A7SIII (and why you should wait before buying GH5)

[neosushi]

I use AF a lot - especially on Gimbal or doc work. Also sometimes I just use it to get the focus point then I switch to MF. But it helps if the AF is precise (especially in low light where focus peaking can be tricky sometimes). 

AF is a deal breaker for me. Just speaking for myself. 

[webrunner5]

On 3/27/2017 at 11:18 AM, wolf33d said:

I predict that an A7SIII will be announced next month with GH5 like specs (probably not 10bit though?) with monstruous AF, dual SD, and lots of improvements.

rumors have been going in this way for a long time. 

Worth waiting IMO. 

GH5 with speed booster and shit AF is a no go for me in 2017. Even though I am buying it for my patagonia trip (the best camera is the one available now.....) I might get rid of it asap.

That sort of is the main problem with the GH5, and GH4, etc, if you use a Speedbooster, which most people use with a EF mount, autofocus with them on average sucks ass.

Sure they work a treat like they say with native glass, but when you try to up the sensor size by using a Metabones you loose any dependable AF.  That is the big advantage the Sony A7r mkII has. And I guess even the A6500 has. They sort of do work with EF glass. Hell the A7r mkII maybe damn near as good as a Canon on AF. The old "No Perfect Camera" stuff again.

[Fritz Pierre]

Color science...such a tired overused phrase...as tiresome as filmic actually....My preference in a camera is actually color fidelity...I don't want the camera to decide the image for me...I want the camera to reproduce the colors my eyes see...I'll change it to the look I want for whatever the occasion/reason...which is why I prefer Panasonic cameras...to my eye it produces what I see...not some fairytale version of what's there...and of course the other part that's most important to me....they work when you need them to...excuses about where cameras are today and what they can't do is just tiring and ridiculous....get a fucking hobby if any one of these cameras can't work for you!...

[webrunner5]

57 minutes ago, Fritz Pierre said:

Color science...such a tired overused phrase...as tiresome as filmic actually....My preference in a camera is actually color fidelity...I don't want the camera to decide the image for me...I want the camera to reproduce the colors my eyes see...I'll change it to the look I want for whatever the occasion/reason...which is why I prefer Panasonic cameras...to my eye it produces what I see...not some fairytale version of what's there...and of course the other part that's most important to me....they work when you need them to...excuses about where cameras are today and what they can't do is just tiring and ridiculous....get a fucking hobby if any one of these cameras can't work for you!...

Wow, I really don't know a lot about the GH5 color science. I have not paid much attention to it as I am not buying it, no matter. But from what I Have seen I think it looks like a pretty damn big improvement In Color Science, am I right??

But wow in love with Panasonic Color Science, gulp, yikes Fritz you are seeing something Way different than I see, but I am old and can't see too well anymore.   IF you would had said BMPCC, Canon C300, eh Canon 5D mkIII Raw ML, heck even my Panny AF100A, well, well I am running out.

I guess in the see what you see, hmm I guess you are right, but I don't like the see what you see look, and I don't think too many on here do, well maybe not, damn maybe they do, Hell.

I Don't like a digital look, I Like a filmic look, It has its uses in advertising, I guess even Weddings, Maybe, but,  but I sure don't try to get razor sharp, perfect contrasty from hell output from my cameras. Quite the opposite.

But that is why we are NOT all created equal, and I sure as hell respect your opinion, I really do. They are popular as hell for a reason. I guess some of us are in the minority here for sure.  Like, maybe me

Heck I even put a shiity 50 dollar B4 lens I have, on my Panny G7, to cut down the digital look on it in 4k. That is what I sort of think about Panasonic  "Color Science"! Now taking still photos, I want it so sharp it cuts my eyeballs when I look at it!!!

[Fritz Pierre]

5 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

Wow, I really don't know a lot about the GH5 color science. I have not paid much attention to it as I am not buying it, no matter. But from what I Have seen I think it looks like a pretty damn big improvement In Color Science, am I right??

But wow in love with Panasonic Color Science, gulp, yikes Fritz you are seeing something Way different than I see, but I am old and can't see too well anymore.   IF you would had said BMPCC, Canon C300, eh Canon 5D mkIII Raw ML, heck even my Panny AF100A, well, well I am running out.

I guess in the see what you see, hmm I guess you are right, but I don't like the see what you see look, and I don't think too many on here do, well maybe not, damn maybe they do, Hell.

I Don't like a digital look, I Like a filmic look, It has its uses in advertising, I guess even Weddings, Maybe, but,  but I sure don't try to get razor sharp, perfect contrasty from hell output from my cameras. Quite the opposite.

But that is why we are NOT all created equal, and I sure as hell respect your opinion. They are popular as hell for a reason. I guess some of us are in the minority here for sure. 

Well webrunner...that's exactly right isn't it and the cameras we choose are largely based on what we see and like and how they operate....and when I shoot on Vlog and grade it, and after some 15 + years around arrifex s35 you can trust me, the image I get does not say video to my eye...and I have never in some 150  plus commercials seen anything resembling video...more like little 30 second long Ridley Scott or Scorsese vignettes...you get the idea...short but stunning...for IBM...or Goodyear or Coco Cola or one 28 day Budweiser.....that's 28 shooting days...with a full rodeo and bull storming the camera...And none of those people producing that exquisite work, would look at a beautifully Graded Shot from the GH4 and feel it looks like video...because the image on it or a Sony or...Fuji or Blacmagic is so beyond anything we could have imagined five years ago, that now we are left with nitpicking..which is important because otherwise we'd have to buy them all....all of us... but the most important in spite of all this, is the camera that works for you or me not who makes them.

[webrunner5]

Well since I am nearly 70, a week away, but hell who is counting! ,  I grew up with film, made my living a lot with film , even Video, Sony Beta SP video, was sort of like film using tape, I have it, that look embedded in my soul, my mind. I grew up when there was Only B&W TV's, I Love B&W movies from the 40's 50's. So I am biased as hell, no doubt.

I am looking for that look, sure am not going to go back to film, but I like that smooth, buttery look a film can have shot on film. Nothing like it.

But I am a dying breed. film today is reserved few a few highly respected producers, directors, and they too are a dying breed. Digital is here to stay, but like Pink Floyd, Stones, ACDC, Led Zeppelin, it ain't dead yet.  And I still like to pursue it if I can.

But there is a whole new generation that can take advantage of all the wonderful Digital stuff, for really some cheap prices, and make it how They want to see it look. And that is a good thing for them to pursue also. Because by the time they get my age, it will be a , "damn this new stuff sucks ass compared to what I grew up on" thing.

Nostalgia is a wonderful thing. Even if it was right or wrong, it brings a smile to your face. A happy time indeed. It is a reward for a long life's journey.

[Inazuma]

4 hours ago, Fritz Pierre said:

Color science...such a tired overused phrase...as tiresome as filmic actually....My preference in a camera is actually color fidelity...I don't want the camera to decide the image for me...I want the camera to reproduce the colors my eyes see...I'll change it to the look I want for whatever the occasion/reason...which is why I prefer Panasonic cameras...to my eye it produces what i see

Then you need to get your eyes checked Panasonic cameras have the most unrealistic colour rendition of any cameras ive used. Particuarly regarding skintones where every skin colour seems to get dragged kicking and screaming into being orange

[jonpais]

21 minutes ago, Inazuma said:

Then you need to get your eyes checked Panasonic cameras have the most unrealistic colour rendition of any cameras ive used. Particuarly regarding skintones where every skin colour seems to get dragged kicking and screaming into being orange

I'm not seeing that, though my earlier white balance and color correction skills were seriously lacking. The Leica lenses also produce a much more pleasing color than the yellowish Panasonic lenses I've used.

 

[tonysss]

52 minutes ago, Inazuma said:

Then you need to get your eyes checked Panasonic cameras have the most unrealistic colour rendition of any cameras ive used. Particuarly regarding skintones where every skin colour seems to get dragged kicking and screaming into being orange

 

Yes, if you overexpose skin tone 90% zebra,  panasonic becomes waxy orange yellow. And also, I do not like Panasonic lenses, too much contrast, strange colors. But GH5 is a big improvement , profile 709L he is amazing. + Sigma "A" lenses :-)

[jonpais]

18 minutes ago, tonysss said:

 

Yes, if you overexpose skin tone 90% zebra,  panasonic becomes waxy orange yellow. And also, I do not like Panasonic lenses, too much contrast, strange colors. But GH5 is a big improvement , profile 709L he is amazing. + Sigma "A" lenses :-)

Why on earth would anyone place skin tones at 90%? That makes no sense whatsoever.

[tonysss]

43 minutes ago, jonpais said:

Why on earth would anyone place skin tones at 90%? That makes no sense whatsoever.

Sorry for my bad english, Do not overexpose skin tone 90% zebra ,on Panasonic camera 

[Ken Ross]

3 hours ago, Inazuma said:

Then you need to get your eyes checked Panasonic cameras have the most unrealistic colour rendition of any cameras ive used. Particuarly regarding skintones where every skin colour seems to get dragged kicking and screaming into being orange

Is that what you see in these frame grabs from this GH5 shoot? If you do, then one of us needs to get their eyes checked.

 

[Fritz Pierre]

8 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

Well since I am nearly 70, a week away, but hell who is counting! ,  I grew up with film, made my living a lot with film , even Video, Sony Beta SP video, was sort of like film using tape, I have it, that look embedded in my soul, my mind. I grew up when there was Only B&W TV's, I Love B&W movies from the 40's 50's. So I am biased as hell, no doubt.

I am looking for that look, sure am not going to go back to film, but I like that smooth, buttery look a film can have shot on film. Nothing like it.

But I am a dying breed. film today is reserved few a few highly respected producers, directors, and they too are a dying breed. Digital is here to stay, but like Pink Floyd, Stones, ACDC, Led Zeppelin, it ain't dead yet.  And I still like to pursue it if I can.

But there is a whole new generation that can take advantage of all the wonderful Digital stuff, for really some cheap prices, and make it how They want to see it look. And that is a good thing for them to pursue also. Because by the time they get my age, it will be a , "damn this new stuff sucks ass compared to what I grew up on" thing.

Nostalgia is a wonderful thing. Even if it was right or wrong, it brings a smile to your face. A happy time indeed. It is a reward for a long life's journey.

But of course you're right about film!...not a standard that's ever going to be equalled by digital, in the same way listening to a CD is never going to equal a good pressing of a vinyl album on a decent turntable...but filmmakers have, and can, and do make many other choices...Abrahams shot all of Cloverfield on a little hand held camcorder as that's the way the story was told...production value and design was still that of a $100 million plus movie...I filmed my wife's last dance performance on a DVX 100 I rented and to me it was absolutely lovely and the camera was perfect for the project....so again, with the camera choices we have today, in the sub $3000 range, the quality is ridiculously high and the choice is largely subjective...it's really down to nitpicking now...and although Panasonic cameras seem to draw the most criticism of any design,(perhaps i am a fanboy?) they are so far ahead of the competition with every GH design, it's almost laughable...

5 hours ago, Inazuma said:

Then you need to get your eyes checked Panasonic cameras have the most unrealistic colour rendition of any cameras ive used. Particuarly regarding skintones where every skin colour seems to get dragged kicking and screaming into being orange

LOL ....yeah...thanks for the great advice...maybe I should have my eyes checked...or alternatively I could just be satisfied with the results I get from it and not give a shit beyond that...which actually I don't!

[webrunner5]

5 hours ago, jonpais said:

Why on earth would anyone place skin tones at 90%? That makes no sense whatsoever.

Yeah, more like 70% tops on a Panasonic camera.

[Inazuma]

@jonpais @Fritz Pierre @Ken Ross

The GH5 probably has improved but I was just talking about my previous experience with Panasonic cameras. I used them for 2-3 years so I have no ill-will against them, just fair criticisms. I've meant to write a long post about this for ages but essentially Panasonic aggressively adjust skin tones towards one colour (not necessarily orange) and this causes also blotchiness, which I believe is what Cinema5d saw.

In the below example (taken with the GX80) you can see how each person's skin is dragged towards a magenta-ish colour, especially noticeable on the asian guy. 

In the next example you can see how blotchy the skin is

Both of these example images were very different to what my eyes really see. 

By comparison here's a SOOC still taken with a Fuji x100s I had a year ago. Same room as in the first example. The colours are much more realistic and pleasing. I actually prefer the colours of this generation of Fuji cameras to my X-T2, but they don't have good video unfortunately.  Guy on the right is part-Asian which is why his skin is a bit more of a pale yellow colour. 

It's kind of hard for you to judge since you weren't there and don't know any of these people or how they really look so you're just going to have to trust me on this :P 

 

 

[tonysss]

 

LX100 was the worst ! :-(  purple spots on the face and lips dark purple. After a month I had to sell useless for portraits. I bought GX80

[mercer]

7 minutes ago, tonysss said:

 

LX100 was the worst ! :-(  purple spots on the face and lips dark purple. After a month I had to sell useless for portraits. I bought GX80

Really, some of the nicest Panasonic footage I've ever seen has come from the LX100. I am thinking about picking one up as a grab and go family Pocket cam now that you can get one so cheap. 

[tonysss]

29 minutes ago, mercer said:

Really, some of the nicest Panasonic footage I've ever seen has come from the LX100. I am thinking about picking one up as a grab and go family Pocket cam now that you can get one so cheap. 

 

really sorry, if you setting manually WB, it's better, the problem persists, it only alleviated. You go in GX80 + 20mm 1.7

unreally purple lips is big problem on LX100.  You can fix it heavy postproduction.

 

[Kisaha]

As this is a A7Sii thread, it is appropriate to mention that CVP's mailing list just send a 400pounds reduction on A7Sii and A7Rii cameras.

This is a huge reduction in any sense, and a lot of people in UK (or Europe, or wherever this discount applies) will pause for a minute.

There is an 300$ offer in B&H also (prices of Asian products in Europe are crazy expensive).

Is this the GH5 effect, a A7S(R) iii or something else?

http://cvp.com/index.php?t=category/a7pricedropap17&utm_source=mailshot&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=email

[mercer]

1 hour ago, tonysss said:

 

really sorry, if you setting manually WB, it's better, the problem persists, it only alleviated. You go in GX80 + 20mm 1.7

unreally purple lips is big problem on LX100.  You can fix it heavy postproduction.

 

Yeah I had the GX85. I liked it but you won't find a better lens than the Leica on the LX100 and after watching a ton of videos, I have seen some great skin tones with the LX100... that camera has some mojo.

Sorry for the OT.