Panasonic GH5 - all is revealed!

[jonpais]

On 1/12/2017 at 3:37 PM, Axel said:

Thanks again. Then I won't buy the 30mm, because gimbal bumble is the only time to switch to AF for me. I already know. I will (again) make the camera "ENG-style":

> put a big soft eyepiece on the excellent EVF, like I did with my GH2 (Zacuto replacement part, € 16):

> instead of a rig-diculous rig, I'll buy a grip like this:

> I'll re-buy only one lens for the start: the Sigma 18-35 f1.8 for Nikon G. For Nikon, because then I get a MB speedboosted manual aperture ring, which I find more intuitive. And I am used to the direction of the focus ring.

> I'll buy two adapters: Novoflex MFT<Nikon. This makes the Sigma a 36-70 @f1.8 (FF equivalent). Then a Metabones speedbooster (don't know which one works yet, don't know how much stops it will boost), with, say, crop-reducing by 0,7 I would have the Sigma be ~ 25-50mm and faster than f1.4.

> for a small AF lens, I am not sure. They all seem to shout 'sterile video'! Might then be the cheap and very light 14mm pancake, or should I really spend $1500 for Leica Summi-something?

 

Since my last test, I'm beginning to question not only the gospel that in order to get satisfying results, you must always shoot log, but also the virtually undisputed tenant that focal reducers magically impart a cinematic look to u4/3 footage. How many of us can actually do this? ? In another thread, it was asked what constitutes the film look, and I'd answer that a lot of the magic happens in the editing room. But I'm not Casey Faris, never will be.

That being said, Mr. Neumann's cinematic LUT package looks f** incredible!

 

[jonpais]

I was watching a review of the Sony a99 Mk II on Max Yuryev's channel last night, where he had sports photographer Paul Nelson as a guest; and one commenter actually complained that Max didn't bookmark the specs or something so he could just get the information he wanted, without all the discussion of Mr. Nelson's career, background, and experience. Yet this was Max's most interesting show ever, and I'm neither a stills shooter nor a sports photographer. I bring this up because I am really as interested in hearing about Mr. Neumann's personal experiences as a director/cinematographer as it relates to the equipment he uses  as I am in the specs of the GH5.

[Neumann Films]

1 hour ago, jonpais said:

I was watching a review of the Sony a99 Mk II on Max Yuryev's channel last night, where he had sports photographer Paul Nelson as a guest; and one commenter actually complained that Max didn't bookmark the specs or something so he could just get the information he wanted, without all the discussion of Mr. Nelson's career, background, and experience. Yet this was Max's most interesting show ever, and I'm neither a stills shooter nor a sports photographer. I bring this up because I am really as interested in hearing about Mr. Neumann's personal experiences as a director/cinematographer as it relates to the equipment he uses  as I am in the specs of the GH5.

Ha, I'm kinda done talking about the GH5 as well.  What were you wondering, specifically?  

[jonpais]

1 minute ago, Neumann Films said:

Ha, I'm kinda done talking about the GH5 as well.  What were you wondering, specifically?  

I hear you! It's just that after using Lumix cameras now for the past four years or so, and having had to re-think everything I've been taught to believe from forum members here and at other sites, particularly regarding Photo Style settings, using adapters, LUTs and so on, that I'm starting to question every remark I see online, which I'm not sure is a healthy thing. Then there's the fact that I want to grow as a filmmaker and I'm not at all sure where I'm going with that. As for what kind of information I'd be interested in hearing from you - for example, I often wondered why someone would intentionally underexpose an image two stops; I've never had to underexpose a shot, then bring up the shadows: it seems like a recipe for introducing noise and banding in the image - I see embarrassing examples of this all the time on Vimeo. But listening to Paul Nelson explain how he often shoots athletes in shaded woods, and how he underexposes to retain detail in the sky at sunset, then lifts the shadows in post, and now I understand that there's a time and place for underexposing shots, and at the same time, this obsession with wide dynamic range and low noise. When I was studying French at university, we had to learn French culture as well as language, and we were tested on both. Some students complained that they just wanted to learn the language. But you can't learn one without the other. So, I guess I'd just like to hear more about your experiences a filmmaker, your workflow, how you overcame certain difficulties, anything but specs!

[Axel]

 

@jonpais

Not sure why you're quoting me in this context. My suggestions reflect my personal style of shooting, 90% handheld, MF, using EVF rather than display, classic 3-point stabilization. I'm evaluating publicly to learn if anyone has comments and can present alternatives. Another person = another style = other preferences. I saw Brandon Li's first attempts in the SHOOTING forum (then called SCREENING ROOM) here on EOSHD. They were more or less selfies with a tiny Sony RX100. Held the camera in his extended right hand and walked around. The images looked great. I am sure you know his travel videos. He prefers the Sony A-series, and his work is unmatched, imo. He once shot a test walking around in the streets with OIS on, looked as if shot from a locomotive size dolly. I remember that I liked his video - because you simply can't super-like a video ...

I'm not Brandon Li, and I find it hard to use the Sonys. My buddy (Sony fanboy) recommended a A6500 to me. He knows how I prefer to shoot handheld, and yesterday he showed me this:

3 hours ago, jonpais said:

Since my last test, I'm beginning to question not only the gospel that in order to get satisfying results, you must always shoot log, (...)

Judging from hundreds of log clips on youtube, the chances to get satisfying results from log footage are not very good. That's why I was questioning the V-log hype around the GH5, but I may err. With my Pocket, I never shot VIDEO (rec_709), but always FILM (BM-log). The official LUT was good, I could preserve some highlights every now and then (now I'd rather let the sun or sky clip, if a forced HDR-approach would be distracting). The video looked good with just some minor CC on top of that, not grading.

3 hours ago, jonpais said:

I'm beginning to question (...) also the virtually undisputed tenant that focal reducers magically impart a cinematic look to u4/3 footage.

You are not referring to me, do you? My reasons to *think* about SB vs. native MFT lenses have nothing to do with cinematic look. I grew out of this. All in all, an SB solution *can* provide a better cost-performance-ratio, particularly since I want fast lenses without too little DoF. I had more - and usually more affordable - lenses to choose from. The lens has at least equal influence on the overall look than a picture style, and many Pana or Oly lenses have a terrible bokeh and look sharpened. Having seen your Leica 42,5mm clip, I exclude this lens from this hard judgment, but it does have a shallower DoF than a speedboosted f1,8 has - while still being equally fast effectively. It's complicated 

On cinematic look. There is an EOSHD thread dedicated to this. And you are right by saying "that a lot of the magic happens in the editing room." The essential magic happens in your mind, your imagination. One could write a book on Filmmaking without ever even mentioning cameras or NLEs, let alone cinematic look ingrediences. These are misleading and give us corny, mediocre videos:

I don't know how many deers, sun through trees and snails in the morning dew I've seen, they could as well have been bought from Shutterstock (and the music, categories >camera presentation >jawdropper >nature from Premiumbeats). Rant over.

4 hours ago, jonpais said:

That being said, Mr. Neumann's cinematic LUT package looks f** incredible!

I agree. Shows the options.

[Neumann Films]

50 minutes ago, jonpais said:

I hear you! It's just that after using Lumix cameras now for the past four years or so, and having had to re-think everything I've been taught to believe from forum members here and at other sites, particularly regarding Photo Style settings, using adapters, LUTs and so on, that I'm starting to question every remark I see online, which I'm not sure is a healthy thing. Then there's the fact that I want to grow as a filmmaker and I'm not at all sure where I'm going with that. As for what kind of information I'd be interested in hearing from you - for example, I often wondered why someone would intentionally underexpose an image two stops; I've never had to underexpose a shot, then bring up the shadows: it seems like a recipe for introducing noise and banding in the image - I see embarrassing examples of this all the time on Vimeo. But listening to Paul Nelson explain how he often shoots athletes in shaded woods, and how he underexposes to retain detail in the sky at sunset, then lifts the shadows in post, and now I understand that there's a time and place for underexposing shots, and at the same time, this obsession with wide dynamic range and low noise. When I was studying French at university, we had to learn French culture as well as language, and we were tested on both. Some students complained that they just wanted to learn the language. But you can't learn one without the other. So, I guess I'd just like to hear more about your experiences a filmmaker, your workflow, how you overcame certain difficulties, anything but specs!

The footage in the Redwoods was tough, it was overcast and it stays so dark in the forest that we had to find areas with clearings just to get enough light to shoot under ISO 1600. Even then, to protect the highlights, we had to use an Aputure LED light.  There wasn't much to "protect" as it was overcast and would just end up being white anyways but...I always try to avoid that obvious clipped look that the Lumix cameras get...very little rolloff.  This camera might be better, I just didn't want to take any chances as we were on a tight schedule.  So I generally held onto the highlights and opted to light where I normally wouldn't light and go heavy on the noise reduction and hope that the 10bit would save it.

Are you talking about that video in particular?  

[jonpais]

48 minutes ago, Axel said:

 

@jonpais

Not sure why you're quoting me in this context. My suggestions reflect my personal style of shooting, 90% handheld, MF, using EVF rather than display, classic 3-point stabilization. I'm evaluating publicly to learn if anyone has comments and can present alternatives. Another person = another style = other preferences. I saw Brandon Li's first attempts in the SHOOTING forum (then called SCREENING ROOM) here on EOSHD. They were more or less selfies with a tiny Sony RX100. Held the camera in his extended right hand and walked around. The images looked great. I am sure you know his travel videos. He prefers the Sony A-series, and his work is unmatched, imo. He once shot a test walking around in the streets with OIS on, looked as if shot from a locomotive size dolly. I remember that I liked his video - because you simply can't super-like a video ...

I'm not Brandon Li, and I find it hard to use the Sonys. My buddy (Sony fanboy) recommended a A6500 to me. He knows how I prefer to shoot handheld, and yesterday he showed me this:

Judging from hundreds of log clips on youtube, the chances to get satisfying results from log footage are not very good. That's why I was questioning the V-log hype around the GH5, but I may err. With my Pocket, I never shot VIDEO (rec_709), but always FILM (BM-log). The official LUT was good, I could preserve some highlights every now and then (now I'd rather let the sun or sky clip, if a forced HDR-approach would be distracting). The video looked good with just some minor CC on top of that, not grading.

You are not referring to me, do you? My reasons to *think* about SB vs. native MFT lenses have nothing to do with cinematic look. I grew out of this. All in all, an SB solution *can* provide a better cost-performance-ratio, particularly since I want fast lenses without too little DoF. I had more - and usually more affordable - lenses to choose from. The lens has at least equal influence on the overall look than a picture style, and many Pana or Oly lenses have a terrible bokeh and look sharpened. Having seen your Leica 42,5mm clip, I exclude this lens from this hard judgment, but it does have a shallower DoF than a speedboosted f1,8 has - while still being equally fast effectively. It's complicated 

On cinematic look. There is an EOSHD thread dedicated to this. And you are right by saying "that a lot of the magic happens in the editing room." The essential magic happens in your mind, your imagination. One could write a book on Filmmaking without ever even mentioning cameras or NLEs, let alone cinematic look ingrediences. These are misleading and give us corny, mediocre videos:

I don't know how many deers, sun through trees and snails in the morning dew I've seen, they could as well have been bought from Shutterstock (and the music, categories >camera presentation >jawdropper >nature from Premiumbeats). Rant over.

I agree. Shows the options.

Hi Axel, Mostly just in regard to native lenses for the u4/3 system, their 'look' and so on - I've been reading for ages that focal reducers were the way to go, but if there are other u4/3 optics as good as the Nocticron, i'd be willing to give them a try. I fully expected the Sigma to kick butt, although, with the SB, the Sigma Art 50mm is not nearly as long as the Nocticron, and I might have to adjust the speed booster or something - I really have no idea. Yet the thought of paying close to $700 for a device that constantly needs tweaking doesn't sit well with me either. When i purchased the XL, the infinity screw was loose and I had to take it to a camera repair shop to work on it - it took them 30 minutes to get it working - the seller in HK, an authorized dealer, hadn't even bothered to package the Metabones properly. In fact, not knocking Metabones, but even LensRentals.com posts a caveat about them on their website. Not sure if other focal reducers are any better in that regard or not, I've never used them. You mentioned earlier that some native lenses screamed video, so I thought you were going the SB route for a more cinematic look:, if I was mistaken, my bad. 

I'm not familiar with Li's work, the Internet is acting up now, so I wasn't able to watch any of his clips. I'll give it a try again this evening. 

I do enjoy occasionally watching videos by editors and colorists who explain the reasons for their choices, based on story, mood, continuity, but you're right, the magic does begin in your mind.

[jonpais]

35 minutes ago, Neumann Films said:

The footage in the Redwoods was tough, it was overcast and it stays so dark in the forest that we had to find areas with clearings just to get enough light to shoot under ISO 1600. Even then, to protect the highlights, we had to use an Aputure LED light.  There wasn't much to "protect" as it was overcast and would just end up being white anyways but...I always try to avoid that obvious clipped look that the Lumix cameras get...very little rolloff.  This camera might be better, I just didn't want to take any chances as we were on a tight schedule.  So I generally held onto the highlights and opted to light where I normally wouldn't light and go heavy on the noise reduction and hope that the 10bit would save it.

Are you talking about that video in particular?  

I wasn't really referring to any video in particular, but it's always great to hear how you work. Your experience corroborates mine as well, since in my very last video, I intentionally underexposed faces (meaning that if I saw zebras hit 70%, I generally dialed exposure down a 1/2 stop) in order to preserve as much detail in their faces as possible, as well as to maintain information in the surroundings. So the GH5 might still suffer from highlight clipping, just like my Fuji X-T2, and which many say is the tell-tale sign of video compared to film, which has a more gradual roll-off. And since you mention Aputure, it's about time I invested in a modest lighting setup, if not for my street work, then at least for the small personal projects which i hope to begin working on sometime this year.

1 hour ago, Axel said:

 

I don't know how many deers, sun through trees and snails in the morning dew I've seen, they could as well have been bought from Shutterstock (and the music, categories >camera presentation >jawdropper >nature from Premiumbeats). Rant over.

Kitsch.

[Axel]

1 hour ago, jonpais said:

You mentioned earlier that some native lenses screamed video, so I thought you were going the SB route for a more cinematic look:, if I was mistaken, my bad. 

Depeche Mode: '... because my duty was always to beauty ...'

A lens (or a camera, JVC for instance) that makes an epiphany look worse than how I see it with my naked eyes, I deem unfit. An image doesn't have to have sDoF, but if it has, the oof areas should not be outlined. Nobody can find this beautiful! 

As a wedding shooter, I may have different priorities. Just when I was notified of your reply, I had started watching this. Didn't finished yet, but I agree with what the guy says about lenses, that good lenses are paramount.

1 hour ago, jonpais said:

I'm not familiar with Li's work, the Internet is acting up now, so I wasn't able to watch any of his clips. I'll give it a try again this evening. 

I do enjoy occasionally watching videos by editors and colorists who explain the reasons for their choices, based on story, mood, continuity, but you're right, the magic does begin in your mind.

Then start with Hong Kong Strong, just because there is a director's commentary. Li also has general views about filmmaking (having been a film student in my salad days, I noticed he doesn't use the term montage correctly, EDIT: ... but he admits that). And about gear (EOSHD and Andrew are mentioned!). I like his passionate rant about how unimportant the gear actually is. 8k Helium for filming deers? Cinematically? LoL!

 

[jonpais]

1 hour ago, Axel said:

Depeche Mode: '... because my duty was always to beauty ...'

A lens (or a camera, JVC for instance) that makes an epiphany look worse than how I see it with my naked eyes, I deem unfit. An image doesn't have to have sDoF, but if it has, the oof areas should not be outlined. Nobody can find this beautiful! 

As a wedding shooter, I may have different priorities. Just when I was notified of your reply, I had started watching this. Didn't finished yet, but I agree with what the guy says about lenses, that good lenses are paramount.

I just finished watching the video, agree 100% about lenses, which is why I still struggle to understand why most people still choose the kit lens, typically a slow, variable aperture zoom, especially those so concerned about image quality and low light ability. "But it has good resale value!' they say. I personally don't want to deal with trying to sell stuff on Craigslist I didn't want in the first place to a bunch of cheapskate Westerners here in Vietnam. I had to cringe when I heard a Panasonic rep at Photokina saying an f/2.8-4 lens was fine, because the GH5 was so awesome in low light. Many also balk at purchasing a lens that costs more than the camera. What I don't agree with is when he says you can't use Nikon or Canon glass with the Panasonic, unless he means that AF will suffer, which is true. Also, he could dispense with the 'what's up you guys!' in the introduction.  

The dolly zooms and wipes are exciting to watch in Brandon Li's Hong Kong. 

[Dimitris Stasinos]

Kinda outdated info according to this thread's flow, but i downloaded Luke's 180 fps original clips yesterday and tried a quick CC. I was ready to begin a CC marathon (i am used to sony's slog), only to realise that with a few clicks (i stretched it, boosted the saturation & added a green tint) the footage looked great to my eyes...wtf. I was expecting a ton of banding & artifacts (noisy shadows at least) but this stuff is not only usable, but pretty convincing for a low budget cinema tool. I would't shoot vlog HFR but on the other hand i am not seeing stiff, unmanageable files here. Am i the only one which was surprised? What's the bitrate on 180 fps FHD anyway?

[Axel]

15 hours ago, Dimitris Stasinos said:

What's the bitrate on 180 fps FHD anyway?

Between 26 Mbps and 40 Mbps. Full HD used to have 24 Mbps on the GH2 officially, in reality it were ~ 17 Mbps. The EOSHD "vanilla" hack had 40 Mbps, if I remember correctly. An average of 33 Mbps is particularly high if you take into account that it's slow motion, not realtime. The differences between frames are 7,5 x smaller than in 24p.

[Rinad Amir]

3 hours ago, Axel said:

Between 26 Mbps and 40 Mbps. Full HD used to have 24 Mbps on the GH2 officially, in reality it were ~ 17 Mbps. The EOSHD "vanilla" hack had 40 Mbps, if I remember correctly. An average of 33 Mbps is particularly high if you take into account that it's slow motion, not realtime. The differences between frames are 7,5 x smaller than in 24p.

Well its still preproduction model 

we shall wait and see what pana gona cook us in actual model

[Flynn]

On 1/21/2017 at 2:16 AM, jonpais said:

I hear you! It's just that after using Lumix cameras now for the past four years or so, and having had to re-think everything I've been taught to believe from forum members here and at other sites, particularly regarding Photo Style settings, using adapters, LUTs and so on, that I'm starting to question every remark I see online, which I'm not sure is a healthy thing. Then there's the fact that I want to grow as a filmmaker and I'm not at all sure where I'm going with that. As for what kind of information I'd be interested in hearing from you - for example, I often wondered why someone would intentionally underexpose an image two stops; I've never had to underexpose a shot, then bring up the shadows: it seems like a recipe for introducing noise and banding in the image - I see embarrassing examples of this all the time on Vimeo. But listening to Paul Nelson explain how he often shoots athletes in shaded woods, and how he underexposes to retain detail in the sky at sunset, then lifts the shadows in post, and now I understand that there's a time and place for underexposing shots, and at the same time, this obsession with wide dynamic range and low noise. When I was studying French at university, we had to learn French culture as well as language, and we were tested on both. Some students complained that they just wanted to learn the language. But you can't learn one without the other. So, I guess I'd just like to hear more about your experiences a filmmaker, your workflow, how you overcame certain difficulties, anything but specs!

This was a good interview with him that covers a lot of his background

 

[Axel]

For the record: I looked into the facebook GH5 "user" group, and I found this comment, which answers a question I asked earlier in this thread:

Quote

Hey, I have a gh4 and sigma 18-35m lens(canon). I just bought the metabones speedbooster XL, should I exchange it for the Ultra, even though I am mainly shooting 4k videos? Theres vignetting in my photos which sucks.I am also buying the gh5

We knew it would vignette on FF:

Now there is a confirmation that the SB "XL" can't be used with the GH5 and SIG 18-35 (1,3 x crop). Maybe it would work with Ultra though. But frankly, I think I will look into full frame lenses then. There are a few nice MFT's, but they are either too slow or offer too little "bang for the buck" (a little shy to use those phrases - unsure if they are appropriate) ...

@Flynn 

Thanks for the podcast link!

[Dimitris Stasinos]

30 minutes ago, Axel said:

Now there is a confirmation that the SB "XL" can't be used with the GH5 and SIG 18-35 (1,3 x crop). Maybe it would work with Ultra though. But frankly, I think I will look into full frame lenses then. There are a few nice MFT's, but they are either too slow or offer too little "bang for the buck" (a little shy to use those phrases - unsure if they are appropriate) ...

@Flynn 

Thanks for the podcast link!

I have a Canon 24-70 2.8 L ii (resting on a shelf alone & scared since my 5d was stolen...) and thinking to use it with gh5 with SB Ultra. But does it worth paying the extra cost for the SB? Will AF work? At least single point AF? I bet this will make a nice (but heavy) combo...

[hoodlum]

I found this 83 page detailed presentation on the GH5.  I apologize if it has already been posted.

http://www.personal-view.com/downloads/GH5_Presentation.pdf

 

[Axel]

1 hour ago, Dimitris Stasinos said:

I have a Canon 24-70 2.8 L ii (resting on a shelf alone & scared since my 5d was stolen...) and thinking to use it with gh5 with SB Ultra. But does it worth paying the extra cost for the SB? Will AF work? At least single point AF? I bet this will make a nice (but heavy) combo...

This would become (FF equivalence) a 34-100mm f2,8 with the speed (but not the DoF-characteristic) of an f2.0 (one stop brighter). You will know better how good the focus ring is. Metabones list of tested and officially supported lenses for working AF with the Ultra:

Quote

 

Canon EF20-35mm f/3.5-4.5 USM
Canon EF24-105mm f/4L IS USM
Canon EF35-80mm f/4-5.6
Canon EF40mm f/2.8 STM
Canon EF50mm f/1.2L USM
Canon EF50mm f/1.4 USM
Canon EF70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM
Canon EF70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM
Canon EF85mm f/1.2L II USM
Canon EF100mm f/2.8 USM macro
Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 DC Art
Sigma 18-125mm f/3.8-5.6 DC HSM
Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD A007
Tamron SP 70-200mm f/2.8 Di VC USD A009
Tokina AT-X PRO 11-16mm f/2.8 DXII

only with newer Panasonic cameras:
Canon EF70-200mm f/4L USM
Canon EF135mm f/2L USM
Canon EF200mm f/2.8L II USM

 

However, I suspect "working" means, it will focus if you are patiently aiming the camera at your motif for stills. Don't think that it's usable for video.

Your lens seems to be top-notch. Probably a very good (parfocal?) glass for the GH5 with a very desirable focal range and very fast too. 700 bucks for the SB - if you don't like it, send the Speedbooster back and sell the Canon, that's what I'd do if I were you. The XL (~same price) - if it fits on the GH5! - would make it a 31-88 with the speed of an f1.8 - everything one needs, and IBIS would work with it.

[tomsemiterrific]

On 1/4/2017 at 1:38 PM, dantheman said:

It was a paid upgrade before so it's nothing new, sony charges 500dollar for a 4K upgrade on their x70. Panasonic has always released their camera's at a very competitive pricepoint and cheaper then the competition so even with the VLOG upgrade it's still very good value for money, also, not everyone needs or wants VLOG and for those who do it's 100 dollar which is peanuts.

Exactly on point. I know, because I paid that RIDICULOUS upgrade to 4k from Sony---and what's more, the upgrade was only 60 mbps----not 100, which a less expensive 4k Sony camera already had. Infuriating.

Plus, these massive features in the G5 at this price level ---is unprecedented. The only thing that gives me pause is the MFT sensor, though some of that can be overcome with the Metabones speed booster for Canon EF lenses. I understand it works quite well.

My only question is whether makes who make APS-C sensors will take the challenge and put similar features in a future model. Fujifilm--??? Bueller? Anyone? Bueller?

 

[jonpais]

29 minutes ago, tomsemiterrific said:

Exactly on point. I know, because I paid that RIDICULOUS upgrade to 4k from Sony---and what's more, the upgrade was only 60 mbps----not 100, which a less expensive 4k Sony camera already had. Infuriating.

Plus, these massive features in the G5 at this price level ---is unprecedented. The only thing that gives me pause is the MFT sensor, though some of that can be overcome with the Metabones speed booster for Canon EF lenses. I understand it works quite well.

My only question is whether makes who make APS-C sensors will take the challenge and put similar features in a future model. Fujifilm--??? Bueller? Anyone? Bueller?

 

I take it you mean the 'GH5'. I've been posting a while about this: I'm no longer a believer that a focal reducer is essential for getting good images from the micro four thirds sensor, and it may even be a useless expenditure, especially when there are so many good fast native lenses available now. In a recent video I uploaded, most people preferred the look of a native u4/3 lens over a Speed Boosted one. Of course, it wasn't a scientific test, and the focal lengths were different. Also, I don't use 1/10 of the features of the cameras I currently own. Usually, I adjust the curves, the contrast, sharpening or whatever and never touch them again once I've arrived at what works for me. Do you really believe Sony and other manufacturers necessarily have to offer vector scopes, waveform monitors and so on to compete with Panasonic? Even now, most videos I watch have poor white balance, my own included. Having more toys to play with won't eliminate those problems - it will only compound them. APS-C sensors by Sony and Fuji already have the lead - they have superior dynamic range, better low light performance, and faster, more accurate AF.