All Activity

Normally, on a 16:9 screen - thin black bars top & bottom, on 16:10 screen - thicker bars top & bottom, on 21:9 screen - bars on left & right sides.

I guess eventually you may accumulate several m43 bodies, gh7, chunky yet robust pro body, something like em10 v, small body with interchangeable lens mount, even smaller m43 body with integrated f1.4 prime lens, like Sony rx1. probably each format will have these several layers.

If I'm outdoors standing on a cliff and want to capture the sounds of the forest around me, I definitely wouldn't go the supercardioid route. While not an identical scenario, when I was looking for mics for my pro-wrestling work, I went with stereo ones that could better pick up the spectators and arena atmosphere. My beloved supercardioid mic (the Azden SGM-250CX, a very underrated mic IMO) did a poor job of it, because it mostly picked up what was going on in the ring itself, which for me is actually a negative because it picked up the wrestlers talking to each other during the matches. Scratch mics are generally mics that pick up audio that isn't used in the final edit but only as a reference. It doesn't really apply to your question, I'm not sure why he brought it up. Yes, but you really don't need 32-bit for the uses you've described. Simply plugging a microphone into the GH7 and setting your levels will be more than enough for what you're talking about doing. I use 32-bit float audio because I deal with situations that are unpredictable, where audio will suddenly get way louder out of nowhere so I need to be able to bring it down in post. For what you're doing, you really won't have that problem. A simple stereo mic that you plug into your GH7 is more than enough, and will save you hundreds of dollars in buying an adapter you don't need to achieve what you're talking about.

I still can't believe its stacked, even at higher price. We'll see.

I had one of those deals in France. It was just too good to pass up in November of 2022. When you wait and buy, you usually don't end up losing that much when you sell it back. However, what happens when you love the look of the camera? With the GH7, it looks as though Panasonic has addressed EVERY problem there was with the GH6 with the exception of a chunky body, but many people like that too. The image is 98% of the image of the S5ii (with the right lens), but you have that screen which is so much better than the flip-out only screen on the S5ii- it's a major usability issue. Also, there's the high frame rates. I currently have the Olympus 17mm f/1.2, a prefect lens for that body... we'll see in November. I will probably dump the idea though if a M43 small camera comes along because I'm still a believer in keeping the format relatively small and that is not the GH7.

Yes, ProRes RAW is true RAW and can therefore be converted to CinemaDNG, while Blackmagic RAW is not true RAW and therefore cannot be converted to CinemaDNG.

R3, is that you?

B&H had a remarkable deal on Open Box GH6 starting last spring and it lasted until late this winter. I bought one last spring for $1299 and it was brand new. B&H does that some times... I guess they're clearing out inventory. Stupid me, I returned it. I was going to buy it again if it dropped to $1099. Over the holidays it went down to $1199 but I didn't bite. I really liked the CineLikeD and the monochrome profiles. VLOG was good, but I was trying to lean on the DR Boost which created some pretty harsh chroma noise in the shadows. At first, I hadn't noticed it until @BTM_Pixpointed it out to me and then I couldn't unsee it. I was so stoked about the DR Boost concept of the camera that I stupidly got annoyed with the cam as a whole. Now I am regretting it big time because although the GH7 is vastly better, I don't really want to pay the extra money for it. BTM also recommended the cheap Meike 25mm lens and it was a treat to use with that cam and I've always wanted to test out the Pan/Leica 15mm 1.7. If I can find a deal on a GH6, I may bite. Great camera otherwise! If not, I'll wait to see if the GH7 drops a little by the holidays.

lf twich is not available to the p/s lenses. also p/s lenses can only go to +-8mm, ,y mire ef to m43 p/s adapter can go to +-11mm, lf technical cameras can go much greater ranges. you talked about film look on lf mf, you are right in the photo world, a lot of choice. but Hollywood movies almost exclusively use Kodak vision 50d 250d, 200t 500t. so film look on movies is very defined. r1mx etc are tuned for this film look. I have looked adapting DSLR or mirrorless on lf before. the main thing is you have to have the latest rodenstock lenses, which is about $5000 for one. kind of defeating the purpose using lf with its ample vintage lenses.

Oh yeah, please no one listen to me if you're doing event shooting. All of my experience is shooting narrative with a script, rehearsals, etc. No, I wouldn't say that. If you use a color managed workflow, you can absolutely change the white balance in post when shooting ProRes Raw or HQ--within reason. If you seriously mess up your white balance (shot at 150 Kelvin and need it to be 6500) it might not go well. But shooting 3000 and changing to 6000 usually looks fine, as mentioned in another comment. Do some tests to see whether it works for you. Note that it depends on a color managed workflow, because WB changes should be performed in linear gamma. Creative picture profiles typically don't have accurate transformations so they are less useful for changing WB in post. Common log formats typically have LUTs (or, even better, mathematical transformations) to change between gamuts and gammas. Small WB changes might look okay without being in linear space, but the larger the change, the more you'll wish it was done accurately.

Thanks for the tips guys. I'm not getting the impression that I can adjust the white balance the way I'm used to with photography which is to take a separate photo with a white balance card for post. Is video a completely different beast where I can't fix the white balance after the fact when shooting in ProRes RAW or ProRes HQ 422? I would prefer the method that I had described in the OP as there are situations where there isn't time to get the white balance right before shooting. I figure the format that I'm shooting in should allow the white balance to be changed easily without harming image quality. I do agree that I should not use auto and instead set a preset that is as close to the actual white balance as possible and correct it in post. I just don't know if I can capture the equivalent of a RAW photo with the white balance card and then use that to get the white balance right in the video.

That sounds like a great idea, especially the Deity as it's nice and small. What do you mean by a scratch mic? I'm assuming it'll be compatible with the Panasonic adapter to record 32-bit audio? Will it fit inside the mic holder in the XLR2? Microphones seem to come I various sizes. I thought these kinds of mics were unidirectional. What makes it even decent for capturing ambient audio? Thank you.

I just had a look at my GH6 footage that I took before selling it and I must say it looked great! It has a super organic feel to it and loved the colors in just Standard profile. I also tried shooting in Vlog quite a bit, but Standard really did it for me. I took it to the French Alps last summer and it performed so well for photos and video. Sure, it didn't have PDAF, but when you learn to work around it, it's really no big deal. Honestly, I hope to have a similar opportunity with the GH7.

I'm not good at imagining how a video will be displayed on a screen. When watching a 17:9 video on 16:9, 16:10: and 21:9 screens, what would the black bars look like, and where it'll be?

Funny the way you ended your post... LOL ; ) Just a matter to give names to the things. I took sides because one doesn't invalidate the other :- )

To add, in this instance, the GH7, a smaller sensor camera, has a few major advantages over any larger sensor camera in its price range... internal ProRes Raw and ProRes HQ, 32bit float audio, a LogC curve, probably the best IBIS, and the best tilting/articulating LCD mechanism that I have ever used.

So... the GH7... yeah... a pretty cool camera...

Obviously, I must take the blame for this since it was my comment that started this off topic discussion. But my original comment wasn't meant to say that smaller sensors were inferior, just that larger sensors have some advantages. Sometimes those advantages can make comparisons slightly unfair. As I have already stated, my original comment was intended to give the GH7 some leeway in a video where it didn't fare so well. Everything I stated after that was probably an exercise in futility where I didn't speak eloquently enough or I was full of shit... Probably a little of both. But there's still a medium format look.

FWIW, I've been arguing exactly the opposite of that. There is no special look intrinsic to larger sensors. 😃

Granted the title of the thread is "Panasonic GH7". However, invariably with any camera release that is not full frame, the discussion goes only to sensor size and how inferior the sensor is because it's not FF. It's quite ludicrous. This might sound crazy, but usually have better discussion about aesthetics, creativity and productivity with ChatGPT. Sure, it can be predictable sometimes, but I seem to always learn something and it can point me in the right direction. When talking to humans, it would seem there are always games being played: Trolling, Sock Puppetry, Brigading, Flame Wars, Sealioning, Astroturfing, Gaslighting, Spamming, Doxxing, Dogpiling, Shitposting, and Griefing. With ChatGPT, you never have the feeling you might lose something and true discussion can actually happen. I know, it's a sad state of affairs, but that's life on the internet. Fortunately, there are people don't do any of those things.

The look of the Fuji GFX system? Sure, but that's not common to all medium format. The 110/2 wouldn't even come close to covering a 6x9cm negative (doubt it would even cover 6x4.5cm). If excellent lenses are part of the look, I have an old Schneider Angulon 47mm somewhere around here that would defy any suggestion that every lens made for medium format is excellent. Like the Angulon 47mm? How about the meniscus lenses in old Kodak box cameras? They're medium format and kind of terrible (sometimes in a charming way). Or something like an old Duaflex? I ran some film through one of them once. Looked pretty different to what I get from my Mamiya 7 which, in turn, looks pretty different to what I used to get from my RB67 which didn't look that much like what I used to get from my Fuji GSW 690 III. It's easy. Go anywhere where you can search user images by a format (flickr used to be good for this, not sure about now). Look up every image taken between a 6x4.5cm and 6x17cm camera of every type. Is there any common thing that makes all of those images look the same? I can save you the time. There isn't. If there is a medium format look and I am capturing images on 6x6, 6x7, 6x9, 6x12, and 6x17cm film, there shouldn't be anything about my style that would prevent me from capturing it. We're talking about something described as "medium format look." It's hard to get more "medium format" than a 6x7cm or 6x9cm negative.

Repeatedly by multiple people. References to "the medium format look" are, in fact, how this discussion started. It didn't metastasize from out of nowhere. Camera movements are not unique to any format. They are just more common on larger formats where they are useful for restoring some depth of field. Tilt-shift lenses exist for smaller formats, giving some of the more commonly used camera movements. Otherwise, as previously mentioned, I can easily mount a smaller format camera on the back of a 4x5 and have access to the full movements of that camera. Plus there are numerous medium and large format cameras that supported extremely limited (or no) movements. Glad to talk about creativity and aesthetics, but that can be done without resorting to the use of phony useless phrases which cannot be defined and which have different meanings to just about everybody participating in the discussion.

I must admit, this thread really makes me laugh. No wonder there are no creative or aesthetic discussions here - not only do people not want to talk about it but they refuse to believe these things even exist, and if they don't believe in it then they will shout down anyone that even mentions it. I've been spending my time more and more elsewhere and I can tell you, there are places where people discuss aesthetics, creativity, productivity, and try and help each other out and encourage each other.

about lf or mf look, my personal experience on some historical photos by lf 8x10 technical cameras are much more elegant than those taken by modern phone or crop sensor cameras, on the same scene, buildings, streets, landscape. at first, I did not know why those historical photos are so grandiose, now I think large format contributes to it, also the camera movements help.

This paragraph! It would be so magical if I only understood what you meant. Sometimes you make my head feel heavy, very heavy!😂 @Emanuel I hope you don't mind me whimsically smiling with a tear of joy in my eye.:)