thebrothersthre3

Doesn't full frame gather more light the APSC or M43, meaning it should look brighter at the same shutter speed, fstop, and iso? If Sony was giving a false ISO, wouldn't it be darker then the others at the same setting?

18-55 + 35mm f2 The OIS is really nice to have and its nice to have a fast lens like the 35mm f2 when you need it.

18-55 for me. I can't afford the 16-55, but honestly I wanted the OIS that the 18-55 offered. Having used it this past weekend it works perfectly.

Are the Sony and Z7 brighter because they are full frame? The XT3 is pretty darn good up to 6400 iso.

I'd suggest Lens Turbo, they might cost a tad bit more but its worth it. Pretty close to metabones as far as sharpness goes. If you are going the manual focus route that is, no electronic contacts.

I sold my GH5 to get a fuji. I think the Fuji would be a great match with your GH5s. Autofocus is top notch.

Yeah that could be a good idea. Noise reduction and sharpness won't effect how flat the image is.

I'd definitely suggest a speedbooster to make full use of vintage lenses. Lens turbo's are great and pretty cheap too. Worth it for the extra stop of light and wider Field of view. Minolta lenses are really nice. The 35mm 1.8, 24mm 2.8, 50mm 1.4, and 128mm 2.8 makes a great set. You can find all of these lenses under $200 usually (some as cheap as $60). Canon, Nikon, and Minolta are all great bets though.

Don't bother using auto focus. It really doesn't work. I would not set anything to -5 other then noise reduction and sharpness(depending on your taste). -5 Sharpness will definitely give you the most organic image. -5 noise reduction will help reduce ghosting and other NR artifacts. However if you need a quick turn around noise reduction can definitely be helpful. By turn around I mean if you don't want to spend much time editing or rendering. I'd leave hue, saturation, contrast at 0. Pushing it down to -5 will take away information that you won't be able to get back in post. It sounds like a good idea(flatter image) but it really isn't for limited 8 bit codecs. CineD defiantly gives you the most dynamic range. Portrait is definitely nice for skin tones and Natural gives nice color if you don't want to edit at all. Again for all the profiles I'd leave everything at 0 except sharpness and NR to your taste. The GH4 is a great camera tho. Feels great in the hands, light, and god like battery life.

He'd have better results if he shot in Slog2 or a cine2 or something. Slog2 was made for these types of cameras not slog3. Just because of this it wasn't a great comparison. They do have amazing dynamic range. Although I've found my Fuji (xt20 and xt3) to have amazing dynamic range, same as the A6300. I can almost always expose for highlights and simply raise shadows and mids and get everything back.

Thought I'd share my experience using the XT3 to film a wedding this past weekend. Lots of continuous shooting, though the camera did get warm, there was no overheating. I experienced no lock ups or errors of that nature. An issue I ran into was low light auto focus. There wasn't a ton of light at the reception venue. The room was mainly lit by small lights on the walls, and some overhead chandeliers. Neither light fixtures were very bright and the chandeliers were dimmed once the dancing started. Before the lights were dimmed the camera struggled to maintain focus at F4 without hunting quite frequently. At f2 it was fine which indicates it simply reached its limit as far as needed a certain amount of exposure. Once the lights were dimmed even at f2 it was hunting sometimes. I didn't crank the ISO beyond 6400. Maybe 12,800 would have been enough to get better exposure for auto focus. Basically this auto focus system isn't magic. It still enables me in decent lighting to get in focus shots of moving objects that I wouldn't be able to obtain by myself, especially not with longer lenses and a shallow DOF. I found the OIS on the 50-230mm lens to be great for non moving shots. I used it with a monopod(didn't get a stand for mine so its pretty unstable) and it worked great. I got to test tracking for people processing up the aisle and it was spot on. The 18-55 has great OIS as well. Easily can get handheld shots through all focal lengths that look great. My only wish for Fuji is that they'd give their primes OIS. Especially the 50mm f2. If they just did a 50mm f2 with OIS I'd be a content man.

Would really bring M43 back to the forefront.

what do you mean? Pretty cool to hear ProRes Dynamic range is improved. I would buy this camera for the prores so its good to hear.

Yeah DOF is definitely a way to make a boring shot look a bit more interesting. Better lighting or set design are better ways to accomplish and interesting shot but of course that isn't always possible to do. What annoys me is the new Star Wars films (Rogue One ahem) which have incredible sets, scenery, and backdrops, yet every damn shot was shallow.

One big idea behind blurring the backdrop is to keep the viewers focus on the subject. However sometimes it works against itself. The background blur can draw attention to itself. I see this in a lot of movies these days. Everything is shallow DOF and it looks distracting and unnatural sometimes. If I care about the show or movie I'll be focusing on the subject not a car moving by in the back.

How would a lens not be as sharp when being closer to a subject? Makes little sense to me.

The really awesome thing will be 6 years from now when the XT3, A7III, EOS R, etc... are all outdated and much cheaper. I am not really big on 4k, the bigger things for me are 10 bit log, and PDAF which aren't found too much in older cameras. I had the Sony F3, but found out I really liked the SLR form factor better and wanted auto focus. Speaking of 1080 cameras with PDAF, the Canon 70d is a pretty good deal used these days. Tempting.

Film school seems pretty overrated. Lots of good info and of course in the end you just have to put in the work. and then there is me who is color blind ?

Andrew seems fair about it to me. He ripped on the camera a lot initially but it surprised him when he actually went to use it. Color science is more important then specs when it comes to a nice looking image. That said I don't think Andrew is defending the 120fps usability or the crop factor. But you can't deny it when you shoot with a camera and get nice images in 24/60p at least.

Its definitely a bummer and not an innovative camera. However the Canon advantage that was present before the EOS R, is still present after the EOS R. Canon hasn't changed much so if you were happy with it before you probably still are now.

The Nikon and Canon seemed to have less highlight retention then the A73, XT3, and GH5S. The A73 definitely held highlights best though by a small margin. It seems like the best way to see how much 10 bit makes a difference is to do a dramatic color grade across all cameras and see if the XT3 and GH5S come out on top. I have already seen comparison's between a GH5 and A7S2 with a heavy color grade and the GH5 held together significantly better.

I turn down sharpness all the way but I never add sharpening in post. Same with photos. The bad thing about canon is their 120fps is pretty poor. I think Canon's 4k is nice. Their 1080 tends to be really noticeably softer even without punching in. Thats where the problem is for me. Haven't seen any 1080 EOS R stuff yet or at least not comparisons.

I meant I only use it for vlogging sometimes or home video, where the ramping effect doesn't really matter.

I rarely use auto anything and when I do I usually don't care that much about the quality. But yeah it isn't super smooth, though I wouldn't say its super obnoxious either.

In the Video CINEMA5D posted it looked better almost everytime. It picked up the subject quicker. I don't think firmware will help. The lenses are just outdated. Like a fellow youtuber said its like putting a wooden wagon wheel on a Bugatti. The 18-55, 23 f2, 50 f2, 90 f2, and 16mm 1.4 seem to be the best ones. I have also heard the 18-135 and 55-200 aren't as fast.