Leaderboard

Do the experiment properly and you'll find that the perspective is the same. Surely you must have heard countless times before that perspective depends only on the subject distance. This is a truth that you shouldn't ignore. More precisely, perspective depends on the distance from the subject to the entrance pupil of the lens. For this reason, the entrance pupil is sometimes called the center of perspective. I suppose you could call it the "point of the wedge" in your language. FYI, technically, the entrance pupil is the image of the aperture stop as seen from the front of the lens. So, in your experiment, just put the entrance pupil of both the 24mm and 36mm lenses at 10 feet from the subject, and the perspective will be precisely the same. There are some easy techniques for finding the entrance pupil location with an accuracy of about +/-1mm that stitched panorama shooters use all the time - if you need help just ask. The subject-to-image plane distance is not what matters. Its the subject-to-entrance pupil distance that does. So, this notion that full frame will be "further inside of the wedge than in the APS-C format" is just another way of saying: "oops, I goofed, and didn't keep the subject distance constant".

Some are more impartial than others, put it that way. When you have personal relations with a nice man or nice woman from a marketing company or a camera company, you're not going to risk burning that bridge for the sake of a fully honest review which focuses on a number of negatives. You're just not. Yes I myself have felt the pressure as well. I resisted and continue to do so. If I cared about my relationship with people in the camera sales industry above the one I have with my own readers and followers, do you think I'd be blasting CInema5D on Twitter? I certainly wouldn't. For me though the blog is more important and shouldn't be 'sold' to the PR world. It has indeed. Well the latter part is fine by me. We can have different opinions based on experience and figure out which opinion suits our own experiences and how we intend to use the cameras we buy. It doesn't. Regardless, whether you call somebody out or not is a personal freedom. Especially when it comes to your own blog and some flawed test that claims the rather wonderful GH5 is unusable. The hype machine is very persuasive... These types of articles get the most attention. The truth is there is no silver bullet, you cannot buy your way to filmmaking greatness with camera purchases. But it helps to put your $1000, $2000 or $3000 on the right horse!!

Commander Reid, following your dispatches all these years has been like visiting the front lines of the DSLR community where shooting truly magical cinematic images is within our grasp. You were the first one to show it was possible to mount vintage LOMO anamorphic lenses on a GH2 and how to hack the camera. That changed my world. I quit my day job, bought a GH2 from Andrew via Japan, and went out and made a feature film with LOMOs that is now coming out worldwide on March 20. Yep, that's a plug for the film, but it's also a testament to what Andrew has started and achieved here. You'll find him thanked in the credits. Can't wait to get my GH5 and get on with the next film.

"Like I say, I have loved my time writing EOSHD but I am thinking I might soon stop. What has tainted it has been the sheer snobbery of some of that pro-video industry. The poor attitude so many pro videographers in particular seem to have towards newcomers and enthusiasts and artists." For what it's worth, yours is the only website that feels authentic. We all know the internet is now just a brown stream of corporate content, so to have a place where things are real is welcome. Enthusiast used to have places to go in the past untainted by monied nonsense. Through a confluence of timing, ambition, and opportunity, and attitude, yours is a place that's remained "clean" from all of the corporate PR clutter. No small feat in this modern life. I'd suggest that if you decide to bow out as a guy writing content, maybe become the creative director --and then bring on board a select like-minded-few that might be willing to provide the same ethos that makes this place so special. Or curate the more interesting organic bubblings that arise from the forum and turn those into front-page blog entries featuring input from the main players of the thread. As for crusty snobby "pros" that bitch about people with "toys" that "don't know the first thing about making a film"... well, that sort of curmudgeon is a scared little snowflake because they rest their ego on the tech, which is always getting easier to use and better. Not exactly the best foundation in the digital world. There's enough of them to make a blizzard sometimes, but ultimately snow melts, doesn't it?

This video blows away anything posted yet for Aivascope. This is with his new variable diopter attached. I did not want to shoot anything else till I had one on as well.

It's like you invite someone over to a prescreening of a movie that hasn't been audio mastered, and instead of telling you that there were issues with audio and hearing what you have to say about it, they publish an article to the world saying the movie is unwatchable. Then they make assumptions and state that the audio issues probably can't be fixed. Should anyone ever let this guy prescreen movies ever?

I vote for @Aghori Tantrik Baba

For me its all about the lenses and the lighting , lens focal length choose for the scene and also they type of lenses you use gives the cinematic look I run 24p and as flat a color profile as I can , but the camera is not making it cinematic it's the lenses - using selective focus and depth of field to draw your eyes to the subject in the fame is standard cinematic style film making , just get any 4 back issues of American Cinematographer from the past five years read them and you will see a pattern emerging of lens choice and lighting that define the cinematic look and you will see its the cinematographers craft that make it cinematic not the camera .

Please don't stop the blog! You are the anti-snob and we need a healthy balance of the forces. ?

The camera's face barriers to higher end acceptance because a lot of camera rental companies don't even stock them. You can't rent them from Panavision. They're just too cheap to be worthwhile to rent out. They're cheaper to buy for a production than to rent. I haven't bought a camera for a show for a long long time. I only rent. I own two of my UM4.6K bodies because the production bought them for the show I was shooting and "gave" them to me at the end because they'd written off the costs, which were, in the scheme of things very small for camera. JB

Check out the test video of the Rapido Single Focus Solution, my setup is as follows: Camera: GH4 Taking Lens: Rokion 85mm T1.5 Cine Lens for CANON Anamorphic Lens: KOWA for Bell & Howell Anamorphic Clamp: Rapido V2 Clamp ISO setting: 1600 Shutter speed: 400 Aperture: T1.5 Video format: MOV, FHD Aspect ratio: 3.556:1 (1920:1080 with 2X anamorphic squeeze) The minimum focus is 1 meter. Different anamorphic lenses are used as focus targets, set between 1 meter and 2.5 meters from the camera. The video shows racking focusing from close focus to infinity. The aperture is kept wide open at T1.5. There is no sharpness drop comparing to the original Kowa & Rokinon combination, and there is no change of the original flare/bokeh character from the anamorphic lens. This is the main difference comparing to other Single Focus Solutions, like SLR Magics, FM Module, and Rectilux. More test videos will be uploaded soon. Youtube video is here: https://youtu.be/h96fqNsKpEI Vimeo video is here: https://vimeo.com/206798264 (better resolution) Music: Cloud by Ehrling, link: https://soundcloud.com/ehrling/ehrling-clouds

I say that for quite a while now! 2600$ is dead cheap, people are going to spend as much for a GH5 and the XLR thingy, or just a used 5DmarkIII, or a D500+a kit lens and with 2600$ you get a real camera, and a shotgun mic in the box! You literally buy the camera and go to work (and then you need like a couple of hours to figure out the menus!). Even camcorders cost as much and more, I do not comprehend how this little cam doesn't sell in the thousands. It is 3300euros here by the way, almost 1000$ more (than the price you mentioned) and I still consider it as the best value for money right now.

I will make a comparison, nikon d800 50mm 1.2@1.8 vs mamiya 645 80 1.9@ 2.8 vs mamiya rz67 90mm 3.5@3.5 which is roughly equivalent. I will use some cheap black and white film unless someone wants to buy me some portra 400 or ektar 100 (sharper) for this crap :P Btw, the equivalences don't have to be exact, because if the difference is so tiny it could be adressed to some minor equivalence differences, then there is no difference between formats. The fact is, I use 6x7 because I can't take the same picture with the nikon, trust me, I fucking hate developing and scanning neither do I like lugging around a gigantic camera plus lenses and attracting views from people, I don't buy the whole romantic point of view about film, I just enjoy the endresult.

I asked and will keep you posted.

If you accuse Panasonic of greed, then you most certainly have to accuse Sony of greed. At least Panasonic will have some degree of H265 implementation in the GH5. With Sony, H265 utilization is totally absent.

Next time you're about to "lol" and "LYFAO" at people on the internet (and in real life) that are civilly attempting to clarify your misconceptions, it would be better for all concerned if you took the time to ask yourself, "Well, do I really know what I think I know?". This is good advice for everybody, me included, so don't take it personally.

I have a GoPro OMNI. 360 video can be a hassle to get right. Especially be careful with parallax issues. The OMNI, for example, needs a minimum of 4 feet on all sides, so tight spaces are a problem. The Samsung 360 is okay for a single camera solution, but I'd pause before offering it as a professional offering. The market needs to mature. For top quality you're looking at $50k USD and up for a system.

What impresses me the most about EOSHD is Andrew's transparency and accountability. The Canon XC10 and the Olympus E-M1 II are two examples where Andrew is transparent enough to change his assessment based on new information. He tells it like it is with no obligation to pay lip service to the big corporations. Not getting a GH5 sample to preview can be a good thing, as he is not pressured to heap praise where it is not warranted.

I agree, it's about the only blog I visit for DSLR video. As Andrew mentioned, pressure from PR firms is REAL, having felt it myself, so I generally don't take a lot of stock in any review site that's not particularly large (DPReview can sort of get away with it, but even then I suspect their influence is waning).

That's a good point. My family is from Croatia (g-grandparents, but I still have family I'm in touch with over there), and the older generation there doesn't even own a computer in most cases. It is a struggle. VHS sucked, but at the time EVERYONE had one. Lol.

I thing Aghori Tantrik Baba disagrees with that!

@pablogrollan most of those middle to top tier laptops (and usually NOT the ultra thin ones) have a 256GB SSD and a 1TB HDD, plus all the newest (and fastest) USB variations and/or more, I do not see a problem here. Then, if someone wants the absolute best from an editing machine, then going for a laptop is most certainly he is not going to get it, common sense!

After watching I think its at least way better than the a6300 and NX1. And that makes it pretty much best in the class when it comes to jello.

But with the Rangfinder there´s no need to focus the 50mm

At the end of the day, it will be the 4K 60P that most people will be buying it for. A feature currently not found in any other stills camera in that price range.

That's strange - with fast glass I found the C100 II to be better in low light, or darn near impercetable. Please don't compare a 18-135 STM @ F/5.6 vs. the 5d3 raw @ 50 1.2. We're talking 4.5 stops of light here - I'm sure most of the footage you've seen out of the c100 was with much "slower" lenses. The c100 II was usable up to about ISO 8000 IMO, and the 5d3 raw perhaps 3200. All depends on if you're exposing for the shadows, highlights, applying NR in your raw workflow, etc. Just my opinion, but the c100 II is really, really good in low light. Not A7s territory of course, but man.

I think it will shoot 4k. 4k has really taken off on the very very low end, so for the videographer/enthusiast market there's value there. It won't feature Canon Log 2 or 15 stop DR. Too heavy to work with in post for most low end productions and arguably more than should have been packed into the C300 Mk II (most people in that range are well-served shooting 1080p on a C300 or FS7). I still don't see what all the fuss is. Only one or two of my clients (or clients of places where I work) demand 4k delivery and I can't see that changing in the near future.

Even XC10 and 15 have internal 4K, there is no way NOT offering 4K in ANY video camera that is going to be released in 2017. Raw? Of, course not, why to do that on a low cost workhorse camera (they have also C300ii/C500/C700 to sell)? 10bit on an external recorder and some kind of high speed 1080p shooting will be more than enough for me, together with some overall improvements (touch screen AF?!!).

I haven't been following the GH5 drama nor do I regularly read cinema5D, but I do like that Johnnie Behiri's test videos are usually shot nicely often as mini-documentaries, with decent lighting etc rather than the somewhat random heavily graded montages that you usually see.

I am looking at the various gaming laptops at the moment. Asus and MSI have a huge range, there are a few 14" ones from various manufacturers (and Razer Blade Pro). I am looking for i7-7700, GTX1060, 16GB RAM and even considering a 17" one if it isn't in the huge side, and they seem to go for around 2000euros (a bit more here, but it isn't the standard), so you save some money from the same spec-ed Apple one (you almost can buy a second one!).

"Right -- it becomes a 56mm FF lens, with the properties of an 80mm lens on MF." No, it becomes a 56mm lens. Adding the speedbooster changes the lens, not the camera. Some lenses are designed by using a focal reducer internally I understand. All you are doing here is adding it externally. "Why not just design a simpler lens with the desired focal length -- without any focal reduction stage?" Perhaps he should. Maybe something like the Coastal Optics 60mm for instance? Oh wait, he did??

Well, anyone could chime in, I don't care. I'm looking for a rebuttal or counter-argument against this explanation. (I didn't write it, btw. It's from a DP in another forum). Here, I'll copy/paste it again: "Say you shot with a 24mm APS-C at f/4 and 36mm full-frame at f/6.3 both focused at 10 feet. The lenses / formats would produce a very similar horizontal and vertical field of view. The depth of field would also be very similar. Would these images be nearly identical? What would account for any differences?" "The perspective will not be the same. The angles may match but your relationship (the cameras relationship) to the angle will not be the same. That is to say, if you picture a wedge representing your field of view, in the full-frame scenario you will be further inside of the wedge than in the APS-C format. In the APS-C format you will be closer to the 'point' of the wedge. Therefore the sense of peripheral vision will not be the same. Some would argue that this is why full-frame looks more natural or realistic than APS-C."

All camera reviewers/bloggers are no longer impartial, not even eoshd. It has been that way for a while now. It's become a whole marketing/advertising system in itself. Even when bloggers/reviewers aren't bending under capitalism they will still have some kind of personal views on different cameras and brands based very much on their own experience alone. It's become meaningless to call out on bias, exaggeration or disagreeable information. I've taught myself to take any information on gear with a grain of salt. I've experienced burns on hasty purchases based on early reviews that said all the things I wanted to believe was true.

Not to mention the aberrations the adapter removes.

Can we just wish it into the cornfield? LOL. (Twilight Zone reference)

As unrealistic as that grade is, as in, nobody would ever grade that severely, it does indeed show that 10bit internal is working, and well.

It seems Film Power is out with a new gimbal stabilizer, one where you don't need to balance anymore (that would be great if it worked, considering the criticism the 4200 got). Balancing the camera on the DS1 drove me nuts. Hope this is the way forward for all gimbals.

More pics and video please @Mattias Burling.

Here is my first 4K-based adventure with the GX80. I am suprised I didnt really miss the slow-mo at all. Although rendering takes ages on my Macbook Pro 2011 (3min video took 3:45h for rendering!), editing with proxy files works without any hickup. I am amazed by the quality and I think I will continue using 4K from now on. Lenses used: Sigma 18-35, but mostly the Panasonic 20mm. I already sold the Speedbooster XL and the Sigma, it is just too huge and even with the 4K crop one sees the vignette when the stabilization kicks in.

And dont forget the 5D III RAW is 14bit, as I like to shoot in some crazy lighting scenarios. I get banding with every other camera I ever owned other then a 5DIII. The colors are just great, bright red key light, no problem. (I shot something similar with the A7S II, and the colors were so ugly that I had to use a "black and white" grade. )

James Miller demonstrates that this is an codec problem that disappears when an external recorder is used, suggesting that the 400mps upgrade will help or elimaite this occasional problem. https://we.tl/wC2RIj8TjI

Yes, that too. They could probably rate a Sony Smartphone Camera better than a Panasonic GH5.

C5D trashed the Cannon XC10, tanking sales for a year until Andrew published tests that restored its reputation as brilliant camera under the right conditions.

This is downright spectacular! Well done! What's the "wd1 Lut?"

Here's a low budget music video I made with the GX85 and a cheap toy 25mm 1.7 cctv lens. The look is meant to be dirty but what was great was that the GX85, with it's great IBIS, enabled me to get the movement I was wanting. We tried with a Canon C100 and it just wasn't the same. It's an incredibly versatile little camera.

Many example videos using EOSHD Pro Color settings are either taken exclusively at night or mucked up with Luts that completely alter the color, so you cannot see what the Pro Color settings do. So here is a video shot using the Sony A7s ii in daylight with no Lut applied in post. The main subjects are flowers - nature's color palette (although there is also a cat). There are plenty of blues, greens, yellows, whites, reds, etc (though no human skin).

You are correct; it has been said in this thread before. Yet it is not corrected by the original person who made that false claim. In fact, there are a lot of false claims about H265 in this thread (only better at low bitrates). Panasonic has not been forthcoming either about why it chose to use only the old, inefficient H264 for intra or 4K long.