Panasonic GH7

[kye]

1 hour ago, zlfan said:

it is interesting to see people with good hands on experience have different opinions. I don't know why. 

I think it's simply a matter of who can see the differences and who can't.

When I first started out in video I couldn't tell the difference between 24p and 60p video.  Not even a little.  Now it's 6 years later and I can even tell the difference between 30p and 24p, and I REALLY don't like 30p.

There are enormous differences in what people can and cannot see in images.  

Lots of things that are debated....

   motion cadence

   14-bit RAW vs 12-bit vs 10-bit

   24p vs 30p vs 60p

   shutter angles

   Sony sensors vs others

   CMOS vs CCD

I suspect much of the debate is that people simply can't see the differences, or can and just have different taste.

[92F]

The GH series has become a very different niche tool from the GH5 GH4 GH3... a bit of a shame !

Not good
Instructions for use not yet accessible?
Very low autonomy and no battery grip which requires using DC Coupler (dummy battery) but bulky.
Who needs prores Raw with an M4/3...? Useless for 70% of people: a bad image will not be better in pro res raw and for what volume!?
The SSD requires a more powerful external power supply and the GH6 does not??
The ARRI C-Log is useless for 90% of buyers.

Good news :
Panasonic says that the 32-bit float is possible directly in jack 3.5 on the GH7... to check because there we remove a module which consumes battery and space, therefore perfect for run and gun.
On the contrary, on the audio module, the 32-bit float is blocked if Jack 3.5 is used.
The stability seems even better, the AF too...

[IronFilm]

3 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

Laowa have announced a range of T1 cine lenses in FF, APS-C and, yes, MFT format today that will narrow the gap for GH7 owners looking to emulate the “hang on, is any of this in focus?” look of the larger formats.

Sadly only two MFT lenses!  Strange that they don't offer the 33mm T1 in MFT mount, so that there can be fleshed out a small 3x lens set for MFT.

  

3 hours ago, kye said:

There are enormous differences in what people can and cannot see in images.  

Why bother striving to film things that are not going to be seen at all by your views??

At a certain point in time you hit diminishing returns hard 

 

[kye]

10 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

Why bother striving to film things that are not going to be seen at all by your views??

I shoot personal projects, so they're really mostly for me, and for the kids later.

If you're shooting professionally then your clients will probably have chosen you because of your work, and your work looks like your work because you see what you see and let that shape your projects.

If you care about being happy then trying to do the best job you can is how to keep morale and self-esteem up - if you're just going through the motions and don't care about the results then it's dragging down your whole life.

[eatstoomuchjam]

10 hours ago, kye said:

There are no definitions of looks.  You can't assess if something has the medium format look with a checklist.  Ask different people what the look is and you'll get different answers, because people notice different things.  There are commonalities, sure, but it's not a precise thing.

Also, not all lenses have the same character.  Your Noctilux 50mm F1.0 lens might have completely different optical aberrations than the average vintage MF lens, so the feel of it would be very different.

It's like cooking.  If two people make cakes with the same ratios of flour and water and sugar and eggs, and then all add "flavouring" then will they taste the same?  Of course not.  The "flavouring" matters, and can vary hugely.

Imagine comparing 8mm film and iPhone 4 video.  We could go through every category of image assessment and rate them and maybe we'd conclude they both had video quality at 5/10.  Do they look the same?  Of course not, because the individual characteristics that make up the "8mm look" and the "iPhone 4 look" are very different, despite the fact they've both got a similar amount of imperfections / character / aberrations / etc.

 

Right, but that is proving my point.  There is no medium format look.  Maybe there are dozens of medium format looks depending on which lens set somebody chooses, but with a definition like "it means different things to different people," you might as well be saying "I prefer a cinematic look" or "I prefer something that looks more filmic."

And of course not all lenses have the same character, but my point is really just that by the definitions given, I have actual large format and medium format film cameras that don't achieve the "medium format look" (as described by people here) and I have smaller sensor cameras that have a real chance of getting there instead, depending on which lenses I put on or whether I mount them on the back of a LF field camera using a vintage lens.

And of course 8mm film and any modern-ish phone camera, not just the iPhone 4, will look substantially different.  This is, again, a place where there are a number of characteristics which are fairly common among 8mm cameras/film, including 18fps, gate weave, huge grain, and a response curve typical to the film being used - some of which could be simulated on the phone and some not so much.  

[Emanuel]

20 minutes ago, eatstoomuchjam said:

Right, but that is proving my point.  There is no medium format look.  Maybe there are dozens of medium format looks depending on which lens set somebody chooses, but with a definition like "it means different things to different people," you might as well be saying "I prefer a cinematic look" or "I prefer something that looks more filmic."

And of course not all lenses have the same character, but my point is really just that by the definitions given, I have actual large format and medium format film cameras that don't achieve the "medium format look" (as described by people here) and I have smaller sensor cameras that have a real chance of getting there instead, depending on which lenses I put on or whether I mount them on the back of a LF field camera using a vintage lens.

I'm sorry, I don't want to look like a dick but the explanation of your point clearly hints that to write "there is no medium format look" is pretty inaccurate : )

If you have some format versus another and introduce (exactly) the same variables to couple with, leading to different results, this OBVIOUSLY means the only variable to markedly change it, identifies a whole distinct look.

[zlfan]

6 hours ago, kye said:

I think it's simply a matter of who can see the differences and who can't.

When I first started out in video I couldn't tell the difference between 24p and 60p video.  Not even a little.  Now it's 6 years later and I can even tell the difference between 30p and 24p, and I REALLY don't like 30p.

There are enormous differences in what people can and cannot see in images.  

Lots of things that are debated....

   motion cadence

   14-bit RAW vs 12-bit vs 10-bit

   24p vs 30p vs 60p

   shutter angles

   Sony sensors vs others

   CMOS vs CCD

I suspect much of the debate is that people simply can't see the differences, or can and just have different taste.

24p is just a frugal choice. nothing more. in the current era, action packed videos or movies with 24p is just no go if you don't acquire with uncompressed raw. once you pan the camera, even c300 f3 f5 which are considered good cinema or high end doc cams, you see blurred footage. only ml raw give me clear panning. r3d cams are close. 24p with thin codecs is just a joke. 

[zlfan]

7 hours ago, kye said:

I think it's simply a matter of who can see the differences and who can't.

When I first started out in video I couldn't tell the difference between 24p and 60p video.  Not even a little.  Now it's 6 years later and I can even tell the difference between 30p and 24p, and I REALLY don't like 30p.

There are enormous differences in what people can and cannot see in images.  

Lots of things that are debated....

   motion cadence

   14-bit RAW vs 12-bit vs 10-bit

   24p vs 30p vs 60p

   shutter angles

   Sony sensors vs others

   CMOS vs CCD

I suspect much of the debate is that people simply can't see the differences, or can and just have different taste.

in terms of sensor, in the photo world, I think the best sensors are from kodak. fuji super ccd sensor is also very unique. unfortunately, they are not available to the video world. Sony F3 sensor is outstanding, f5 sensor is also very good. but canon c300 sensor is good too, and 5d3ml (c100 mk 2 is little bit lower). so are r1mx epic-x. it is hard for end users to assess sensor quality, as there are other factors kicking in like aa filters, olpf, raw acquire method, etc. 

I can say that go pro 12 sensor is just at consumer level. you can see that clearly once you try to get good color from it. I suspect Panasonic m43 sensors are also consumer level. Panasonic varicam line cams have excellent sensors. 

[eatstoomuchjam]

2 hours ago, Emanuel said:

I'm sorry, I don't want to look like a dick but the explanation of your point clearly hints that to write "there is no medium format look" is pretty inaccurate : )

If you have some format versus another and introduce (exactly) the same variables to couple with, leading to different results, this OBVIOUSLY means the only variable to markedly change it, identifies a whole distinct look.

Nope.  You're flat-out wrong.

The only meaningful difference that has been presented is in the characteristics of different lenses which is real, but has nothing to do with medium format.  Pentax 645 lenses look different from Mamiya 645 lenses which, in turn, look different from Mamiya 7 lenses, etc.  They don't have a unified and monolithic look.  They won't have the same look when adapted to work with your digital camera, with or without any sort of focal reducer.

You could say "I like the look of Mamiya 645 lenses with a Kipon focal reducer on my full frame camera."  That's totally valid, but if you say "Now my camera has the medium format look," you sound ridiculous.  Your camera has the look of Mamiya 645 lenses, nothing more.  People won't magically feel like they can now "walk into the image" and it won't be any more 3d than anything else.  Using a bigger sensor, likewise, won't make the image more 3d.

[zlfan]

8 minutes ago, eatstoomuchjam said:

Nope.  You're flat-out wrong.

The only meaningful difference that has been presented is in the characteristics of different lenses which is real, but has nothing to do with medium format.  Pentax 645 lenses look different from Mamiya 645 lenses which, in turn, look different from Mamiya 7 lenses, etc.  They don't have a unified and monolithic look.  They won't have the same look when adapted to work with your digital camera, with or without any sort of focal reducer.

You could say "I like the look of Mamiya 645 lenses with a Kipon focal reducer on my full frame camera."  That's totally valid, but if you say "Now my camera has the medium format look," you sound ridiculous.  Your camera has the look of Mamiya 645 lenses, nothing more.  People won't magically feel like they can now "walk into the image" and it won't be any more 3d than anything else.  Using a bigger sensor, likewise, won't make the image more 3d.

i agree with you that mf lenses like mamiya are different from hassalblad ones or pentax ones or bronica ones. but larger sensors have smoother tonality, this is for sure. i put my mf lenses on kodak 645 pro and on 5d3 and on apsc cams. kodak 645 pro image just is a totally different level. very noticeable. 

[Emanuel]

37 minutes ago, eatstoomuchjam said:

Nope.  You're flat-out wrong.

The only meaningful difference that has been presented is in the characteristics of different lenses which is real, but has nothing to do with medium format.  Pentax 645 lenses look different from Mamiya 645 lenses which, in turn, look different from Mamiya 7 lenses, etc.  They don't have a unified and monolithic look.  They won't have the same look when adapted to work with your digital camera, with or without any sort of focal reducer.

You could say "I like the look of Mamiya 645 lenses with a Kipon focal reducer on my full frame camera."  That's totally valid, but if you say "Now my camera has the medium format look," you sound ridiculous.  Your camera has the look of Mamiya 645 lenses, nothing more.  People won't magically feel like they can now "walk into the image" and it won't be any more 3d than anything else.  Using a bigger sensor, likewise, won't make the image more 3d.

It's useless, you are focused in your own theory... you're right, the other ones have the wrong point : D

But why don't you do a favour to yourself and above all, do a test by your own? Put the same lens, same resolution, all the same, trying to match the same FOV and tell me what you'll find... ; )

If the only variable to change is the sensor size format, you'll keep to say that different ones won't have their intrinsic look of their own?? Really? LOL ;- )

[Emanuel]

10 minutes ago, Emanuel said:

Put the same lens, same resolution, all the same, trying to match the same FOV and tell me what you'll find... ; )

TBH you should not even be allowed to try matching the same FOV...

All the same EXACT variables, distance to subject included (isn't it to be scientific?... so, let's follow a scientific method then, rather than mere tricks to get the same outcome changing the premises), with an only difference:

The sensor size format of the capture device is the only variation.

Now repeat again to yourself the theory that different sensor sizes have the same look : P

[eatstoomuchjam]

37 minutes ago, Emanuel said:

But why don't you do a favour to yourself and above all, do a test by your own? Put the same lens, same resolution, all the same, trying to match the same FOV and tell me what you'll find... ; )

If the only variable to change is the sensor size format, you'll keep to say that different ones won't have their intrinsic look of their own?? Really? LOL ;- )

No, this is ignoring everything I've said.  Obviously the same lens on different sensor sizes at the same FOV will look different.  That's not controversial.  The point is that the FOV and DOF of a 12mm f/1.4 lens on a M43 sensor will be nearly identical to that of a 24mm f/2.8 lens on a full frame sensor.  Will the specific characteristics of the lenses influence the overall look?  Sure.  If the 24mm f/2.8 is from the 1970's, it will certainly look a bit different from a 12mm lens made in 2018.  But that has nothing to do with the sensor size.

As I already said, I have done plenty of side-by-side tests over the years.  If you believe that a bigger sensor is really giving you a different look, that's fine.  I hope you enjoy it.  It's just not a position that is supported by any actual facts.

[Emanuel]

The problem is as said before, both of you/us are saying the same.

You just don't admit this is an intrinsic quality of the sensor size format when it is.

You insist in a different nomenclature...

The fact you'll be in trouble to reproduce on MFT the look of a f/1.2 look on FF (keeping the remainder variables) is a fine example of the whole thing.

:- )

[Emanuel]

When we need to put our hands on different variables to mimic anything, it is because some sensor format has a look of its own.

The leftover are just tricks. The one we call 'look' stands though. So, there's nothing wrong to say there's a large format look or MFT's and so on. Despite the fact, MFT is a pretty awesome for format where we can do a lot of things with a myriad of inexpensive and light glass available.

[Emanuel]

When we need to put our hands on different variables to mimic anything, it is because some sensor format has a look of its own.

The leftover are just tricks. The one we call 'look' stands though. So, there's nothing wrong to say there's a large format look or MFT's and so on. Despite the fact, MFT is a pretty awesome format where we can do a lot of things with a myriad of inexpensive and light glass available.

I love the format and I don't see it as anything inferior to other larger ones with a distinct look : D I think this is the type of statements to bother you and I understand where you're coming from : ) I even salute your approach to make your point, a valid one TBH, but this doesn't mean the other ones are wrong on their correct assumption either. I think it's not necessary to cite again my fav Niels Bohr's quote BTW ;- )

[zlfan]

1 hour ago, Emanuel said:

When we need to put our hands on different variables to mimic anything, it is because some sensor format has a look of its own.

The leftover are just tricks. The one we call 'look' stands though. So, there's nothing wrong to say there's a large format look or MFT's and so on. Despite the fact, MFT is a pretty awesome format where we can do a lot of things with a myriad of inexpensive and light glass available.

I love the format and I don't see it as anything inferior to other larger ones with a distinct look : D I think this is the type of statements to bother you and I understand where you're coming from : ) I even salute your approach to make your point, a valid one TBH, but this doesn't mean the other ones are wrong on their correct assumption either. I think it's not necessary to cite again my fav Niels Bohr's quote BTW ;- )

you are an open mind man. I think you are very good to work with in a team, which is a critical factor for a successful dp career. 

 

[zlfan]

13 hours ago, kye said:

I think it's simply a matter of who can see the differences and who can't.

When I first started out in video I couldn't tell the difference between 24p and 60p video.  Not even a little.  Now it's 6 years later and I can even tell the difference between 30p and 24p, and I REALLY don't like 30p.

There are enormous differences in what people can and cannot see in images.  

Lots of things that are debated....

   motion cadence

   14-bit RAW vs 12-bit vs 10-bit

   24p vs 30p vs 60p

   shutter angles

   Sony sensors vs others

   CMOS vs CCD

I suspect much of the debate is that people simply can't see the differences, or can and just have different taste.

I get it now. even though people are experienced, they look for different things they like or they emphasize. 

for example, some one may emphasizes motion cadence of 24p much more than the blurred or jumpy panning, he then focuses on 24p even using thin codec cams. probably he avoids the panning so that to cover the weakness of the cams. I emphasize on clearness of the panning, and I like to do panning, so I use external recorder for thick codecs, and prefer 30 p or 60p, to avoid the bumpy panning. 

another example, some one emphasizes 3d looking. actually Zeiss c/y 50 mm f1.7 is a very 3d looking affordable lens. sensor size does not contribute much to the 3d looking. so he assumes that there is no mf lf look. I emphasize on the whole image, like tonality, gradation, etc, so I can see the difference. 

it is good to understand others' perspectives, as sometimes there is no reason to argue at all. 

but, hey, let's make up something so we can argue and talk. it is fun to debate anyways. lol.  

 

[PPNS]

it’s a trick to understand optics and basic math?

jesus fucking christ man

if any of you gave as much shit about making, or working on interesting art on here and sharing it instead of jacking off your lil dingdongs over new gear, resolutions, different starting point looks of shitty fucking sensors, or being mentally insane about 24 fps this place could actually have interesting discussions. 
 

I fucking hate gear. i fucking hate lenses, cameras, shitty lights, cables, rigs etc. Sadly its necessary to understand at least some of it, as it is a means to an end to create what i actually want to create. i suggest others to view it same way. Or learn color grading, like kye said. That has generated a bit of income for me from time to time.

 

[Emanuel]

Egos are a bitch. A bloody trick. The competition of dicks is of no use as a methodology for learning.