Subforums
-
The EOSHD YouTube Channel (22,446 visits to this link)
17,207 topics in this forum
-
- 9.1k replies
- 2.4m views
-
- 1.2k replies
- 408.1k views
-
- 0 replies
- 502 views
-
- 700 replies
- 277.7k views
-
- 5.8k replies
- 1.7m views
-
- 1.8k replies
- 690.1k views
-
- 24 replies
- 901 views
-
- 116 replies
- 52.8k views
-
- 2 replies
- 146 views
-
- 26 replies
- 1.7k views
-
- 139 replies
- 36.2k views
-
- 9 replies
- 653 views
-
- 0 replies
- 87 views
-
- 543 replies
- 244.4k views
-
- 7 replies
- 1.1k views
-
- 7 replies
- 380 views
-
- 78 replies
- 3.2k views
-
- 5 replies
- 260 views
-
- 20 replies
- 829 views
-
- 66 replies
- 32.7k views
-
- 25 replies
- 1.4k views
-
- 8 replies
- 546 views
-
- 462 replies
- 109k views
-
- 3 replies
- 865 views
-
- 16 replies
- 829 views
-
- 63 replies
- 32.3k views
-
- 7 replies
- 643 views
-
- 6 replies
- 1.2k views
-
- 10 replies
- 821 views
-
- 8 replies
- 608 views
-
- 3 replies
- 449 views
-
- 12 replies
- 847 views
-
- 0 replies
- 329 views
-
- 15 replies
- 8.5k views
-
- 103 replies
- 52.6k views
-
- 7 replies
- 522 views
-
- 6 replies
- 911 views
-
- 2 replies
- 526 views
-
- 5 replies
- 952 views
-
- 0 replies
- 348 views
-
Popular Contributors
-
Forum Statistics
-
Total Topics17.2k
-
Total Posts350.7k
-
-
Member Statistics
-
Posts
-
Thank you. I’ve found it’s very possible. I hear claims online and even in-person of people saying “you just can’t replace a gimbal.” I mostly disagree. If you have a great shooting technique down and are smart to maximize your camera’s best aids to help stabilize the shot, and you then are smart about your post-stabilization if needed, it’s absolutely possible. I was able to get a lot done with my less-than-ideal Nikon Z6 setup. IBIS on that camera is pretty lens dependent with F mount glass. It was never as good as the G9II or S9 with e stab high. But it was still possible. You have caught on fast to my preferred way to shoot and WHY I like to shoot that way. I’ve used gimbals before and have worked with others who use gimbals a lot. To me it just feels like a heavy nuisance that gets in my way. I feel I can get shots faster handheld. I can quickly get vastly different angles, movements, compositions, focal lengths etc handheld. I still think ultimately the gimbal gives ultimate smoothness, particularly at long focal lengths. It is easier to pull it off there. But, you can get handheld very close and gain a massive weight and agility advantage. Sometimes I watch a popular camera review YouTuber or shill-tuber. I take a minute to actually analyze the shots they are getting. Some are talented. Others, I look at the actual footage and I’m like, this is fine. I could get that easily. Sometimes I like the stuff I shoot more than the stuff they get from a camera. Sometimes I even feel I’ve gotten better shots with my 8 bit Z6 than some of their stuff on the latest Sony FX2 or whatever. This is not always the case, but it’s happened. Anymore I care about cameras to make my life easier and speed up my workflow while giving me a shooting experience that helps me be more creative. For me, the G9II certainly does that. -
@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.
-
