Leaderboard

That's fair enough - but I don't need the entire world! Even if the camera is flimsy, I'll take it! For the screen, as long as it's good enough to get frame and focus, I'm willing to make a trade-off for an ultra-portable camera. I love the DJI Pocket 3 and its screen is teeny tiny. I'd love something like that, but with at least a m43 sensor and with swappable lenses. They could even use the same screen for all I care!

I think that some of the comments here are missing the point. I think that it's unlikely at best that most members of this forum are going to see this announcement, throw away their modern mirrorless camera, and run out and buy a 200D/Rebel SL2 to put ML on it. On the other hand, there are hundreds or thousands of 200D's floating around in the world. That line was pretty popular for beginning photographers at the time. I never owned one, but if I did and it was still sitting around the house, I'd absolutely be digging it out right now and trying out ML on it. Why not? The exception to that, for me, is if they add support for actual 4K raw (not the weird upsampled stuff that can be done on the EOS M) on one of the newer EOS M bodies, especially one of the teeny tiny ones. I'd totally spend $300 for a body and $20 for an EOS M to Leica M adapter to play with that. A cute little M200 with a 35 'cron could be a lot of fun (I know they're closer to $500 in general on the used market, but with some patience and "make an offer" on ebay, I bet I could find one for less - ain't nobody buying 'em and someone's gonna wanna get theirs off the shelf (and no way that camera's worth $500, come on)). Or if the 4K stays cropped with ML, even better - an M200 with some of my vintage C mounts would be even smaller and cuter. Similarly, I'd be just as excited if Panasonic released an updated GM5 with 4k and 10-bit (throw in external raw and I'll be even happier). I want a SMALL camera, like not "I guess this is about 10-15% smaller than my R5, but much less capable" small - but tiny. Like sits next to my RX100 V or ZV-1 and looks about the same small. Like, I put the camera on my open hand and I can see skin around every edge of the camera (exception possible for a small EVF bump).

I feel similar mostly. If the new team can successfully and stably move it to the new Canons that is one thing but nowadays, with ML at its current level of capability/compatibility I see it as great for those who are way short on funds but way long on free time, or are just tinkerers in general, but anyone whose priority is actual shooting instead of fiddling/tinkering is much better off just grabbing a used GH5, S5, S1 etc for well under $1K and getting to it.

Definitely agree on this point. Good option if you’re buying a super specific ultra-cheap cam like the EOS M and have super limited funds, but I totally get that it’s not really worthwhile for a working pro. I mean, the R50V’s existence makes a lot of other cameras in the $300-700 price range a hard sell lol.

I will be happy to use it on my Eos M hopefully or with my two Dslrs. I just like the fact that Magic Lantern is around. What is your favorite personal camera for video and photo? @stephen I like too many cameras but GX85 would be my recent pick. I enjoyed my Bmpcc last summer and the one before, the latter not for stills of course though I wouldnt mind to print out some 1080p stills enlarged for A4 format. My S1H did the occasional video and photo gig but is collecting dust at the moment.

From what I've seen and comparing to my own 10bit footage, Magic Lantern Raw on Eos M and 5DII/ III looks magical under natural light despite less dynamic range and much less resolution. So I am exited about any news from ML. I am referring to the pure joy for the image. It is not an observation in regards to full time content production. No, no, no! @eatstoomuchjam No 10bit GM5 flimsyness but a solid and small 10bit GX85 body. Thank you, Panasonic!:) GM5 feels hollow and viewfinder is very tiny. Sorry, but no! 10bit GX, yes please.:) @stephenDoesn't the 5DIII allow liveview on the screen, just like the EOS M?

On an unrelated note, aren't banana trees some of the prettiest trees there are? The shape of the leaves and the way they move in the wind is just an attractive thing. I have a friend who once sailed the South Pacific. He said when they would be at sea for days and would approach an island with banana groves that it was such a beautiful sight. I'm in the only place in Canada warm enough to grow them ( and just barely too) so people plant them as decoration a lot.

I was just poking around in the menus and noticed there is an option where you can switch between Full and Pixel:Pixel, so that's the same as the ETC mode on the GH5. It looks like you can use this with any resolution. Also, you can record C4K in Prores RAW, which is a 1:1 sensor readout, so exactly a 1.41x, or a horizontal crop factor of 2.934 from FF (the GH7 horizontal crop factor is 36/17.3=2.0809). The bitrates are a bit heavy though at either 1700Mbps or 1100Mbps and it's Prores RAW so you can't import it directly into Resolve and will need to transcode with a third party utility. This thing has so many options, and the more I poke around in it, the more it feels like a cinema camera in the body of a MILC.

@PannySVHS I've now tested the Crop Zoom (CrZ) mode in 1080p. This is the first test, and I exposed for the sky (which it thought was the right thing to do) which meant that the plants were a bit low, so I ended up bringing them up a little in post. The Prores HQ is great at retaining noise and so there's quite a bit visible despite me having shot this at base ISO 500. I've found that ETTR is definitely recommended if you want a more modern looking cleaner image. I also used the 12-35mm lens at F4.0 for all images as that's where it's the sharpest. First is comparing the C4K Prores HQ vs 1080p Prores HQ (on a 1080p timeline): Next we compare the CrZ vs zooming with the lens. I have prepared these images in sets of three. The first is the CrZ image, the second is zooming with the lens, the third is the CrZ image again but with sharpening added. This allows you to compare both CrZ images directly with the 'proper' one, as the more zoomed CrZ images did look a little soft in comparison when viewed at 300%. Around 14mm (1.16x): Around 18mm (1.5x): Around 25mm (2.08x): Once I got those images into Resolve and looked at them I decided to re-shoot it with a better exposure. So I chose a different framing that meant the sky wasn't influencing anything. However, I didn't realise that where I was standing was going in and out of the sun, so some shots were washed out and I had to compensate for it in post, adjusting contrast/sat/exposure/WB to match. Tests are never perfect but are enough to give a good idea of what's going on, and in real use where there is no A/B comparing going on no-one would ever spot it anyway. There's also a slight difference in exposure between the C4K and 1080p modes too, which is a bit odd. I imagine it's due to changing the sensor mode. I compensated for that in all these tests too. C4K Prores HQ vs 1080p Prores HQ (on a 1080p timeline): Around 14mm (1.16x): Around 18mm (1.5x): Around 25mm (2.08x): I am actually rather encouraged by these results, as my previous test was in low-light and I did on something with much sharper edges and that showed differences I'm not really seeing here. However, it's not really surprising that the GH7 did this well, as even with a CrZ of 2.08x it's still reading an area of the sensor around 2776 pixels wide. I say "around" that wide because there is a slight crop when you compare the native 5.8K mode with the native C4K, 4K, and 1080p modes, but I think the 2.08x crop will still be oversampled from the sensor by a good amount. The other thing I noticed was that I couldn't adjust the CrZ function while I was recording, the button just didn't do anything. I'm not sure if that's because I have it assigned to a button and that there might be some other way to engage it while recording. Maybe through the controls that are used to control powered zoom lenses, not sure. Anyway, it looks pretty darn good to me, and the grain actually reminds me of the OG BM cameras which are quote noisy at native ISOs too (and also lots of seriously high-end cinema cameras too).

Simply fantastic images and I like the dark look. Though I'd change the 14-140 to M.Zuiko 12-100 f4 for that constant aperture, while losing tele but gaining on a wide end. Feels like 100mm on a M43 body should be enough though.

The 9mm I tested is the Panasonic Leica 9mm F1.7, I'm not aware of a 9mm F1.4 - maybe you're thinking of the Leica 12mm F1.4? Let me see if I can further tempt you!! I have done some tests (images below) but found the following: You can use the Crop-Zoom function (CrZ) to go up to 1.3x in C4K and up to 1.4x in 4K resolutions There is no 4K option in Prores, only C4K If the sensor was cropped to be a 1:1 readout, it would be a 1.4x in C4K and a 1.5x in 4K, but the CrZ mode stops just short of these amounts. I suspect that they have limited it so that it is always downscaling, even if just slightly. Test shots. First set are with the S-16 Cosmicar 12.5mm F1.9 C-mount lens. These are all on a 4K timeline, so you can really pixel-pee if you want to. I didn't have quite enough vND to have it wide open on all the shots, so some are wide open but some are stopped down to F2.8. Now, I switched from the 4K to the C4K, which meant I had slightly less crop available and you can just start to see the edges of the image circle. I suspect your mileage would vary depending on what lens you were using. The Cosmicar is pretty wide, so if you were using a long focal length you'd probably get no vignetting at all. This should also give a comparison between the 4K H.264 and the C4K Prores HQ. Now we switch lenses to the 12-35mm and stopped down to F5.6 so we can compare the CrZ crop to a non-cropped image. This is cropped to 1.3x using the CrZ function in C4K Prores HQ: and this is without any CrZ and using the 12-35mm to zoom in to match the FOV: I didn't shoot any clips this morning comparing the CrZ mode in 1080p, but I can also shoot a test for this if you're curious. I had a closer look and discovered you can't change the zoom amount, which seems to be stuck at 3x zoom. I'd say that it is resolving enough for focusing and I used it with the Cosmicar in the above test. It's the normal story of using peaking and rocking the focus back and forth to find the sharpest spot. At least I'd say that if you can't use it to manually focus then the problem isn't the punch-in feature but some other issue!

Went for a wander in the rain over the weekend with the GH7 and this lens: I applied some filmic colours and a bit of grain, but the halation / bloom / softness / flares are all the lens. Just remember, the less you pay for a lens, the more fun it is.... and this lens is a lot of fun.

They also fixed their horrible n-log view assist. Nikon is really killing lately with their value for money, firmware, and camera offerings.

My S9 sits smugly looking on. At sub 1k prices, its video spec is in another league.

Indeed it is, and indeed I do! Haven't turned it on in.. well.. some time. I must admit I find it funny that my first video-first camera was the XC10 but moved on because I wanted shallower DoF, and now I'm back to shooting deep DoF with a 10x zoom lens. This is why I never sell anything - I've lost count of the number of times I learn something new and then pull things out of the discard pile again, and although it's mostly lenses, you never really know.

Funnily enough, a former client from 2014 contacted me today to say that she had 'lost' her wedding video and did I still have it? After I stopped laughing, I thought hang on, it is probably still on Vimeo. And it was. I thought it would look so dated and be an utter cringe-fest, but actually it wasn't and I was a bit surprised. It was shot on the GH3.

Yeah I've been staring for years at these cheap Sony PMW-F5 deals you see on ebay , being tempted by them. But I suspect my next camera most likely will be a P4K Yeah, those are to be fair even better deals even though the price is a little higher

That one's been tempting! There are other examples out there for like 200 more with the viewfinder too

I agree, but the C100 was just a Lot more portable and ended up being the documentary king. The F3 was a studio camera. Canon sold one hell of a lot more C100's than Sony ever did F3's. A C100 with DPAF is worth twice what a F3 is even today on average. I don't think a person can go wrong with either, it depends on what your Jandra is more than anything.