All Activity

@FHDcrew Cool clips. Doing smooth moves that are meant to be like slider / crane work while walking and using a small setup with just camera/lens/filters and no big/heavy rig etc is definitely at the edge of stabilisation tech, and your results look pretty good. The way I think about your tradeoffs are: When you get the 12-35 2.8 you'll get Dual-IS where the IBIS links with the OIS and you get an additional level of stabilisation, so that will up your results by another notch or make it a lot less fiddly in post to get the same results you're getting now The 12-35 will definitely have a deeper DOF wide-open than the 18-35 setup wide open, but none of the shots in those videos really struck me as being too shallow for the 12-35. They might be, but while you might lose some DOF, you're gaining stabilisation, so you might be able to get the same amount of stabilisation from a longer focal length on the 12-35 than you did on the 18-35 which will push towards a shallower DOF because of the constant aperture, so there are lots of things that are competing with each other here and 'all-else-being-equal' comparisons are misleading. Another trade-off people don't seem to talk about is that having shallower DOF might make still images look a bit nicer, but if your deeper-DOF setup allows you to shoot faster then you'll shoot more shots in the same situation, which will mean that you have more shots to draw from in the edit and the best ones that get used in the edit will be better simply because there were more of them.. so it's your edit having shots with shallower-DOF vs your edit having shots with deeper-DOF but being better composed, including nicer moments from people, etc. Continuing on from the previous point, if you shoot more shots then not only will each individual shot in the edit potentially be nicer, you'll also have a lot more options in the edit. This is something that is a huge dynamic in what I do (shooting travel) because it means I can get a greater variety of shots which means I can pull things off in the edit that I couldn't otherwise do. This might be a bit non-obvious to some, but if you imagine you have to make a 1-minute edit with only 1-minute of footage, then you have almost no options whatsoever, and although there is diminishing returns the more footage you have, sometimes in the edit you'll want to use one moment but in order to do so you have to have another shot that fits a very specific purpose and if you don't have that then you can't use the good moment (or if you do it will be clunky). So in this sense a really dull or even badly-shot clip can make your edit better by letting you use a great shot or have a more interesting structure or line things up with the music better to have a nicer ebb-and-flow to the whole thing. Elaborating still, the more stable your shots are in-camera, the less time you'll spend tinkering with them in post and the more time you can devote to finding a better audio track, doing more sound design, doing a couple more versions and smoothing over the rough edges a bit more, or pulling off a colour grading look that needs a bit of time to work out. People think MFT = deep DOF = less cinematic, when in realistic terms it can also be MFT = better stabilisation = shoot faster = more shots and more variety of shots = less work in the edit = more options in the edit = a better edit overall. If camera-bro YT has taught us one thing it's that shallow DOF doesn't make an edit great. Some of the best edits I've ever seen were made of exclusively non-spectacular shots. It's a bit of a blind spot because less-skilled people online don't yet understand about how things in pre impact prod, or how things in pre and prod impact post, and the professionals who work on film sets where people work in departments often don't understand the downstream implications because they just follow the guidelines of their department without understanding them.

Looks so good. Love how far the iPhone as come. Outside of lowlight I could probably shoot all of my client work on the 17 pro if I needed to...it looks very good in talented hands. Deep DOF is a vibe anymore. All the elements we need are there. Good color, good codec, good DR...boom.

Definitely; that's where the 12-35 2.8 and DJi 15mm 1.7 will show their strengths for me. The lenses haven't arrived yet, but the camera came with the 12-60mm 3.5-5.6 kit lens, so definitely in the ball park with size and weight. The thing is so darn light; it actually feels extremely comfortable and balanced attached to the larger body style. I could be fine with a sigma 18-35; funny thing is even that feels somewhat light to me, as I am used to having to carry around my Atomos Ninja V for anything 10 bit. Yes, yes, yes. The only reason I have a great idea now of what matters to me, is because at this point I've shot a lot of projects, and have done so on multiple different camera systems. So along the way, I've learned what matters to me. I'm not going to notice a 1/2 stop DR difference; some grainy footage (as long as the grain isnt ugly) doesn't bother me terrible. Sometimes I like it. But I do value great stabilization, as the way I shoot I end up spending a good chunk of my time finessing post-stablization to achieve the type of camera movement I want while keeping things completely handheld. I have a solid handheld technique down, but on most cameras it is still not perfect. I always hold the camera losely, usually shoot wide, and do a great heel-toe walk or body sway. But I always need to post-stabilize. I end up trying the stabilization options in Davinci Resolve. If that doesn't work, I render that clip out to Prores and import it to After Effects just to apply Adobe Warp Stabilizer, as it is a bit better in my experience. Once I get the result I like, I export. The beauty of the G9II is that when you combine the fantastic IBIS with e-stabilization high, I get quite close to the result I get after all of that post stabilization process...but this is just the footage out of the camera. It saves me a lot of time. And I can even add a drop of warp stabilizer on top to make it perfectly smooth. Another big advantage for me, its effectively doing what Gyroflow does but all internally and paired with the best IBIS ever. I've tried Gyroflow. I've used it on some FX3 footage I shot for my buddy's wedding film company. I've also rigged an iPhone to my Nikon Z6 as well as used the Senseflow A1. Its a nice solution. I figured I'd love it; its the same concept of what normal post-stabilization does (which I always use ALL THE TIME). Big difference is it is using true camera motion data; so the results should be perfect right? Well yes, but you need to shoot on a high shutter speed. And I found that even on the Sony FX3, where Gyroflow can work with IBIS on, the crop was often still fairly large. And the workflow is lengthy. With the G9II, I have a minimal 1.255x crop with e-stab on high, and because its working fully in tandem with the phenominal physical IBIS system, its very stable AND I can zoom the lens mid-shot and it works fine (can't do this with gyroflow on most setups). AND I can keep my shutter at 1/50 because the physical IBIS system is doing 80% of the work here. But yeah. Moral of the story is shooting lots and lots of stuff has made me realize what matters most to me. The G9II seems to really hit that. Again, I used the Nikon Z6 for 4 years. I've also filmed weddings on a Sony FX3 with nice Sony G master glass. I filmed very extensively for one organization with a Canon R5 and EF glass. This past summer I bought a Canon R7, then a Panasonic S9, then sold both. So I've tried enough cameras and shot enough to know what works well for me. I'd fully agree that a lot of what camera youtuber's claim are the big time differences are not always as important as they seem; for me, the wonderful IBIS of the G9II and the minor crop in e-stabilization is way more useful than a full stop of DR improvement when you already had great DR in the first place. Etc etc. This is a concert I filmed and edited this summer on the Panasonic S9. I haven't had a chance to film anything substantial on my G9II...but this is close. It's a super weird setup I sort of wound up with over the summer...The Lumix S9 with the Sigma 18-35...in the Super 35 crop mode WITH E-stab on high. So basically a 2x crop MFT level at that point. But I still found the image to be very nice. More importantly, with some careful walking, I got the images to be this stable and a lot of these shots have NO post-stab applied. Colors were very rich. G9II is even better because again the crop is lessened in E-stab high and the physical IBIS is better. And build quality smokes the S9; that was something I did not appreciate about that camera. A short clip from a concert I filmed, with the aforementioned Lumix S9 setup. Again, no post-stabilization. It is just so smooth. Makes all the difference with how I like to film. More handheld with the Lumix S9 setup. This has a bit less "gimbal-push-in" shots and a bit more regular handheld shots. With e-stabilization high, it has a perfect balance struck, where you can walk and move the camera such that it looks like a steadicam, or you can just handhold it for regular stuff and it looks as stable as a cine-cam weighted down. This wedding trailer was with my old Nikon Z6 setup. Combo of Davinci post-stab and Warp Stabilizer. Outside, I cranked my shutter speed very high to help. I used RSMB to add motion blur in post. While this worked, I had to spend extra time stabilizing in post and tweaking things if it was not perfect. This is all but eliminated now with the G9II. Also, half of this video was shot on a Nikon F-mount 24-85mm 3.5-4.5, entirely at f/4.5. I reckon that looks pretty close to what the Panasonic12-35 2.8 will look like; @kyelet me know if I am wrong since you've used that very lens I think? But anyways, its enough DOF for me. That being said, if you like more, totally get it. Nothing wrong with that. End ramble haha.

This is the first smartphone video I've seen that didn't shout (or whisper) that it was shot on a smartphone. I do get flavours of it being shot on something small and mirrorless because of the movement of the camera (if it was a heavy rig it would have moved differently). I'm pretty stoked actually, and can't wait to get a vND solution for my iPhone 17 Pro. I suspect that I might end up shooting a lot of street stuff on it just because the form-factor is so small and people are far less curious/suspicious of smartphones than real cameras.

Nice. In a sense, the fact that lots of modes on FF cameras have an APSC crop is a bit of a blessing in disguise. Not only to get a RAW file without insane resolution / bitrate, but it means that there are speed boosters for FF mounts. I think @Andrew - EOSHD has investigated speedboosting Medium Format lenses onto FF sensors, but my impression was that it's probably a difficult architecture to find combinations of equipment that won't vignette heavily or perform poorly at fast apertures. This is where the front anamorphic adapters can be useful, as I'd imagine there would be far more usable configurations from fitting a front anamorphic adapter to a FF camera + FF lens combo. The front adapters don't care about your camera mount / flange distances / lens mount / lens rear protrusion / etc, so in a way they're more like PL glass which you'd be able to keep and use regardless of what cameras you got in the future.

Seems similar to my priorities. Since getting the GH7 I haven't been jealous of FF except for my foray into 'night street cinema' where having crazy shallow DOF would be awesome, but it's not worth swapping over and thanks to adapters there are options for me. Yeah, everyone would be better off if they shot more. When you do it becomes obvious that our wants/needs are highly situational and you become more understanding when someone describes their wants/needs as being different to your own. Definitely agree with @MrSMW about just assessing the cameras on their current capabilities. TBH, the GH7 is more capable right now than most flagship cameras, when it comes to things that actually matter. There's a funny thing that happens when you write down what is important to you, then assess cameras against that. Things like 8K60 internal RAW somehow magically don't make the camera better at many/any of your actual criteria, but having 4K Prores HQ internally might. The list above from @FHDcrew is a good example of that. Then if you write down a list of everything you own that wouldn't work with the alternative camera, and think about selling it and then re-buying it again, you realise that getting a different camera with half-a-stop more DR isn't worth the thousands of dollars and weeks of work you'd lose selling and re-buying all your lenses, batteries and power management, cage and accessories, trips to the post office or courier, waiting for things to be shipped, assembling and troubleshooting everything when it arrives, learning new firmware and menus, doing a battery of tests to understand the sensor and colour science and codecs and how to treat it in post, then getting familiar with the rig to the point you can think about what you're pointing it at instead of what settings are assigned to which button etc. In terms of the G9ii / GH7 vs the S5 series, I wouldn't count on the MFT options being that much lighter, and it will probably come down to the lenses rather than bodies, which are pretty chunky.

Here are a few more shots with the 35

Agreed. I feel like the G9II and Gh7 have so much as is that what else could one need in a firmware update. They do everything and the kitchen sink too.

But if they (or anything else) never gets another firmware upgrade, does it matter? It wouldn’t and doesn’t for me beyond a point. The S1II/R received a major one recently re. overheating and that needed to happen, but otherwise, I can’t think of a single thing I’d need or want from them in the form of a future firmware upgrade. I’ve got bodies now with all the spec or rather, capabilities that I need and almost the lenses, - the only lens ‘missing’ for me now is a FF longer sibling to either the Sigma 28-45mm f1.8 or the APSC 17-40mm f1.8 and I’m done. But no further firmware is no biggie at this point. There are limits to what they can do!

Sorry, I meant S5II cage did not fit my S1RII. The S5 would definitely not either! Not sure where/how the Snake cages fit.

Right now I'm mostly using the Canon's .71x speedbooster on my R50V - but before that I was using it with my R5C for years as a great way to access the cam's 2-5K RAW features (which are only available in s35 mode) while basically making it FF. It's just one of the many reasons the R5C remains one of the most versatile releases in Canon history.

A GH7 (or G9 II if it has unlimited recording and doesn't overheat) really would be my ideal camera. Even though I use the excellent kit lenses a lot on my two S5 bodies and my S5II X, it's still not as light weight as I wish it were. I don't really care about shallow dof and low light isn't nearly as big of an issue when it comes to the GH7 and G9 II based on what I've seen or for what it was on my GH5 cams. But it's hard to justify going back to M43 because I just don't have faith that Lumix is invested in it for the long haul. Everyone i know loves these two cameras, but they don't get the firmware updates that the full frame cameras get. For Lumix that's a red flag because they've always released firmware that gave new features and improved their cameras. I mean, look how long they supported the GH5!

Truth bomb spat out right there and unique to you, to me, to others as our situations and needs are all different but unless you actually get out there and shoot shoot shoot, you’ll never truly know what works. And what does not. Probably always will be other than perhaps AI etc might/probably will fill in the blanks.

I don’t know but do know that my S5 Smallrig cage did not fit my S1RII due to slight differences in the bodies.

Yep. As I’ve shot more and more I’ve determined what is importantly to me: A comfortable, balanced, somewhat lightweight body but that is built well and has a good grip Great stabilization. I shoot heavily handheld and often will use warp stabilizer a lot. I’ve got a workflow down to get good results out of a lot of different cameras with varying IBIS strengths, but the G9II with its superb stabilization will make my life easier Decent lowlight. That includes having a somewhat noisy image as long as the grain looks good. Decent autofocus. Benefits my very run and gun content like weddings. Good internal image. My Nikon Z6 setup taught me I don’t love rigging out my kit. I have learned to work around any camera that is weak in one of these areas. I’ve figured out how to make very different equipment work for me and work around limitations. It’s just the G9II seems to really fit the bill with what is most important to me. That’s where I really feel camera decisions matter. Not in the IQ. But in the usability. How does it feel to use. Does it have those practical features that matter to you.

Anyone know if the Smallrig Black Mamba cage for the S5ii is valid for the S1ii?

Adapters used to be a big deal... with camcorders there were wide-angle adapters. Then for smaller sensors there were speed boosters to try and get shallower DOF and make more use of vintage photo lenses. Anamorphic adapters were always an option / confusing dream. Then "everyone" went FF to get that shallow DOF, and Chinese manufacturing started giving us good quality affordable fast primes and now there seems to be an avalanche of anamorphic lenses (with recent additions including anamorphic zooms, and some even have AF now!). Why are they "back"? Not only can adapters take MFT cameras to beyond FF, or take S35 to FF and beyond, but they can also take FF to Medium Format and beyond as well. The key to this is the emergence of high-quality single-focus anamorphic front adapters, and especially combining them with the new anamorphic glass or with speed boosters or with super-fast native lenses. I realised this when I shot with the GH7 + Voigtlander 42.5mm F0.95 + Sirui 1.25x combination and realised it's the horizontal FF equivalent of a 68mm F1.5. That's not impossible in FF terms, as there are 75mm F1.4 lenses and 85mm F1.2 lenses available, but this was only with the Sirui 1.25x adapter. There are 1.33x, 1.35x, 1.5x, 1.7x, and even 1.8x front adapters available. There is even a PL-to-PL 1.33x rear anamorphic adapter available. Combining the 1.33x PL-to-PL rear adapter with the 1.8x front adapter would be a 2.4x adapter. Not a lot of anamorphic glass over 2x! The combinations are practically endless, and compatibility will definitely be an issue with some combinations, but the thing about adapters is they multiply your lens collection..... If you buy an extra lens then you have an extra lens but if you buy an adapter you multiply your whole lens collection by a factor somewhere between 1-2x, depending on compatibility. Here are couple of worked examples. Just to get the juices going, and as a completely manufacturer supported Full Frame option, Sirui has the Venus anamorphic set, which are 1.6x anamorphics with T2.9 aperture from 35mm to 135mm, with the 1.6x giving them a horizontal crop factor of 0.625, so they're the horizontal equivalent of 22mm to 84mm T1.8 lenses. Add the Sirui 1.25x anamorphic adapter, which is officially part of the set, and they become 2x anamorphics horizontally equivalent to 17.5mm to 68mm T1.45 lenses. This isn't completely beyond normal spherical FF glass, but it's an adapter that can be used across a range of lenses and quickly change the crop-factor of these and many other lenses. Let's go bigger.. Rokinon / Samyang have a 1.7x front anamorphic adapter specifically designed for their Cine V-AF line, which includes 35mm to 100mm T1.9 Full Frame lenses (and a 24mm T1.9 APSC lens) but with the adapter they'll be 21mm to 59mm T1.1. Once again, these aren't impossible to find in spherical versions, but we're getting into more rarified territory. Also remember you now have two lens sets, not one lens set with an extra lens. Would the 1.7x adapter work on other lenses? Not easily - it seems to have a strange proprietary mount to attach to the lenses, which have a 58mm front thread diameter. The Sirui 1.25x adapter is huge and has an 82mm rear thread diameter, so would work on lots more lenses. The Blazar Nero 1.5x has a smaller 52mm rear thread diameter, and the SLR Magic Anamorphot-40 1.33x has an even smaller 40mm rear thread. However, the SLR Magic Anamorphot-65 1.33x has a 82mm rear thread and the Anamorphot-50 1.33x has a 62mm rear thread. I think the BLAZAR LENS 1.35x has a 77 rear thread (not sure), and the Venus Optics 1.33x definitely has a 77mm rear thread. But, if you have the funds and really want coverage, then the Letus35 AnamorphX-PRO series (1.33x and 1.8x) seem to clamp to the outside of 114mm lenses. Of course, they're USD2500 and up! Let's go faster... The Sirui 1.25x adapter claims it's T2.8, but on my MFT 42.5mm F0.95 lens it didn't soften the lens even when shot at F0.95. Maybe it wouldn't be so good if paired with a lens faster than F2.8 on a FF sensor - not sure. If you took an 85mm F1.4 and attached the Sirui 1.25x adapter you'd get a 68mm T1.12 - and an 85mm F1.2 would become an 85mm F0.96! But take the 85mm F1.2 and attach the Anamorphot-65 1.33x instead and now we're down to 68mm F0.90!! My impression was that the FF 50mm F0.95 lenses were pretty mushy at F0.95, but with a 1.33x attached they'd be 38mm F0.71 (and probably like a drug-fuelled haze). You could find out what an F0.71 lens looks like for only USD800 - completely doable if you're crazy enough. If we ignore the compatibility issues, and zoom out, then here's how I think of it - front anamorphic adapters are horizontal speed-boosters you mount to the front of the lens. 1.25x is a 0.8x horizontal speedbooster 1.33x is a 0.75x horizontal speedbooster 1.5x is a 0.67x horizontal speedbooster 1.7x is a 0.59x horizontal speedbooster 1.8x is a 0.56x horizontal speedbooster On FF, you can take a lens and use an adapter to boost your lenses from FF to Medium Format and beyond. The Alexa 65 has a crop factor of 0.67 - which is within reach of these adapters. On S35, you can use an 1.5x anamorphic adapter to get you to FF, but you can combine that 1.5x with a 0.71 speed booster to boost non-mirrorless glass to a crop-factor of 0.71, which is about 6% smaller than the Alexa 65! On MFT, you can use the 1.33x adapter to get you to S35, or combine a 0.71x speed booster with the 1.5x adapter to get you to 0.95 - just bigger than FF! BUT maybe you can push harder than that. No idea! Any discussion that puts S35 closer to the Alexa 65 than FF, or MFT larger than FF would have been unthinkable even a few years ago. Are there caveats? Sure. Compatibility for one thing. The stronger squeeze-factor adapters likely have limits with how fast you can push the aperture and perhaps on sensor size too. I suspect that my Sirui 1.25x T2.8 adapter might only be sharp with my F0.95 lenses wide open because they're MFT lenses on an MFT sensor. I could be wrong though. The smaller rear diameter of some of the other options might cause vignetting on larger sensors, and maybe softer corners at larger apertures. But lens sharpness and shallow DOF are only useful to impress paying customers and for bragging to your friends, and that's not what anamorphic is really for.. so if you're willing to stop acting like you live in a hospital, these things can open up a whole new world.

I get the appeal. Full frame makes that look easy. The medium format comparison is flattering, not literal. M43 can still do it, but only by design, not by accident.

These knock-off cameras seem a bit extra to me.

Good choice. I think that film-making is about compromises and the more you understand what you're trying to achieve then the more specific you can be with your equipment selection. The "I'll being everything just in case" shooter does so because they don't know what they want and therefore can't make any decisions. The more I shoot the more I understand what I want, how I work, what challenges I face, and what is available, and the clearer I get on what equipment I should use and why. It's sort of incredible that even with todays offerings of 8K video and 240p slow-motion and 14+ stops of DR and RAW and all the lenses available, even if you had infinite money, infinite strength to carry and operate heavy equipment, there are still serious compromises that have to be made. The does-everything camera is still a wild fantasy, even for gym bros in the billionaire class.

Fair point. I think that’s where full frame really starts to show its edge.

Wide angle and shallow DOF isn't for M43. Recently, I got the Laowa 28mm f/1.2 for my S5ii/S9. The rendering looks and feel like medium format. If your subject is 4-7 feet away, you get a really interesting look that is impossible on M43, showing plenty of context, yet quite a bit of blur. That lens is my indoor lens. I absolutely love it.

I get what you are saying though for sure. It's an artistic taste. I do still like it; i just find that you can get away with less, which is what I will end up getting with my 12-35 2.8 for example. It's a 5.6 full frame equiv. But I still think I can get enough to get by. And I get a nice tiny lens and dual IS.

I still do like shallow DOF, but I've find even the equivelant of a full frame f4 for example is just fine.