zlfan

totally agree. image itself may already be good enough for most cameras, now the ibis and c-af are the differentiators. I also consider ibis is critical, even more than c af, as I can use mf lenses on an ibis body and go handheld.

wide dr is Sony's traditional strength, especially the fx line.

imagine in 5-10 years, a flock of hybrids can do in camera raw, just like gh7, but either ff or s35 or s16 or all three modes in one body, with good ibis, reliable c-af, maybe arri alexa35 will be only used for niche projects.

an interesting comment: "I recently shot a commercial project using an Alexa 35 LF with Arri Master Primes for my A-Cam and the BMCC FF with Sigma 24-70mm photo lens as my B-cam. When I put the two shots by side and graded to match, I’m just saying the images were almost indistinguishable in quality. It just is what it is. The game has changed now and the rest of the industry has caught up to manufacturers like RED and ARRI if you’re talking strictly about image from the sensor. And what differences are there are definitely nowhere near worth the added price you’d pay for the RED. It’s just true."

did not expect s5ii's dr is so good.

another thing to consider is that gh7's s16 4k 60p prores raw hq mode. this alone is worthy to have gh7. in order for a full frame camera to have s16 4k raw, the full frame resolution has to be 12k (12k is 8 times 4k, ff is 8 time s16). this also will take another 5-10 years.

most cameras sacrifice dr and resolution when not recording in native iso. wb may also not be as good. modern cameras focus on High ISO performance so that the color filter array is thin thus color is not rich. one of the main reasons why film looks so good in vintage movies, is that dps lighted the scenes traditionally as Kodak vision film stocks are at most iso 500.

Minolta Rokkor 58/1.2 is famous for its bokur. good for portraiture.

video clips also doable this way?

in terms of ibis, according to the tests by Richard Wong here in this video, seems to my eyes that: 1. gh7 is a little bit better than g9ii 2. gh7 is significantly better than gh6 3. gh6 is a little bit better than s5ii 4. gh7 is significantly better than Sony and fuji. 5. he did not test gh7 vs om-1/ii. my conclusion is that, in the next 5-10 years, at least for another two generations, full frame ibis is not as good as m43 offers. om1/ii and gh7 are the way to go for handheld shooting. these two will be my future purchasing plan. cheers,

I think application scenarios are very critical, as different application scenarios require different criteria for camera selection. for example, for run an gun events and news shooting, good ibis, c-af, good jpeg engine, streamlined ergonomics, redundant recording, etc are important. for indi shorts or features, low compression 12 bit raw is a must. once we have crystal clear scenarios and criteria, then camera selection makes sense.

seems to me that s 5 III is worthy of waiting. very possibly it will have internal prores raw codecs, improved ibis, better af.

I respect and believe your hands on experience. in the first video, the guy said that he has shot 500 weddings during the last 10 years. he used this s5 for several years, and did not feel the lacking of s5's af. I was impressed by his user experience so shared here. no offense.

all true. hyperfocal and zone focus etc are really helpful. I shoot photos using olympus e-1 with shg 14-35 f2 and 35-100 f2 and 55-200 f2.8 many times, as I like the e-1's ccd. e-1's af is dinosaur according to current standards, but I never feel the lacking of a modern af. I shoot outdoor daylight events most of the times, lighting is not an issue. I use single af plus mf. I used to use f2, but quickly found out that the editors don't like the blurred background, as they want to see a group of people gathering and all of them need to have in focus face. I later use f4 all the time, much higher keeper rate. my point is that not every scenario needs the latest technology platforms, as you move on to these newer platforms, something else may be lost. it is always balancing. I totally understand that for indoor sports, low light wedding, events like these need the best af for photo, and c-af for video.

I think that in the scenarios of complicated movements by many people in low light, phase detection af may be more reliable. for many common shooting conditions, the contrast based af may be ok. phase detection af uses pixels for focusing, so the image quality is actually a little bit lower than contrast based af. each technology platform has its own pros and cons. just prioritize the needs then choose the right technology platform.

s5's video af seems not far behind the s5ii.

not as good as a gimbal, a little bit worse than go pro 12. but very impressive as it is casual walking video making. I think the static shots should be very stable on this camera, which is actually the most practical way to shoot. if want to shoot walking all the time, an action cam is more proper.

for contrast based af, 60p helps af accuracy and reliability. I guess that for focus pullers, 60p helps too as the image is crispier.

there are huge differences in terms of color in different cameras. even raw cameras are different, not to say 10 bit or 8 bit cameras. 14 bit raw cameras are different from 12 bit raw cameras. in still worlds, medium format cameras have 16 bit raw, just different level.

this is why I think Arri's venture into the broadcast network will not be successful. although Alexa series are the reference cameras in terms of image quality, they are not essential to news reporting. in some small segments, Alexa may be successful, but still not irreplaceable. for example, us nfl shooting teams use Alexa 35 as the standard camera. it may suit them, as the football field is ok for 30-300mm canon cinema zoom. and the cameramen do not need to run and gone so much. they just need to walk by the field line. and, nfl has money. even so, this work can be done using the latest hybrids too.

s5 with helios 58mm static shots seems fine to my eyes.