Leaderboard

Pretty stable and even with the post stab, not a huge amount of cropping going on 👍 I'd say FF Lumix is about the same level with S5ii.

Edited and uploaded the stabilisation test video. Test of how well the GH7 and 14-140mm combination is able to stabilise hand-held footage. GH7 was using the Boost IS mode, which is a more stable version of IBIS (but it doesn't do electronic IS, that's a different mode, so this mode has no crop). My hands were more shaky than normal when filming this, and the first shot was standing up without leaning on anything, and the second shot of the hotel was sitting down. Results aren't perfect, but they're good enough for my purposes.

I don't mind at all, I mentioned it partly to raise the topic as I'm not sure about it. What I need to do is to get a bunch of references and study how they distribute the DR of the images into the final grade, so I can get a sense of things. A bit like how cinematographers get an understanding of levels and ratios, using false colour or a light meter. I pulled a few reference stills from the movie Perfect Days which is set in Seoul to compare: and some from Kill Bill vol 2, as it's a bit more contrasty: and The Matrix, because it's got that feeling of the matrix not being a real place, which gets to the idea that Seoul is like a world unto itself: or The Killer has quite a dark grade to things: There's something about the rich dark areas, and having rich dark colours that I'm chasing, but obviously I'm yet to work out what it is and how to get it. Works in progress though!

Why stop with spraypaint? Hose that sucker down with line-x and never worry again about scratches!

I think personally that while I can make the 24-70 & 70-200 combination to work for me, a lot of the time something in-between would be useful, as I mentioned before, in portraiture. In the 1980s and 1990s, there were still a lot of lenses with intermediate ranges such as 50-135/3.5, 75-150/3.5, 35-135/3.5-4.5, 35-105/2.8 etc. but somehow these disappeared and standard zooms started at 24 mm and telezooms at 70 mm, 80 mm, or 100 mm. In portraiture a range that is between the two (24-70 and 70-200) would be ideal. I think the reason why 24-70 became the standard "pro" zoom is that when the first digital SLRs came with 1.3x, 1.5x, and 1.6x sensors they needed the standard zoom to have shorter focal lengths, so instead of a 28-105 or 28-80 they would make a 24-70 and 24-105. Of course, then came lenses like the 17-55/2.8 specifically for 1.5x / 1.6x sensors. But anyway the 24-70 range stuck and now some photographers would consider a zoom that starts at 28 mm too limiting even "useless". This I don't agree with, and I'd be happy to have an in-between range zoom such as 50-150 or similar. To me this sounds a very practical lens and not at all weird. However, the f/2.0 maximum aperture does make it a bit big and heavy and I can see the objective is to replace primes for some users. If it becomes popular, perhaps they can make an f/2.8 zoom with a similar range. The f/2.0 makes the lens expensive as well. I notice a 4600 EUR initial price in Finland (incl. 25.5% VAT) vs. $3900 (not including VAT) at B&H. This seems absurd considering the tariff situation, it's like they slapped on the price increase from the tariffs on both regions instead of just where it is actually applied. I think it's completely unrealistic to expect most European customers to even consider this lens at a 4600 EUR price point. I would expect the price to fall rather quickly if Sony wants to sell these lenses.