kye

Thanks - it kind of does. I was more thinking something like "it went down when the GH5S came out and people upgraded and then the retail went down before xmas and then people sold a bunch when the A7III was released" etc.. Do cameras drop in price when newer competing cameras are announced, or released, or is it more seasonal, eg xmas?

Actually, my TVs don't tune into anything other than online digital content But yes, we're starting to get to the business end of globalisation and the information age and lots of people aren't happy about having the world turned upside-down without their prior approval.

Does anyone know the price history of the GH5 and when it's likely to drop in price further? I haven't been following it, but now it's in first place in my list so I'm wondering about timing. I'm gathering that some of these new cameras being released are going to replace GH5s and thus the used price will drop?

YT requires you to disclose if a video contains a promotion - I'm sure there's a definition behind that and I'd be surprised if Peter wasn't making sure to meet that criteria, considering that his YT channel is the cornerstone of his income and PR. It would be interesting to understand the full picture though. Having good friends in a company wouldn't be included in that tick-box, neither would being able to borrow equipment for free, or borrow equipment before the stores get it in stock probably either. We didn't used to blend business with personal relationships, or if we did it was in a way that was understood (eg, if you were in purchasing and everyone knew you were taking kick-backs), but it's now much more difficult to sort out who is sufficiently impartial to tell the whole truth, who tells enough of the truth to be useful, and who will mislead you. We're in tricky territory unfortunately. I heard that kids are pretty good at judging authenticity and apparently do it really fast. I think it's a skill that we all need to further develop. Agreed. Trust is about disclosure. Thanks for your efforts and keep us updated.

What's that line.. "57 channels and nothing on" TV was like that too! ???

I am contemplating this exact question and I think it might be something like 35mm. We all know 28mm because it's the widest end of the kit lens and most phones, and it's very flexible but I think a little too wide for nice people shots. 35mm is still an environmental portrait but is a little nicer aesthetically. In terms of going wider, you always want a wider lens unless you've got something around the 12mm mark, which makes landscapes look great, so 28mm is a compromise for both people and landscapes. Most videos are more about the people than the scenery, and you can always pan, which reveals the scenery instead of just hitting you with it like a still image needs to. Like Jon I love the ability to punch in, so I'd be tempted to get a lens that was about 35mm punched in, and was wider at the full sensor read-out. Of course, in reality, it's easy and cheap to add a 50mm equivalent, so combined with crop mode that would give you ~25mm, ~35mm, 50mm, and ~80 with just two primes. and you can scale a bit in post without losing much quality, especially if you shoot in 4K, so the flexibility is there

in which case, I'm looking forward to seeing it used with more flavourful lenses.. the 0.95 Voitlanders, the Hellios 44M-4, etc etc... even adding a Tiffen Black Pro Mist filter. Damn that would be something! Does anyone know if it does auto-exposure using ISO or SS? I saw something about auto-iris in the specifications, but nothing else. If it doesn't then that will give a lot of YouTubers unboxing shock!

Damn that's nice. I'm surprised to see it's the 2.8 zoom, which I assume is like most modern lenses and doesn't have much flavour, which means it's the BM side that is where the magic is coming from. Not in camera tests. I shoot my videos and hardly any shots are slow-mo, but they're real videos about content, not tests The wolfcrow comparison was interesting, showing the GH5 and P4K limitations compared to ARRI. However, if you capture everything then I think it's up to the grade, and grading is a huge amount more difficult than most people on YT even understand. Just look at Juan Melara vs the YT colourists who don't grade high-end stuff - they don't even use the same tools!! Unlike Sony who build cooling system that assumes there's a blizzard blowing directly onto the camera body!! Agreed. So many camera tests where the person doesn't even WB and then the armchair pixel peepers extrapolate it to the moon! It's also a very similar size (width I think) so BM has been quite sneaky in allowing us all to still think of the size of the original pocket.. The best is absolutely yet to come, and I suspect that like many other low-end cinema cameras, the best will be on TV or the big screen, not on YT with the camera and lenses in the video description, so we won't have any clue. That was one of my main beefs with the persecution that the XC10 and XC15 received - they are frequently seen on professional sets and footage from them is probably used regularly and no-one would ever be able to tell, meanwhile a few online tests by people who can't WB are pixel peeped to death and everyone thinks the footage is worse than the first iPhone...

Nah, stick around and you'll realise he's way to grumpy to be a believer in almost anything!! Welcome to the forums.. home of nice people, good advice, and a bit of snark and hip-and-shoulder too Awesome - what lens is that? 12mm and crazy fast? Shallow DoF simulations in VIDEO will come, it's just about processing power. My understanding is that they do it by having two cameras where one of them senses depth (could be wrong here) but basically they take two images and then do math to work out which bits they should blur. With computing power going up steadily it's just a matter of time, and Apple has already demonstrated it's something people want that is worthwhile investing the tech into. It might be something they do in post - if they record both streams and then "develop" it later in non-realtime even. I understand your POV and agree, but also see @webrunner5 perspective too. I look at it from a few perspectives: Image quality - smartphones are getting better so fast that they'll soon be 'good enough' except in difficult lighting conditions (the 2012 Zacuto camera shootout was interesting and we've come a long way since the iPhone 4s which was used in that shootout) Flexibility - more DR and function buttons and all that stuff really matters because it makes it a lot easier to get the results you want - lower DR, a touchscreen and lightening/USB port is a million miles from a C300 and that really matters on set Connectivity - SDI ports, timecode, external power options really matter and phones are basically nowhere on this Convenience - phones are always with you, always on, and don't attract a lot of attention, which means that much more content is available to film, either from the perspective that a dedicated camera would prevent you from getting the shot or that it would just make it more difficult We evaluate phones on image quality and convenience alone because they lack the other practical things that "real" cameras have. It depends on what you shoot and your priorities I think. Arguments start when people have different priorities and don't fully explain themselves. Please everyone be nice - in person most of us would agree and calmly explain ourselves It depends on what you're shooting. If you're in good light, and are looking for a wide angle deep DoF shot and don't need timecode and external monitoring then a phone can be almost as good as an Alexa. I take shots on my phone when I travel quite a bit because that combination is great for scenic landscapes and such, even though I have an XC10 that has decent DR, C-Log, 305Mbps codec, timecode, and ergonomics that most DSLRs can only dream of. I've seen a lovely wedding video shot with an iPhone. It was an experiment, the couple agreed ahead of time, and they probably didn't pay full price, but it worked. Film-making is all about compromises, we don't have cameras that can meet how well we see so capturing things is always choosing which things the human eye can see that we don't capture, and phones are no different, they're just more of a compromise. So, you CAN shoot a wedding, but at least for now you probably SHOULDN'T Every thread is mostly the same conversation - convergence. More specifically the convergence of Hollywood, the movie theatre, broadcast television, cinema cameras, home movie cameras, film-splicing editing machines, recording studios, typewriters and telephones. Fast forward far enough and these will all be included into a tiny device mounted somewhere near our eye. This convergence is difficult for many people to come to terms with because these things never touched. Not even the Bell Labs think tank where they predicted the mobile phone thought that it would include a camera inside it. Everyone is struggling with the fact the tech isn't there yet in terms of what we see in our heads, but we're still interested in it enough to thrash it out in forums because every few iterations take us a meaningful step forwards in being able to achieve that vision. It's too rubbish to be happy with, but is improving too fast to ignore. It's actually the creative drive that powers much of these conversations. I don't want 4K60 10-bit with IBIS because I like letters and numbers and spending money - I want it because 4K 422 allows 1080 4444 (I output in 1080), 60p enables slow-motion which suits the aesthetic of the home videos I shoot because time seems to slow in the magical moments that I want to capture, 10-bit because I shoot outside in high DR with a log profile and I want to have the flexibility in post and get rich colours, and IBIS because shake distracts from the smooth magic I want to create and draws attention to the fact it's a film rather than a memory. Do I need all these things - no, do they support my creative vision - yes

Finally watched this, and...... I'm in trouble! I watched it blind like they said, and my picks fell into into three tiers, the top included the F3, the Epic, and the Alexa. The mid tier was the F65, C300, FS100, and the 7D. The last was the GH2 and the iPhone. I swear I watched it blind!!

oh man... that made me laugh!! ironically, I might actually be able to work that out. Find the internal mics and trace to their buffers, splice in a new cable, mount the socket somewhere, probably with a couple of resistors and diodes to prevent nasty things from happening and get the right levels... I've modded enough hifi equipment in my life

Thanks @mercer and @webrunner5 Posting your creativity online is always a bit nerve wracking, especially around people that do this stuff for a living! I've worked out that IBIS is the way forward for me. I thought fast primes were always big and heavy (I was extrapolating upwards from my Sigma 18-35 F1.8!) but after seeing a bunch of lovely MFT suitable lenses like the Hellios and the Voitlanders I now realise that they're not heavy enough to stabilise the camera the way a Fujinon Cine 18-55 would, and I couldn't carry that weight all day anyway. And because primes don't have IS, I need IBIS for hand-holding. I suspect there's a GH5 in my future, but we'll wait and see. So I picked up a few cheap m42 lenses to try with my GF3 and see how I go (Hellios 44M, Yashica Yashikor 28mm f2.8). Assuming I like them I'll work out if a G85 or GH5 or whatever is the right fit and fill in the gaps, the Voitlander 10.5mm and 17.5mm 0.95 lenses look absolutely stunning! If Panasonics FF camera is 8K then the price of a used GH5 will plummet and my lens budget will be huge!! ???

and...... where are the rest of the steps?

No external audio input..... bummer!

Shot and edited this today with the setup I pictured above. GF3 + 14mm F2.5 + Manfrotto pocket tripod. Shot in full auto with manual focus (because there are no settings available in video mode except focus mode, and autofocus is sloooow and hunts a bit), editing and colour in Resolve. The setup was a PITA really, the tripod either obscures the screen or the MF ring on the lens, which is focus by wire, the screen is fixed so good angles are almost blind, there's no focus assists during recording apart from a slider showing you where in the focus range you are (when you stop recording it shows a small 1:1 crop so if the focus distance isn't changing then it's ok) and it's so small it's hard to hold steady although the tripod actually helps as a bit of a handle. Not bad for a metal body camera that came with two lenses, memory card, battery, charger, UV filter, screen protector, air blower, and many other things for under $450 about a decade ago. Of course, we're now in 2018 and I'd rather a setup that was nicer to hold, use, and could be configured in any way at all It takes great photos though, and has full manual controls as well as RAW in stills mode. Pity about video mode.

That would be awesome. I generally just hold the camera a set distance from my head and then just say "back of the camera" "90 degrees" and "facing straight on" as I turn the camera around and that's enough to get an idea of what kind of rejection quality and handling noise there is. I'm at the complete opposite end of the spectrum on this camera - if I get one it would be as minimal a setup as possible. Potentially just the camera and one lens. Thanks!!

Could you possibly test the quality, directionality and if there's camera handling noise from the internal mics please? I've got a suspicion they've done something very clever with them..

@mercer Yes, absolutely. I'm not sure it's the lens that makes magic in that case, but it's still wonderful. That was one of the videos I analysed when I was trying to work out how people shoot travel videos without IS, and I did note the tripod-like shots, which work for the tranquil style and pace of the video. And so, I now extend my travel kit to the 14mm F2.5, Panny GF3 camera body, and Manfrotto tiny tripod! If I also use my 256Gb SD card, with the ~20Mbps codec it will give me enough space to shoot however much I want, so no pressure to download footage each day That may be one of the smallest ILC with tripod setups ever! @BTM_Pix I'm also one of these crazy film-makers that don't use every special effect in the book to try and jazz up dull footage with no storyline One of the reasons I chose Resolve was that it was a basic editor but advanced in colour processing and things like stabilisation. This is because my edits to date have only involved straight cuts and the odd dissolve (which I use as a scene change queue). However, colour being so important it's great to have the tools really available - the colour performance of the other "all in one" packages is laughable, and stabilisation and other things like that to compensate for my shooting style and lack of skill I don't own a drone either, and I'm not looking to buy one.

That's what I think too - it's a pity the manufacturers don't seem to share this view!

It also does that for images too - just paste the URL. I discovered that by accident yesterday, it's very handy indeed!

I considered the Osmo camera some years ago - it definitely doesn't get the respect it deserves. Cameras that don't shoot shallow DoF are almost automatically scorned online unfortunately. However, after @mercer suggested I take a G85 to India and I was looking at lenses, I realised that I have an old Panasonic GF3 and 14mm F2.5 lens in the back of the cupboard that would be perfect. The lens is a flexible focal length, and its F5 equivalent is close to the FF F4 Iook that I believe I want. The GF3 isn't a camera to write home about (for video anyway - it takes lovely stills), but it's tiny and will do the job of letting me test my one camera / one lens theory. Basically my theory is that having one camera and one lens with IQ that has magic will be better than a more flexible setup that is super flexible and can shoot almost anything but has no soul. I don't think either the 14mm F2.5 or GF3 have magic, but at least this will be a real test of the concept of having a less flexible setup and see if it works for how I shoot.

What lens would you choose to use for the rest of your life? What is your favourite lens? What is the lens you would most like to own? With the announcement of various new lens mounts what lenses would tempt you to change systems? I'm increasingly realising that it's the lens that makes the magic rather than the codec or colour science, and my desire for shallower DoF than my XC10 can provide means I'll be changing systems. What are the lenses I should be lusting after, and then trying to find a camera body for? If you want to make a recommendation, I do home, event and travel videos for fun, so the results don't have to be saleable, but the lens should be relatively well-rounded. Zooms are ok if they are magical.

You thought of me? That may be a sign you should seek professional help! ??? That monopod did look interesting though, and I've contemplated a steadicam too. I've never owned a monopod and I'm tempted to buy a super-cheap aluminium one just to 'understand' it. I analysed a couple of my finished videos and looked at every shot and thought about how I got the shot and if I could have used a tripod, and the short answer was that very few shots were tripod-compatible in the sense that either I couldn't get the tripod into the location (art galleries, museums, events, etc), the shot was taken faster than I would have had time to setup for, the shot required the camera to move, or the subject was moving too fast or too much during the shot for it to work. There are some shots where a tripod would be great however, like pans of a nice scenic lookout, and these are the shots where I miss that next level of stabilisation. In this sense a monopod would be great, especially if it was really light. I really do struggle with equipment, and my next scenic trip is to India, which is with a humanitarian organisation to go and see the work they're doing as well as see a bit of the country. As I'm not a professional I think I'd feel awkward showing up to see people who live in poverty with a huge camera and no reason for it other than it's a hobby. I'm tempted to use it as a film-making development opportunity and just use my iPhone or perhaps something like the new GoPro because of the stabilisation. I'm also a little bit concerned for the security aspects, and I'm also a bit concerned because whenever I do a tour of some kind the guide always sees my camera and thinks I'm a pro and asks me to send my finished video to them so they can use it for marketing - too much pressure!! One of the reasons I like photography is there's no pressure.. If I only take my phone then I can use that as an excuse to limit expectations In a sense, this thread is completely opposite to that - a modular cinema camera + cine lens + screen is a more professional setup, but once you have a camera bigger than a pocket camera I think everyone thinks you're a pro and the size doesn't matter much beyond that point

I also use those padded camera insert bags. I put one at the bottom of my backpack, so that I can put things on top of it. This has a few advantages: the bag doesn't look like a camera bag, so is potentially less attractive to thieves you can use different bags depending on the task (eg, a day bag vs a carry-on) by putting things on top of the insert (eg, a jumper) then it's not entirely obvious you have equipment in there, even if the bag is open you can open your backpack and put it on your chest and putting your hands in from the sides there's room to change a lens in there without it being directly exposed to rain / wind / dust or even being very visible that you're doing it, and you can do that while standing or walking too so it's really handy At home I just put things in drawers from Ikea. Drawers keep things from gathering dust unlike shelves or lid-less containers.

In a sense, it is a whole new camera. A camera is really a sensor + lens + controller + post processing, and if the sensor is new, if the FOV is wider (it might be the same lens though), if the controller makes different decisions, and if the post processing is also significantly altered then that would represent a relatively significant change. Marketing does tend to over-do everything, but it's not like they tweaked the settings a bit and called it a day. The article is interesting in the sense that Apple has basically departed from the traditional approach to photography. The traditional approach to photography is that you expose once, and apart from your "colour science" the rest is about using the purist and highest performing elements - the best sensors lenses filters and everything else. Computational photography says "screw that" and basically reverse-engineers the whole process of arriving at a nice image and ends up having taken a completely different route. If you do traditional analysis on a device that uses computational photography then it won't apply, it's just different. Computational photography is just getting started, so it's a bit early to judge. In terms of your question - "HDR and computational photography in general have limitations, so why lean so hard on it" the answer is that Apple took a ~$30 camera module, put it in a phone, made it the most popular camera on earth, and made zillions of dollars on it. Go ahead and tell me they're wrong, but show me your world famous camera and fat bank account while you're at it, or I might not believe that you know better than they do.... ???