might only be crash cameras. What I like about this is that is provides a range of cameras with increasing features and IQ that many people can use for whatever scale, budget and IQ is appropriate for their project. In terms of the new lens mount and 8K, do they go together? I'm not sure of the resolution of existing Panny lenses, but the new mount would be a sensible time to mandate a minimum level of sharpness. 8K video has more pixels than most still cameras, so I'd imagine the vast majority of lenses will be at risk of falling short. If that's true, then MFT lens only have to be 4K and 8K lenses are the new mount. That keeps it simple for consumers and would help explain why the new lenses might cost a lot. Agreed. Having the GH line firmly in the "small sensor but large body with many buttons" camp, there's room for things like internal NDs and other circuitry required for RAW recording and associated cooling etc. Panasonic seem to pride themselves at offering lots of new things into the market with the GH line and there's no reason why they can't continue that trend. 8K might be coming, but the excitement around the BMPCC4K proved that interest in high quality 4K is anything but dead. Tell me about it. I bought an XC10 and just upgraded to a GH5! This is the nature of technology conversion. The reason they're all touchy about overlapping product lines is that in the end there will only be one or two product lines and the process to get there will involve almost everyone losing their job. We all talk about convergence like it's the GH5 vs the BMPCC4K, but if you think longer term it's about the death of entire product categories.

Could you perhaps put something on one of the tripod feet that you can stand on and it would secure that leg of the tripod to the ground and prevent it from moving or tipping up? I'm not sure what that would be called, but its the same principle as putting sand-bags on the legs of big lighting stands to make sure they don't fall over. Then you'd be free to use the slider with both hands.

@Jimmy that setup looks quite neat and compact, nice work!

Damn.. I spoke to the guy in the shop and the critical part is UHS-II, the SanDisk card I have is only UHS-I. I think that it's probably a case of the card being able to sustain that speed on average but the video probably doesn't get generated at a constant speed and if the camera buffer fills up then it will cause the error. I've recorded a bunch of test clips at 400Mbps and 150Mbps and the 150 looks pretty amazing actually. I haven't compared them directly but I've heard that they're very similar, so I might just use that mode with the cards I have. Apparently UHS-II cards are really expensive.

Yeah, it's the V30 one, with the 95MB/s speed. I just finished copying 190Gb of images onto it and then looked at a bunch of images to compare the card copy to the HDD and they all check out. I'm satisfied it's not a fake. I'm going into town today so will call past the camera place I bought it from and see if they have another high-speed card to try out. Unfortunately that's the only fast card I have so I can't narrow down if it's the camera or that card, although the computer says it tests fine so that points to the camera.

It would make sense if Panasonic kept pushing the GH line as high quality 4K cameras (10-bit, or maybe RAW) and pushed the new FF line to 8K. It would be quite a nice neat lineup, giving pros four video lineups: the G as the disposable / C-cam line, the GH as the budget / small / 4K / IBIS line, the S as the pricier / larger / 8K line, and the EVA as the cinema line with all the SDI and pro ergonomics.

Another question. I just got my 256Gb Sandisk Extreme Pro UHS-I card and the GH5 stops recording in the 400Mbit mode saying the card can't keep up. I tested the card in my computer and it gets a continuous 80+MB/s write speed with 5Gb files in the BM Speed Test program, so it should work fine in the camera (400Mbps is only ~50MB/s write, not even close to the 80MB/s it tests at). I've read a bunch of websites and done some testing there's no indication it's a fake. Anyone else had card speed issues?

If they said 4K60 10-bit was what we expected and they want to beat it then I see a few options. They can up the specs in a way that marketing would like and we'll end up with 8K, and maybe no improvements to the 4K. They could give us what we want with 4K, potentially downscaled 8K, extra bit depth perhaps, maybe 444. They could go for the intangibles and play with ergonomics, NDs, maybe menus, maybe buttons and dials more like a cinema camera. Or they could exceed the expectations they think we have and just get it wrong and give us a huge WTF camera. Unless they change their stripes it will be the first one with 8K, maybe 4K60 10-bit. If they've already made the camera but pulled the announcement (that's my guess) then maybe they'll be stuck with the physical shape and will be trying to tweak firmware etc. Of course they might go full left-field and release a battery grip that has large battery capacity and a RAW recorder in there as well, that might be something interesting.

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.

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.

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.

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.