Leaderboard

Long time lurker here. Joined up to show you the file I get when I hook up the gx85 to my Blackmagic Video Assist.

Footage with the default settings on this camera looks great, if a little clinical. I have been toying around with the settings whilst comparing it to the nikon d5500. It seems to me that the best way to get a slightly more filmic and nicer look is to use the following: Natural 0 / -5 / -5 / -2 (cont, sharp, nr, sat). -2 highlights. No iDynamic. And whitebalance adjustment set to A3 G3. With this setting, greenery looks less digital green and has more of a warm tint to it like film. And skin tones veer less towards the red and again has a warmer appearance (without looking yellowy like with GH4 stuff).

I have one of these lights, but just the mk II not the + version (+ version means v-lock battery option). I really like it and can also recommend it. It's about 1k at full power. Definetly get the mkII version. It's a lot more silent and a bit smaller than the first version. Also good cheap fresnel adapter for the light is this: https://www.amazon.com/Nanguang-NG-10X-Studio-Light-Filter/dp/B011HTRTUG?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B011HTRTUG&linkCode=as2&linkId=TOJXOS6VGXPT3Q6T&redirect=true&ref_=as_li_tl&tag=nitsapictu-20 Nitsan has reviewed same lights and recommended very much it.

I'm also looking to upgrade from the D750, which indeed has nice colors & DR but is soft (a la 5D III) and can't be pushed much in post. i tried the ursa mini 4.6k (which btw is useable up until 1600, it's the regular 4K that has base iso 400) and has by far the best image for the asking price. 4K 10-bit internal Raw/Prores recording with 15 DR stops gives you a crazy good image that's super flexible in post. BUT the camera weighs a ton once it's rigged up with just handle, v-mount battery, evf. no ND filters and those CF2 cards cost a leg. It's really a RED/ARRI type cine camera, not meant for small crew run&gun.. The C100II is i find way overpriced for essentially a 2012 cam with added dual pixel AF. the image it spits out is nice and sharp but that 24meg AVCHD codec is weak and of course no 4K. The best investment today for run&gun video imo is the A7S2 / FS5 & 1DX2. But in september it could be different since Canon should be announcing the 5D4 and hopefully C100 III (with 4K). Sony is also rumored to come out with the A9 and perhaps A7R3. These new Sony's would have equivalent or better dual pixel AF (which i feel is the current/next big thing to have in video). So if you can wait it out, there should be some interesting products coming out by the end of this year..

Supposedly the Australian version of the gx85 is pal and has continuous recording. Also someone has figured out how to put a gx80 in NTSC mode, so I wonder if the unlimited recording (NTSC) gx85 can be put in PAL mode? i have the gx80 (PAL) so I'll see if there is a hack or wait until some PAL gx85 end up on eBay...

this :-). Have fun.

Seems like the GX85 would be okay. You stay in M43, shoot 4K, and you get a nice little camera that can stabilize your hand held shots. I wouldn't nessecarily invest in a bunch of new glass if you don't really have to. However, only you know how much low-light you're trying to deal with. Personally, I've never had too much trouble with LUMIX cameras in low light, but I also have a f1.2 lens with a speed booster for darker shots, which helps tremendously. As for the "pro"ness of it all, here's my anecdote: During my wedding I gave my GM1 to my 16 year old nephew. It had the Oly 45mm 1.8 lens on it. With the f-stop wide open, aperture priority, and everything else set on automatic, I told him to go to town, frame up faces at eye level from 5 feet away, and shoot stills of everyone at the reception. No flash, available light. Because of those simple rules, the nice magic hour light that was filtering into the ballroom, and his personality of being willing and able to effortless socialize with strangers and warmly interact with him, he got twice as many good photographs of the reception than the wedding photog that was paid thousands of dollars to be there and was running around nervously with a Canon 1D, 5 different lenses, and a flash. Our wedding album is half of my nephew's shots. And we got all those pictures simply because he was curious about the little camera I was carrying around so I thought I'd let him use it and see what happened. This incident just shows that photography is more about how one interacts with the environment they're in and takes advantage of it rather than the gear. (Although the gear does help if you're also good at the craft of it all.) Anyway, something to consider.

I really like to shoot anamorphic and i spend a lot of time doing little researches, which leads me to invention that i want to introduce. I've learn a lot of information from this subforum, so i want to share my idea here. I believe it gonna be a second breath to independent anamorphic solutions. So I came up with what anamorphic lenses was originally created for: using whole image sensor area with benefits. Back then there was a film and now we have a 16:9 standart for video and to use it properly id suggest a simple technology: stack together two anamorphic lenses and rotate a camera 90 degree. And then applied 4x coefficient to 9:16 sensor area that results in 2,25:1 ratio: Of course if u shoot 4K RAW loosing some data is'nt a problem: u're still end up with proper resolution, color and details and even have nice possibility to recompose frame horizontally. But for 1080p recording cameras or 8-bit codecs loosing some data from sensor not the case, is'nt it?) So what do we have: - 4320x1920 (for 1080p) and 8640x3840 (for 4K) de-squeezed interpolated image that can be downscaled to 1920x850(840) with some color and sharpness benefits - stack of two anamorphic lenses required longer focal (about 150mm for sankor16f/rectimascope48 stack for FF) but with 4x it comes to pretty the same FOV as 85mm/2x on FF. It also requires smaller aperture to get same DOF. So it results in sharper image with same DOF (multiplied by lack of loss resolution in the camera). Of course increased number of glasses results in some lights losses, about 1 stop i think, maybe less. - one of the nicest feature of my scheme: it kills rolling shutter effect. I develope idea of that anamorphic solution with a7s model in mind, it's a great camera which suffer from well knowed issue: terrible RS. But when you rotate sensor and applied 4x stack of anamorhic you decreased RS effect in the final image by 4 times (since RS effect appears on horizontal which is became vertical). From now on forget about RS) - and one issue: its getting even harder to look at monitor: now its 4 times squeezed image. Honestly i always like to shoot anamorphic without desqueezing function that gives me some abstraction and somehow another vision of composition and im not suffering much from 4x squeezing to. Its hard to use monitor to nail a focus but easier with viewfinder. Actually i send a letter to atomos with asking for some cooperation here but got no respond (maybe a reason is my broken english, who know : ) Of course stack of two anamorphots is loosing any ability to focus, but it working well with diopters like usual combo of taking lens and ana - just set them all to infinity. And im asking here for some help. Im already tested my prototype (later im gonna do post about it) with usual diopters and it worked. But to use it properly i need some variable diopters and for now i can afford only SLR Rangefinder, which have not very high perfomance. But since aperture at my taking lens starts with 3,5 it may work. I know here's a guy, Tito, with a lot of anamorphic stuff, i will ask him for test, but maybe anyone have opportunity to try it to? PS I know my English is bad so i provided some pic for u guys)

I'm in Florida. Weird the price is up to $406. Go to: https://www.essentialphoto.co.uk/product/pixapro-led100d-mkii-daylight-balanced-led-studio-light/ Add it to your cart. Use LM5OFFD for 5% off (from UglyMcGregor youtube.com/watch?v=jbPTPFDsrU0). Keep going through to have the VAT removed and add the shipping. Unless I'm doing something wrong...

Kinemini 4K? Rock solid camera, great image quality, 2K Cineform, competent hfr, the ability to add a speed booster, and decent low light performance.

Thanks for posting the specs. Those specs look like the properties of the video file generated by the Blackmagic Video Assist (ProRes, 1920p, 10 bit, 4:2:2) -- not the properties of the signal coming out of the camera's HDMI port.

I'm pretty sure this is my next MFT lens: http://www.43rumors.com/ft5-leaked-first-images-new-panasonic-12mm-f1-4-asph-lens/ Panasonic Leica branded 12mm F1.4- no IS, but you won't be needing it with the GX80. Could be priced at $600- perhaps more. I'll start saving.

Something worth thinking about. There really is no 'industry' anymore, at least not if this refers to enterprises which set up blueprints for production pipelines and man them with workers. This industry, audio-visual media, became hell for people who have to work for a living and perhaps plan for a family. On german video sites, the FCP X haters label the "pros" that use this NLE "trunk producers". I almost became one of them, it's called "Ich AG" (literally: 'Me PLC'; in Germany: person(s) in self-employment as partof a government-funded scheme to help jobless people to start-uptheir own business). As your own camera operator, sound engineer, driver, editor, colorist and what have you - what do you need Adobe for? You can be creative (Adobes motto) at designing your own funky lower thirds within After Effects? Well, you hardly get paid fairly for that extra effort. There are thousands of free Motion templates that can easily and in no time be adjusted for your needs. A handful of specialized graphic designers, who probably do nothing else, let you use better ones for a reasonable fee. You'd be crazy to sit awake after a long shoot and editing session and try to top those on your own. So maybe FCP X is for hobbyists and trunk producers, but who cares? I've opened an own thread on the topic. My suspicion is that Adobe would like to become less industry standard and more trunk production suite. But they fear to lose their nimbus.

If you were wondering how long you can shoot with a Lumix GX80/85/7MKII, well at least 1h04 minutes! Or the full length it takes to ride the Yamanote line in Tokyo ;-) And, will the trains here are air cooled, the camera after 1h was just barely warm and it had enough juice for maybe another full hour ride... Impressive! Note. 1. The Camera used was a GX7MKII from Japan (English menus are now available on these cameras) 2. Used a 12-35mm Lens 3. Tiffen Variable ND 4. Dual IS was on 5. Battery was fully charged when started recording. 6. The video was shot in 4K30p (Update)

The fact Dual IS was on and you could still get maybe 2 hours continuous is impressive. This camera really has me interested.

Thanks so much! I don't know ShanksTV, but I will definitely check it out.

I understand - BTW "OK" button also activates manual focus assist when using manual lens. It is not big deal becuase I/we should not use GUI very often anyway (just set bitrates and that is it).

You could be right, to quite a degree. Did you use a fresnel lens in the front? On the Curtis Judd channe,l he rated it at 750 watts. I guess, a barn door on both of them, and a similar beam angle for both should help settle this. 1-1.5k light equivalent seems a bit much for it. But, I am waiting for Ted from Aputure to clarify and explain the best way to use the maximum brightness.

Well actually with the 100mbps 4k the Panasonic is better. Much cleaner shadows. The noise is much finer on the Panasonic in both 1080p and 4k

It's not covering 5 to 9 times more. Arri 650 flood beam is 55 degrees. The 120t is 120 degrees without any modifiers. This test I have a reflector cone wihich is shaping it to about 55 degrees. The only reason I used the barn doors was to show the line between the 2 clearly.

Tested out a couple of c-mount lenses I got for the BMPCC. I also wanted to test out some natural and artificial lighting set-ups. Kern-Paillard Switar 16mm f/1.8 AR Cosmicar 12.5mm f/1.8 (modified) I'm pretty damn pleased with these lenses. My Rokinons were good lenses, but didn't quite have the character I was looking for. Both shots were f/2.8, 800iso, ProresHQ. And for fun, a modified Cosmicar 6.5mm f/1.8 (at f/4): I like ultra-wide lenses for a surreal feel.

The aputure seems to cover 3-4x the surface area so I'm not sure if direct brightness comparison is valid.

delete your account.

I gotta' say, I'm real appreciative of this thread. I recently bought a BMPCC w/the adaptor- and really needed this list. Thank you. Wondering if anyone knows if the HJ21ex7.8B ( ENG 1/2inch Wide Standard Telephoto Lens) can be adapted for the BMPCC.... anyone know?

Actually for a long time after I got my GX7 I was an advocate of using iDynamic. In fact even now I wouldn't say "dont use it". But just be aware of what it does. It raises shadows and midtones in a different way than if you were to use the shadow curve or adjust the contrast slider. The end result is that the contrast in your image can look a little "washed out". It's hard to explain.. but for example if your subject is a person, then their skin wont have the same range of tonality, even after grading. This could be desirable if going for more of a low-fi look. There is no definitive. Sometimes the Nikon looks better, sometimes the Panasonic does. But the Panasonic is far more usable as a camera. Nikon mount lenses have a physical lever on the rear mount which controls the aperture directly. There are adapters you can buy which have a ring around them that controls this lever. I'm talking about electronic Nikon lenses btw, not the old manual aperture ones. The one I use is the Metabones, but there are cheaper alternatives too.

I've owned both and they're very different cameras. The DPAF and weight are huge selling points for the C100ii. Nice colors as well. I just got tired of the weak codec and moved on. Blackmagic have great customer support. They're always willing to interact within 24 hours of contacting them. There have been a lot of issues with the 4.6K regarding the magenta corners but they're WAY overblown on forums. Your chances of getting a good unit are favorable at this point. If it's not a good one they'll replace it. They've stated that they know what is causing the issue and it will fix it ASAP. The new firmware 4.0 coming out with the 4.6K is going to be amazing. They're adding all new resolutions for ProRes. 2K, 2.5K, 3K, 4.6K. Right now you can only shoot 4.6K in RAW. ProRes is only available currently (in the Ursa) at 1080 and UHD.

Ls300 could be worth a look too

These two are very different cameras. If it's low-end doc/interview/corporate work, C100. Narrative/music video/commercials... Ursa Mini 4.6k. Although I'd wait a year for it to mature as there are issues. Terra looks brilliant too.

I guess my main point is that they seem inconsistent in their review comparing it to other cameras out there- a double standard. Apparently, Panasonic needs not only to give excellent features like zebras, 5 axis IBIS, reliability, no overheating, no max filming limits, a GH5 sensor (because it's the same), a smaller form-factor better suited for MFT, an excellent 4k image, a great touch interface, peaking, a large, sharp image for manual focus, and many more video related features that other manufacturers can't seem to offer, but also all the features of a higher priced GH5 (like the ones you mentioned above). In fact, the features you mentioned like bigger battery and a swivel screen might require a bigger body. I think its unreasonable to expect a sub-$1000 dollar camera to do everything perfectly- just because it's Panasonic. Meanwhile, other manufacturers get a free pass for not having 4k (and many of the other features I mentioned above). Concerning the handling of the camera, it's much better than one might think: notably, the fact you can easily change ALL aspects of your shot with it up next to your eye- something that the Fuji and Sony cannot do (not sure about the Olympus they talked about). The A6300 doesn't even have two dials on it and it's much more expensive. Finally, the one thing that I simply love about this camera is its minimalistic nature- why should a camera be a fashion statement? It's a tool that you WANT to disappear. Anyway, I conclude by saying I think they didn't do their homework and they got some stuff simply wrong in the review and didn't really promote some of the features that are rather unique at the price point.

I had a c100 ii for a couple months and I don't think the image is anything to write home about. It's definitely very sharp but the d750 has better colours and similar/better DR. If you can afford the Ursa mini 4.6k then you should be able to afford the Sony FS5. I would make a decision between the two and plus the kinefinity. Surely you can import one?

Wonderful insight. Thanks!

I guess if all you need is web-sized images? If instead of "eliminate the need for a DSLR" your headline was "eliminate the need for a phone camera" it would make more sense (to me anyway). I've seen this thread about 50 times on various forums. I have a 4K mirrorless camera. I can't use screen grabs for print advertising, I can't color correct them to use for most commercial web work, I can't use all my Speedotron strobes in video, and so on. I can't use a 4K screen grab for a billboard or vehicle wrap gig. If all you need is a tiny shot that's really compressed and is difficult to correct, to isolate and retouch, and you don't mind shooting video at higher shutter speeds (not knocking ya, if that's "all you need", then I can't see a flaw in your methodology). If someone wants an 11x14 print, you're a little hosed. If you're shooting video and someone wants a still, then it's better than nothing (I have one client that still hires me for events, and I continually have to remind them that if they want stills AND video, they need to tell me which one has to actually be good".) There's a massive difference between the mindset for shooting stills and shooting video. In stills, you're looking for the perfect moment, and adjusting everything you do to get it captured. In video, you're looking for a temporal sense of what the moment felt like and how it evolved (that's the best i can explain it). So what gets me is the idea that a need is "eliminated" or a technology is "replaced". It's focusing on hardware and not on the final results that the hardware can deliver. This shot could have been a video frame, it only used reflectors - but it would not have had the impact it got from methodically thinking through a still setup. And (she's my granddaughter), I really kind of want a 16x20 iris print of this on, like, watercolor paper...

@Fredrik, I didn't realise it's you in the video. The wall has some very strange colour. Als, the GH4 has a very strong orange tint. The GX85 also has a tint, but not sure what colour it is. If you have nay other camera (canon or nikon), maybe you could what colour they get the wall. It's like the dark horse for DSLR/ Mirrorless colour science. Panasonic increased the contact points on their hotshoe, which I am guessing could be used for audio too (if the software and hardware allow it). I also realised, that if Andrew (Reid) says that he gets an audio signal via the HDMI port, through the HDMI out, along with video (like on the G7, though along with monitoring in-camera), then there may be a way to (possibly) work around that too. Though, not sure the audio and video signals could be split.

Seems plenty of Sony issues going on lately with the latest a7x II series....sigh.

Saw it. I feel like they were very dismissive of the video capabilities due to its lack of a microphone... (jackitis- look above) and I think they didn't really know how to use it (they must have used only default settings and cranked up the electronic IS). They misrepresented its 5 axis IBIS by calling it 3 axis IBIS + 2 axis IS in lens. They left out the fact it doesn't overheat and that the GX85 model doesn't have a max recording time. Finally, they said a 1" sony sensor has more dynamic range. The conclusion was simply that it's more of a still camera... whatever. I wonder what the GH5 review will look like for these guys... or maybe they'll learn how to use the camera first. I like their show though.

I have actually stoped taking pictures all together, and only pull video frames. Full collection - http://imgur.com/a/KeilF These are all videoframes, I think they work great, on some cases better, others worse, but can they replace taking a snap? Of course they can, would this be possible without 4k? No it wouldnt.

Owned the a7rII since the day it was released, my cam still looks like new and no issues at all. I've had the a5100 for almost two years now, it's with me everywhere, it's always in my bag/car/carry-on, and even though it's all plastic it's still a 9 or better.

No, it's not like that. It's like saying you can't expect a $3,000 2016 model Ford to perform like a top of the line 2010 model Ferrari. My point is Sony already rivals, and in some cases beats Arri, depending who you're talking to. The F65 is a very different camera to the Alexa, of course. But $3,000 cameras, despite being expensive to some, are still built to a price point. Let's not forget the F3, lauded by many as the 'mini Alexa' - a camera that also happened to hit the market in 2010, and also cost ~$16k - cheap! If Sony could and/or wanted to, they could put that sort of sensor into a $3,000 camera. But they won't. They'd rather you spend $10k+ on an FS7, F5, F55, F65 etc. The fact that the Alexa still sells at the price point that it does is the reason you can't get an Alexa image in a $3,000 body. If Arri brought something new out, and decided to offload Alexas for $5k, you can bet your bottom dollar that other companies would be selling their Alexa-matching sensors for $3k. Take a look at the VaricamLT. It has dual-ISO, and an amazing picture, all for ~$20-30k. It can even come with an EF mount. Cheap! I'm just saying - the reason you can't get an image that rivals an Alexa for $3k is not because no-one can figure it out, or are not allowed to...

Why should they have to? Why should a consumer camera have to match a $50k+ high-end cinema camera? I would argue that the F55 matches, and the F65 beats the Alexa in many areas - of course both have differing looks to the Alexa. I just don't really understand the comment. Of course a $3,000 camera doesn't 'match' the Alexa.

Why not both? GH5 as A-cam, GX85 as B-cam. More than likely that'll be my next kit.

Voigtlander 28mm with anamorphic adapter.

I fixed my foggy GH4 EVF too with Novus2 polish. The EVF coating has peeled away itself after skiing trip in humid days. The result is excellent, like new.