All Activity

The camera is here. As far as I can see, there is a single decent-sized piece of dust on one of the internal ND filters and that's it. I cannot see any other marks on the camera's sensor assembly. The speck is big enough that I could imagine it being a little bit visible on a big blue sky, but in a way that'd be not hard to clone out. I'm also going to have to experiment with shaking the camera a little bit and/or blasting a rocket blower into the vent holes/fans. It's hard to imagine how that little sucker got in there. Worst case, if I decided to send it to CPS, I have to assume it'd be a pretty cheap repair. Overall, I'll gladly trade that for the $1,500 price reduction vs new. 😅

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuCJ6Ab4uVg

That's a key point. Or "Kye" point, if you will. My handheld shooting drifts and sways a bit, as I like that sort of kinetic visual energy. Not all IBIS handle this camera movement AND stabilization elegantly. Rapid shifts of the image that are unwanted can happen. Fuji is a disappointment in this regard and it makes shooting my style of video with my X-T5 pretty much useless. Meanwhile I can "dance" pretty good with LUMIX and Olympus.

These are really nice. I've been to Japan once but these don't remind me of it much. I was staying in a suburb and didn't go out at night much. It looks like I missed some great things. You know when it's night time like this, I don't even notice lens imperfections much. It just seems natural when under that kind of light.

I don't want to side-track the thread by diving into IBIS but I find that mostly the specs of "stops of stabilisation" are meaningless, as the limiting factor is what it does when you reach the limits of the mechanism, not what stabilisation can do if you don't shake it that much. A much more meaningful factor in the performance of these mechanisms is the way it responds to movement, like the difference between the mode that stabilises by smoothing the shake and the one that emulates a tripod by eliminating it as much as possible. I also found the behaviour of the OG BMPCC and BMMCC to be excellent, being about 80% towards eliminating the movement but not quite being clinical about it, a very nice feeling response. Maybe I'm just using it in far more aggressive ways and therefore constantly pushing it to its limits. I really like the Dual IS where it combines the lens OIS with the IBIS too. I shoot everything up to 280mm equivalent handheld, and frequently shoot while tired, while hungry, while cold, while holding the camera in odd positions or at the very edge of my reach, etc, so this probably isn't something most people really test that much. I often look at shots I have taken and wonder why I didn't hold it a bit more still, or didn't pan a bit to the right, and then I remember I was shooting blind holding the camera out the window of a moving vehicle and framing in my head while paying attention to the posts flying past, or while walking down stairs into a cave while holding the camera in one hand and the handrail in the other trying not to hit my head. The Crop Zoom function is nice, if a bit limiting (it won't go past 1:1 so if you're shooting 4K you can't get much crop, whereas the GH5 and GX85 2x and 4x crop didn't care and gave you the extra reach regardless, with the ETC 1:1 mode giving you a 1:1 if you wanted it).

Back from a visit to Japan. We spent most of the time in a small town but went to Tokyo for a weekend, so I shot a lot in Tokyo and used the rest of the time to test a range of lenses I took just for that purpose. I tested the 12-35mm F2.8 for Night Cinema and it worked great and I loved the images, but as it got darker I kept cranking up the ISO and in the end it just didn't have the levels for the truly dark backstreets. I also tested the tiny 35mm F1.6 c-mount CCTV lens I got off ebay some time ago. It produced some really nice images in the right scenarios, but the plane of focus was so incredibly distorted that any scene with stuff off-centre in the frame would look really strange. It had more level than the 12-35mm but still fell short of my better options. My themes for the place emerged very quickly.... vending machines, bicycles, and lanterns. Anyone who has been to Japan will be surprised by this exactly zero percent. At this point we went to Tokyo and I treated it like a Night Cinema interval event, basically shooting as much as I could. I shot a whole sequence from the hotel window as the sun set using the Takumar 50mm F1.4 and SB, my go-to setup. I did a number of walks around the local area with the same setup. Each time I went out I liked using the setup more, and each time I reviewed the files I liked the images I got from it more as well. After China I was feeling like it was a bit too vintage / low-fi but I've really warmed to it since. I found myself a bit at odds with Japanese culture, especially in regards to the fervent dislike of badly-behaved foreigners and the locals dislike for being filmed in public (despite the fact no-one will tell you they don't like it), so I mostly filmed the place and not the people, or at least I didn't tend to film individual people, instead including them small in the frame, or en-mass, or out of focus. I think that lent itself to the cultural experience as well. The city, and to many extents the culture, dwarfs the individual, placing the focus on the group. As a tourist I can only glimpse the culture from afar, so taking the perspective of the outsider in the compositions is very much representative of the experience. My "big" outing was a walk from Shibuya to Harajuku on our last night there. As these places are known for youth and fashion and culture (and the counter-culture that fashion normally draws from) I concentrated on the grittier side of these areas. I also leaned into the layers and the overall chaos of the place, taking advantage of the Takumars ability to focus on a small slice of the chaos, both through the 70mm FOV and also the shallow DOF. Back in the small town I did more "test" walks with the TTartisans 50mm F1.2 (100mm F2.4 equivalent), the Helios 44M + SB combo (82mm F2.8 equivalent) and Takumar + SB combo for comparison (71mm F2.0). As the small town was much less dense I found the extra reach of the TTartisans to be useful, and the DOF was shallow enough to be useful at distance, and the image was much cleaner across the frame compared to the Tak. The Helios 44M was a different beast. I felt like I was fighting with it basically the whole time and came back from the shoot thinking it was a bust and I'd wasted an outing. The FOV often seemed wrong, it lacked the aperture to get enough light to the sensor and I was pushing the ISO a lot, the DOF was also deeper and so I found myself having to get closer to objects to get the separation I wanted, which then meant I was too close and the parallax motion from my hand-held movement was really distracting. The focus on my copy is very stiff and it is a very low gear so to go from distance to closer focus had the ergonomics of opening a jar where something sticky had gotten into the threads. Still, I got back from the shoot and lots of the images looked really nice, which I think is to do with the extra diffusion this has. It was also better behaved on the edges of the frame compared to the Tak too. One thing that isn't obvious from the frame grabs is the ghosting from the strong light-sources in frame, and because I shoot hand-held and have IBIS active, they move in unnatural ways. At first I thought they were coming from my vND but if anything they got worse on both the TTartisans and Helios after I took it off. I think due to this I'll have to lean into the imperfections in the grade and edit and go lo-fi, which is why I've applied a film emulation softening equivalent to 20mm film to the Helios footage. I also shot a lot with the iPhone 17 while there, normally during the day for non-cinema purposes, but that's a different topic for another time.

There's been a general improvement in sensor-shift stabilization performance (e.g. for stills from around 6.5 stops on the G9 to 8 stops on the G9 ii), plus a 'high' setting has been added to the E-stabilization options since the GH5 & G9 came out. Another useful addition is variable Crop Zoom for both stills and video (and 'high' E-stabilization adds an extra 1.25x crop which can be useful for a bit of extra reach).

No doubt. I have a 5DMII that I think still delivers in this regard as well. What I have is good enough for me, so I've decide, "Eh, I'll stay where I'm at." (for now) 😉

TBH I never really noticed any improvement in the IBIS between the GH5 and GH7, although I didn't really use them that closely together so maybe I missed it. The IBIS (and Dual IS with compatible lenses) on all the MFT cameras I have is pretty incredible actually, GX85, GH5 and GH7.

I'd add IBIS upgrades to Kye's list of improvements - as I normally shoot handheld, that's been my main reason to upgrade my M43 cameras over the years. I still own an original G9 (derived from the GH5), but the Oly E-M1 iii and OM-1 I bought more recently have better IBIS. Although I've been a faithful M43 user for about 15 years (starting with a Pana G3), due to the lack of a modern video-orientated small M43 camera I ventured into full-frame with an S9 recently (when the price dropped a lot). Now I've had enough time to get used to it, I have to say the video quality from it is noticeably better than the M43 cameras I own - it seems to have a 'richness' that is attractive. I usually put a Smallrig leather half-case and Sigma 18-50 F2.8 APS-C lens on it, and it's great as a run-and-gun camera (even though it's only using about half the sensor area in APS-C mode).

This is a real thing and a very good point. To give a personal and recent example, I was asked on Thursday of last week to jump in at the last minute to help finish someone's feature over the weekend. I'm not sure of the details for why their DP became unavailable. The filmmaker had a shot list for Saturday that was 15 pages long taking place in 7 different locations - and both I and the other guy they brought in had a hard out at 4 or 5 in the afternoon. Sunday's agenda was similar, but without either of us needing to leave. We didn't finish the list for either day. Likely, we'll be shooting again next Saturday. It was all outdoors in parks, usually a several hundred meters from our cars. None of our usual suspect gaffers were available/handy. We had basically 0 time to light things and the director wanted a bunch of wides and tracking shots (both tend to take longer to light). Controlling the light in any meaningful way was not a realistic option. These are exactly the situations when an extra stop of dynamic range is nice to have to keep the sky at least a bit blue, but yet also still have some detail in some of the harsh shadows. Real tough situation for the filmmaker - they definitely want to keep quality high and have they great ideas, but there are also budgetary and delivery date realities - the difference between a real indie film set and a reddit comments section. 😉 (Also, RIP colorist - there are like 5-6 different color profiles in play across all of the cameras that were used between the original DP and both of us last weekend, hopefully they only have to match 2 or 3 within any given scene) I'm not sure what ASA 50 has to do with needing extra light on a sunny day. Assuming ~24 fps, that'd give a proper exposure at approximately F/16 in bright sunlight (1/48 second for 180 shutter + sunny 16 rule indicating a 1/50 shutter speed = close enough) and you'd still need to use ND to open up the aperture beyond that. I suspect those lights are for filling in the faces/front of talent in a wide, given that the sun is actually at about a 60-90 degree angle from the lights (judging by shadows). From where the cameras are pointed, the subjects will be backlit.

colour movie film in the 1960s was only ASA 50 so they used extra lighting out doors on sunny days !! This is on set Hitchcocks "The Birds " 1963 with two carbon arc lights in the back ground now Fijifilm make a colour film rated at 1600 ISO (5 more stops beyond 50 ISO) and full frame sensors are way beyond the limitations of 50 ISO so yes it is far easier now !

When it comes to things like the extra DR, I think about practicalities. Back in the day they had a certain amount of DR, so they filmed what they fit into that DR, modified scenes with too much DR where they could, simply didn't film other scenes with too much DR, or accepted sub-optimal results. They often had far more budget and leeway for lighting etc than you or I have. They also didn't tell some of the stories that you or I might want to tell. You and I are filming things they might or might not have filmed, we are doing so with far less resources than they would have had (*), and are doing so for an audience that is far far far more discerning than audiences used to be. (A note on resources.. Anyone who shot film automatically had a pretty large budget as just the line-items for negative film, development, and printing were absolutely huge compared to the entire project costs for what you and I are doing. As such, for them the cost to add a light here or modify something there was drastically less percentage of their production. I also suspect that back in the day the simple fact that someone was shooting on film gave them a sort-of legitimacy that would have meant they could get away with a more invasive shooting environment (adding lights etc) whereas now that level of legitimacy doesn't really come unless you're getting official permission.) I think of extra DR as being the thing that lets me bridge a gap between the worse conditions I shoot in, the lack of ability to control or modify the scenes I'm shooting, and the far greater expectations of myself and anyone else watching. Another note on DR, this is the curve from 250D: This has easily more stops than the GH5 has, potentially more than the GH7 has, and is likely to respond to high-DR scenes in a more pleasing way as well. Of course, the print stocks had far lower DR, like 2383 which only had 5-6 stops: But they were still capturing the greater range and depending on how fancy they wanted to get in the darkroom (or if they had a DI to play with) they could definitely print the 5-6 stops of DR they wanted from the negative (essentially adjusting exposure in post) or they could extend the DR by printing different areas of the image differently, using graduated filters and all kinds of other tricks. I sort-of feel like comparing film-making now to back in the day is a apples-vs-oranges kind of thing, so comparing the specs directly without acknowledging the situations were vastly different doesn't really make much sense. However, to return to your situation in the present, I look at several factors to assess if equipment is good enough: Does it allow you to shoot what you want to shoot? Does it provide the speed / efficiency / convenience you need to create the work in the budget / schedule limitations you have? Does it provide a pleasant-enough experience while using it? Does it create the quality of results you are looking for? If these things are all true, then why change?

This guy (he is wearing a Tilta shirt) has what appears to be Viltrox E to Nikon Z auto focus with PL mount adapted onto that better still would be Nikon F to Sony E to Nikon Z

Yeah. Fair. And I'm actually to the point where I'm like, "Do I even want the extra DR"? The modern look of digital imaging seems almost too pristine to me anymore. So I guess my reticence is actually morphing into a stylistic choice; which is a place I never thought I'd be when using consumer gear, honestly. After all, we usually think "more is more" right? Maybe it's just me being a stick in the mud because of my age. However, when I watch old movies I'm always left thinking, "Well, I have more imaging power than they had. What am I really chasing with this modern camera in my bag?"

Not the GH5, but I am also at 'peak camera' with Lumix. If I ever made any changes in the future now...and none planned, it would not be based on need, - the gear I have just does what I need it to do. There's still a lens that does not exist for me and one day if it comes along, I'll pick it up, but otherwise, never really been that interested in the gear, despite waffling about it for over 2 decades. It was always a means to an end.

Just a thought about that last statement.. if you're taking a practical approach to considering upgrades then I'd say it's the other way around.... ...you've matured TOO much for the market 😉

Looking at my notes when I was upgrading from the GH5 to GH7, the main benefits of the GH7 over the GH5 were: PDAF Real V-Log (not V-Log-L or light or whatever it was) (*) Prores and Prores RAW internal Improved DR (*) Improved latitude - due to having real V-Log as well as the improved DR (*) Improved low-light (*) and the cons were: Size / weight Cost (not only the body, but potentially the media and new batteries etc) Loss of modes between 1080p and UHD (3.3K 4:3 mode) The items with the (*) are the ones that motivated me to take the plunge. Obviously the size / weight / price also factored into things! My take on your situation is that if upgrading doesn't offer you tangible improvements that will be worth the (considerable) hassle of upgrading, why change? Modern cameras are improving all kinds of things that aren't needed / used in every situation (including many features that are actually incredibly niche), so if you happen to shoot in only situations where your existing kit is enough, then the upgrades are just cons/costs.

Well, I've other gear for specific jobs. For instance I have a Fuji X-T5 that came along for a special birds-in-flight thing -- that fit a special lens, but it just sits on the shelf since that gig finished. The way the IBIS works in that camera bugs the hell out of me. Anyone want to buy a used X-T5? How about a fuji 150-600mm? Got a 2x extender as well.

You probably deserve a medal fuzzy, for being satisfied with what you've got for ten years and not being seduced by camera "lust".

The GH5 has been my workhorse for almost a decade now. For whatever reason, the need to move on from it has never been necessary, so I've stuck with it. For instance, AF is not an issue. Manual focus is how lenses get used by me. Slow-mo is a thing to do less of, not more of, imo. A full 10 years on, what does a different camera offer; like really offer? An extra stop of exposure? An extra bit of DR? Looking at a GH7 the thought is, "MMM, pretty nice." But then what? A big difference in ... what ... gets captured? Maybe the market has matured TOO much for me?

You'd think so, but no! If you're using like an f/1.2 lens, you can have surprisingly big dust spots on your sensor and never be any the wiser. The more stopped down, the more they appear. From what I remember, and I might be wrong about this, it's bascally the same effect as using a large diffuse light source vs a small point source - put your hand next to a white card near the large diffuse source and you'll get a blurry, indistinct shadow. Do the same with a small point source and you'll get a well-defined crisp shadow. It's the same on a smaller scale with sensor dust.

I did think of that, but took it out of my reply because I was thinking that anything on the sensor would be in-focus regardless of what the lens was doing. Maybe I'm wrong though, not sure..

That, and also to set the aperture down to like f/16 or f/22 and shoot something - or even to put a pinhole lens on and shoot something. If you ever want to know how many pieces of dust have landed on your sensor, a pinhole lens is the quickest way to see them all. 🙂